"Jesus was a socialist" -- rebuttal

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

people would simply act communally without need for state governance of any sort.

So you’re saying no government can be communist? Maybe that communism only exists in groups like the Amish? Hutterites? Isolated indigenous tribes?

Nope. I am not saying that at all.
I am saying that Karl Marx, who conjured the idea of communism claimed that. He has an entire philosophy based upon Hegelian dialectic that breaks it down. Take it up with him.

 

[HarryStotle]

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

Yeah, no. There are all kinds of hierarchies in every culture. Many even had dominance hierarchies.

Those that didn’t still had competency hierarchies – for example, the skilled hunters, the skilled hide tanners, the skilled food preservers, the skilled negotiators, the skilled warriors.

All of these are hierarchies of some form or other. And from these hierarchies came the influential individuals who tended to have a more dominant say in what happened in the social group.

It would not be to the survival benefit of such groups to treat the skills, talents, strengths, intelligence, etc., of everyone equally. You don’t contribute in some way, you don’t eat, would be one guiding principle that was generally followed if the group wanted to survive.

Even monastic communities, as you point out, would elect a leader whose skills would be relied upon to guide the community.

 

[1cthlctrth]

Here are some quotes by the great Milton Friedman:

• “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."
• "Governments never learn. Only people learn.”
• “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."
• "In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty …in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system.”
• That’s the way the free market system distributes the fruits of economic progress among all people. That’s the secret of the enormous improvements in the conditions of the working person over the past two
• “The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another."
• “Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player."
• “A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it … gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
• “Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government."
• “Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom. Even though the men who wield this power initially be of good will and even though they be not corrupted by the power they exercise, the power will both attract and form men of a different stamp."
• “Most of the energy of political work is devoted to correcting the effects of mismanagement of government."

 

[Sedona]

Good Evening HarryStotle: I am not aware of any messiah who wasn’t “cut off” (killed). All of the ones who are documented were in fact killed, and most of them were crucified. The sacrifices in the temple stopped when the temple was destroyed, which was shortly after any number of the other messiahs were killed, which of course includes Jesus of Nazareth, but not especially Jesus of Nazareth. Most notably, the reason destruction of the Temple itself was cited by the Romans as being because of the war that ensued because of the “fourth philosophy” of the Jews which was actually instituted by the messiah Judas the Galilean. Historically, this ties Judas the Galilean more closely to the fulfillment of the destruction of the Temple than Jesus. I will grant that the religion of Jesus persists to current times. But so does the religion of the other messiahs, which is Judaism. With regard to the resurrection, that is a matter of faith, and is a story that progressively grew as the gospels were written rather than an historical fact like the existence of Jesus and the other messiahs or such things as the destruction of the Temple. The latter have multiple attestations in secular historical accounts as well as religious texts. The former are religious texts, and like their Hellenistic authors, I am more interested in their meaning rather than taking them as fact. As for an everlasting kingdom, I am not in a position to speculate on something like that, as that too is a matter of faith that cannot be proven or disproven and is not supported independently of religious texts. But for me it’s not a matter of possibility but of likelihood. It’s certainly possible, but I don’t consider it likely, and I see no hint of any kingdom other than the bestial floor we struggle on.

Thank you as always for your response and all the best!

 

[HarryStotle]

Good Evening HarryStotle: I am not aware of any messiah who wasn’t “cut off” (killed). All of the ones who are documented were in fact killed, and most of them were crucified. The sacrifices in the temple stopped when the temple was destroyed, which was shortly after any number of the other messiahs were killed, which of course includes Jesus of Nazareth, but not especially Jesus of Nazareth.

As I looked, thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire. . . Behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. (Daniel 7:9, 13-14)
[The angel Gabriel said to Daniel:] “Seventy weeks of years [=490 years] are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy [one]. Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of a messiah, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, a Messiah shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war; desolations are decreed. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.” (Daniel 9:24-27)

Let’s break this down for you.

1. “Ancient of days” = God
2. One “like a son of man” comes on the clouds of heaven and is presented before the throne of God.
3. This son of man would be given a dominion and kingdom that would last forever, and all nations would bow before him.
4. The time for this to be fulfilled would be 490 years from the date of Daniel’s prophecy, or early first century CE.
5. The time of the anointing of the “most holy one” would be a time to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet,…
6. The messiah would be “cut off and have nothing,” i.e., be stripped of all and be killed.
7. The city (Jerusalem) and sanctuary (Temple) would be destroyed and desecrated.
8. All sacrifice in the Temple would cease.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of the living God/Son of Man and that he would usher in the Kingdom of God. (The fifth kingdom in Daniel’s prophecy.)

Caiaphas specifically asked, “Are you the Christ (the Messiah), the Son of the Living God?”

