"Jesus was a socialist" -- rebuttal

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveBj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good Evening Monicad: Thank you for the reply. There are a lot of theories as to why the following of Jesus persisted, but my sense is that it was because James was able to keep the Jerusalem Assembly together until about the time of the destruction of the temple, which gave time for the story to travel through the Hellenistic world until it captured the interest of literate people such as Paul of Tarsus and the authors or Mark, Mathew, Luke and John. The other Messiahs were dragged through the streets and executed as well. With regard to claiming to be God, Jesus said he was a lot of things, including “Son of Man” which probably meant “a man.” When confronted about calling himself God, he simply referred his inquisitors to the passage in Psalms, wherein in says we are all gods. I think that was quite a metaphysical and insightful answer for him to give. It should also be noted that it wasn’t unusual for Jewish Kings to have the title “Son of God,” and the Messiah was to be a Jewish King.

Thank you for the reply and all the best!
 
Last edited:
Yes this is exactly where my thoughts were going.

The additional observation was that Jesus’s community seems to be a mixture of both Buddhist/Mendicant and Monastic structures. Though the disciples didn’t have begging bowls they were still dependent as a group on the offerings of the wider religious community who did legitimately indulge in private ownership which amounts to the same relationship.

Even today individual priests regularly get mass offerings from wealthy and not so wealthy non-vowed Catholics. Some make quite a good monthly private living from them. Religious priests of course must hand them over to the community bursar. In practise I know that regularly doesnt happen 😂.

Many priest communities have a credit account for such mass offerings/stipends which are often bequested to a community (eg old Mrs Smith leaves $10,000 to the Dominicans for masses for her soul and that of her family members). At $10 per mass thats a credit of 1000 masses to be said by the community. Sometimes a community does not have enough priests (or too many bequests) to service them so they get donated to other communities around the world. The Irish Dominican Province for example used to donate them to other Dominican Provinces around the world it had so many.

Getting a little distant from the original begging/mendicant ideal I suspect.

BTW I believe even the original Bhikku concept of individual beggar monks in loose Sangha communities eventually attenuates over time with stability, endowments and building projects as happened with the original monks. Hence even Buddhist monks are forced to own very substantial assets such as temples as a community and the practise of individually begging each day as they wander the forests and villages fades into more institutional/communal practices such as communal donations (tithing) on a regular basis as happens in Catholic parishes.

Of course there is always a hard core of more fundamental lone monks who wander begging throughout the forests and small towns of Asia. They tend to be younger of course - or just beggars masquerading as monks. They are in regular attendance even in Petaling Sreet Kuala Lumpur!
 
Last edited:
I think a lot of people confuse socialism with sharing.

I think Jesus advocated the latter concept but not the mandatory government structures needed for the former concept.
 
You seem a bit shaken. Put your mind to other matters. Be at peace. Indeed.
 
Last edited:
Well, okay then. If you wish to make the case that normal human existence that permits the autonomous and secure use of one’s own goods for, say, maintaining the well-being of one’s own family is incompatible with Christian life on earth, while monastic life is compatible, then go ahead and believe that.

I wouldn’t suppose that a monastic community that, as a community, itself practices the secure ownership of property, is any different from a married couple or family that, likewise, pools its resources and – in the same way that a monastic community does – owns its property communally, isn’t doing precisely what a monastic community does, if a family lives its earthly existence with the end of eternal life in mind.

Why would a monastic community have any more warrant to call itself a Christian community than a family does?

So, if you are arguing that a monastic community, which as a group effectively functions as if its property belongs to it and it alone, and is therefore essentially controlling its “private” property, although (you insist) it doesn’t really own its property in any individuated or private sense, then I am not sure that you can sustain that claim without your tongue firmly planted in cheek.

And if a monastic community can practice that form of communal sharing (and not be accused of owning private property), then it isn’t clear to me why a family, whether nuclear or extended, couldn’t likewise claim exactly the same thing, as far as the application of Christian principles of communal life are concerned.
 
steve-b said:
Where on this planet is socialism working?
Click to expand...
In the US.

Beautiful highway system, airports, police, fire fighting, garbage pick up. Everyone gets to use them, Rich or poor.

Not working so much in wages.
 
Crocus said:
40.png
steve-b:
Where on this planet is socialism working?
Click to expand...
In the US.

Beautiful highway system, airports, police, fire fighting, garbage pick up. Everyone gets to use them, Rich or poor.

Not working so much in wages.
Click to expand...
I suppose that if you want to define “socialism” as any action taken by any government to regulate, control or create anything on behalf of the people as socialism, then you may as well make socialism a synonym for governance.

That isn’t how it is defined politically, however.

A definition provided previously was…

…a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

So advocating that all of the means of production, distribution and exchange are determined by the community as a whole implies that the government acts as the sole or singular agent of the community “as a whole.”

If you want to loosen that definition, as you appear willing to, then the community as a whole could be redefined to mean any and all members of the community at any time. In that case, even anarcho-capitalism would qualify as socialism because all the individuals in the community would be acting as free and independent agents but still would count as part of the “community as a whole” absent any distinct governing body.

If we wish to empty words of all meaning then the words themselves become meaningless.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
A definition provided previously was…

…a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I missed that earlier definition. I must say, it sounds closer to communism.

Looked it up myself was surprised at top 10 in this list:
The term socialist has been thrown around quite a bit in the past few years. Not since the cold war has the term garnered so much attention in the press and from politicians. But when you look at countries who actually have a socialist economic structure, you can see some similarities to the United States – but there are some really stark differences.
Click to expand...
 
Sedona said:
With regard to claiming to be God, Jesus said he was a lot of things, including “Son of Man” which probably meant “a man.”
Click to expand...
Nope. Son of man, as Jesus used the term, specifically references the prophet Daniel who spoke of the coming of the fifth kingdom, following the four earthly kingdoms of Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome. The fifth kingdom, would be the everlasting one promised to David, through one of his descendants.

Jesus specifically spoke of the coming of “the Kingdom” or “the Kingdom of Heaven” numerous times. The “Son of Man” is specifically the divine Messianic figure who Daniel said would be “coming on the clouds of Heaven” and “sitting on the right hand of power.” Both are signs of equal authority with God, since only God ever, in the Old Testament, came on the clouds of heaven and sat on the throne there. That is why Jesus called himself “the Son of God,” not a son of God.


Both “sons of men” and “sons of God” have a long and complex series of uses in Scripture dating back to Genesis. However, Jesus didn’t speak of himself as “a son of man,” ever. He specifically called himself “the Son of Man,” referencing the prophet Daniel.
 
Good morning Harry Stole: There has been a good deal of academic discourse on the meaning of the term Son of Man, as it does appear in Psalms, Ezekiel and Daniel, and is thought to have a number of multifarious connotations (including human being, while pointing to the divine potential in all humans). The most striking of which is in Daniel, which actually points to a messianic figure. The subject is an interesting one and could serve as a whole thread. However, any of the many messiahs would have made the same claim, as well as the claim to the title Son of God, which was sometimes used as a title for Jewish kings. My point is that there were a number of messiahs.

Thank you as always for the reply and all the best!
 
Good Morning Monicad: I am aware of the references to Psalms, Ezekiel and Daniel. A lot has been written on it and I have heard a bit of discussion on it myself over time. I posted a reply to Harry Stole on the matter that you could look at in order that I might avoid littering up the thread with too many of my responses.

Thank you as always and all the best!
 
Sedona said:
Good morning Harry Stole: There has been a good deal of academic discourse on the meaning of the term Son of Man, as it does appear in Psalms, Ezekiel and Daniel, and is thought to have a number of multifarious connotations (including human being, while pointing to the divine potential in all humans). The most striking of which is in Daniel, which actually points to a messianic figure. The subject is an interesting one and could serve as a whole thread. However, any of the many messiahs would have made the same claim, as well as the claim to the title Son of God, which was sometimes used as a title for Jewish kings. My point is that there were a number of messiahs.

Thank you as always for the reply and all the best!
Click to expand...
Daniel speaks of “a Messiah” who would be “cut off,” (I.e., killed) and shortly afterwards "all sacrifice would cease,” meaning the Temple sacrifice (the only place where Jewish sacrifice could occur) would stop and “the city” (Jerusalem) would be destroyed and desecrated. At the same time, this one Messianic figure (the Son of Man) would rule over an everlasting kingdom.

So how could he “be cut off” and yet “rule over an everlasting kingdom” unless he was Resurrected after being executed? Any other of your messiahs fit that description?

Which of those messianic figures that you claim were legion and “had more followers than Jesus” fit the prophecy of Daniel best?

The Church, the kingdom established on “a rock carved by no human hands” according to Daniel, certainly does, and it carries on even today.

This could, indeed, be a subject for an entire thread. I suggest you read or watch Brant Pitre’s books/talks on The Case for Jesus or Jesus and the End Times.
 
Last edited:
Crocus said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
A definition provided previously was…

…a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I missed that earlier definition. I must say, it sounds closer to communism.
Click to expand...
Nope, Marx defined socialism as a necessary but temporary step towards communism, and communism would be a stateless society where the people would simply act communally without need for state governance of any sort.
 
HarryStotle said:
people would simply act communally without need for state governance of any sort.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying no government can be communist? Maybe that communism only exists in groups like the Amish? Hutterites? Isolated indigenous tribes?
 
Last edited:
Talking about indigenous tribes…

The absence of hierarchies among hunter-gatherers and their zealous passion for equality - indeed their overwhelmingly strong stigma against the ‘putting on of airs’, or domineering behaviour - is striking and actually rather inexplicable. There is just no analogous social order among other primates, or in subsequent human societies. As the American psychologist Peter Gray explained in a 2015 paper:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/Play Theory of HG Egal.Published.pdf

And yet, there is one very significant cultural category of human beings where we don’t see hierarchical organization. We don’t see it in band hunter-gatherers (as defined in chapter I). In all band hunter-gatherer societies that have been studied the dominant cultural ethos is one of individual autonomy, nonviolence. sharing, cooperation, and consensual decision making (Ingold, 1999).

Their core value, which underlies all the rest, is that of the equality of individuals. They do not have chiefs or other leaders of the type who tell others what to do; they make all group decisions through discussions aimed at consensus. If it is true that strivings for status and dominance are intrinsic to human nature, then hunter-gatherers somehow overcome that aspect of their nature and apparently have been doing so for a long, long time. How do they it?

The writings of anthropologists make it clear that hunter-gatherers are not passively egalitarian; they are actively so. Indeed, in the words of anthropologist Richard Lee (1988, p. 264), they are “fiercely egalitarian.” They do not tolerate anyone’s hoarding food or other goods, boasting, putting on airs, or trying to lord it over others.

On the basis of such observations, Christopher Boehm (1993, 1999) developed what he calls the reverse dominance theory of hunter-gatherer egalitarianism. His theory is that hunter-gatherers everywhere have learned to turn the dominance hierarchy upside down, so that the band as a whole acts in concert to suppress any individuals who attempt to dominate them. They use ridicule, shunning,and threats of ostracism to counteract any budding alpha male behavior. At the extreme,they might banish a domineering person from the band.

The fact that hunter-gatherer humans lived like this for a 100, 000 years proves that human primates are not straddled with an evolutionarily determined, survival-of-the-fittest social structure like our chimp relatives.
 
And on this, since I’m a Christian, I’d like to give the last word to two of my favourite passages from the Bible, first Old Testament and then New Testament, which concern this very topic:

22 Then the Israelites said to Gideon, “Rule over us, you and your son and your grandson also; for you have delivered us out of the hand of Midian.” 23 Gideon said to them, “I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the Lord will rule over you.” (Judges 8:22-23)

25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that among the Gentiles, those who appear to be their kings lord it over them, and their ‘great’ men are tyrants over them. 26 But it shall not be this way among you, rather whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-28)
 
Vouthon said:
The fact that hunter-gatherer humans lived like this for a 100, 000 years proves that human primates are not straddled with an evolutionarily determined, survival-of-the-fittest social structure like our chimp relatives.
Click to expand...
Confirms we have ability to choose, some cases not for the better. How can we get back to, if not strictly hunter-gather society, at least one that recognizes its highest values: respect and dignity of both individual and group as opposed to survival of the fittest.

Jesus was not a socialist, nor was he a capitalist, my bias can’t say he was a communist. These are political words that cannot describe how Jesus served and gave his life as a ransom for many.

(Happy cake 🍰 day, birthday or anniversary?)
 
Good Evening Monicad: I would say that the ideas that Jesus taught about caring for others, loving your neighbor and feeding the hungry have a lot of value without regard to whether or not he rose from the dead. Caring about others in the hope of rewards in heaven for caring or fear of hell for not caring is not a genuine sense of caring and shows little in the way of developing true empathy or concern for others. Moreover, my point about the number of messiahs was not an attempt to challenge your ideas about the nature of Jesus of Nazareth. I had only made the point that he showed some socialist leanings and cited healing people for free as an example, because other messiahs didn’t do it for free. Of course socialists don’t promote healthcare for free, rather, they promote a universal healthcare that all able members of the society pay into to ensure that all are cared for. So in a number of ways, Jesus was much more radical than a modern day socialist, or proponents of a mixed economy.

All the best!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top