Jesus responded by saying, "I AM (the divine name) and you will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven and sitting at the right hand of Power. This specifically refers to the prophecy of Daniel (7:9-13) and is a claim to equality of authority with God.

The events of his life fulfill the timeline spelled out in Daniel, as well as the events surrounding the destruction and desecration of the city and Temple (which Jesus prophesied) and the end of sacrifice – which has not continued in Judaism to this day.

There are no other messiahs that fit the prophecy of Daniel so closely, especially the fact that there are right now peoples of all nations who do worship and serve Jesus as their King. This isn’t a matter of religious belief but of observable fact.

…to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

Thou are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

So, to bring this back to the thread topic, Jesus wasn’t a socialist, he is King, the Son of God whose Kingdom is an everlasting one, not of this earth.

 

[HarryStotle]

…I see no hint of any kingdom other than the bestial floor we struggle on.

Read the Book of Revelation with a good commentary.

 

[Vouthon]

Competence hierarchies? Been reading Jordan Peterson have we?

I agree with the scholar Ruether, who has gone so far as to claim that: " Jesus proclaimed a reversal of the social order, a new reality in which hierarchy and dominance are overcome as principles of social relations " (2002, p. 136).

Jesus subverted traditional hierarchies: the greater in power must be the servant of the lesser, while the hierarchical superior (according to societal convention) must serve the hierarchical inferior. To this day, a vestige of this doctrine is reflected in the fact that the Pope, the supreme pontiff of the Roman Church, has as his preeminent title: " Servant of the servants of God ".

According to the New Testament:

Matthew 20

25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them [or “exercise dominion over them”]. 26 It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

In the above, he is essentially condemning royal authority as inherently exploitative ("i.e. “lording it over the masses”) and tells his disciples that there should be no hierarchical relationship of dominance among them.

This teaching was to have profound significance for the rest of Western history, as explained by Professor Ronald E. Osborne of Wellesely College, in his essay The Great Subversion: The Scandalous Origins of Human Rights, or Human Rights and the Slave Revolt in Morals :

http://www.veritas.org/the-scandalous-origins-of-human-rights/

With the spread of Christian moral intuitions, the concept of community was decoupled from tribal or ethnic bloodlines as well as from “natural” hierarchies and was redefined as a voluntary association of individuals of all classes and ethnicities. The highest models of heroism were no longer warriors who conquered and subjugated their rivals, but Christian martyrs—both men and women, often of lowly origin—who displayed a form of courage-in-weakness that was democratically open to all. With the increasing penetration of the Roman state by believers, the rhetoric of leadership also changed. Members of the urban elite who aspired to high office were increasingly compelled to speak (whether sincerely or pragmatically) not of their own nobility, but, rather, of their great “love of the poor.”[xxxv] Authority in the emerging Christian “social imaginary” was likewise relativized in decidedly moral terms, not as dominion but as stewardship. Rulers would now be held to account by clergy and ordinary people on the basis of the subversive ideal of “slave morality”: servanthood. To be a true “lord,” following the example of Lord Jesus, was, paradoxically, to be a humble servant—indeed, a “slave”—of all.

How can this possibly be reconciled with ‘dominance hierarchy’?

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

This was the same argument, incidentally, put forward by Pope St. Gregory VII during the Gregorian Reform, when he was trying to undermine the authority of the Holy Roman Emperor and prevent him from investing clergy, to effectively reduce him to just being a secular prince and buttress the ecclesiastical independence of the papacy.

He wrote in 1081:

"Who does not know that kings and dukes had their rulership from those who, not knowing God, strove from blind greed and intolerable presumption to dominate their equals, namely mankind, by pride, rapine, perfidy, murder, and crimes of all sorts, urged on by the ruler of the world, i.e., the devil?…"

(Gregory VII 1081: 552; see also Poole 1920: 201, fn. 5)

It was also the view espoused by the Catholic scholastic theologian Francisco Suarez in 1613, writing with papal encouragement and sanction against absolute monarchy in Anglican England, to which end he summarized the understanding of the Early Church Fathers and canonists (as he saw it):

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/selections-from-three-works

This truth can be taken from the holy Fathers, first, because they assert that man was created by God free and free-born, and only received directly from God the power of ruling over the brute beasts and inferior things; but the dominion of men over men was introduced by human will through sin or some adversity.

For what they say about the liberty of each man, and the slavery opposed to it, is by the same reasoning true of a mixed or fictitious person of a single community or human city. For, according as it is directly ruled by God with the law of nature, it is free and sui iuris. This liberty does not exclude, but rather includes, the power of ruling itself, and of giving commands to its own members, but it excludes subjection to another man, as far as it is by force of natural law alone, because God has given directly such power to no one among men until through human institution or election it be transferred to someone

In other words, the ‘dominance hierarchy’ is described as being a result of the Fall, rather than something natural. And a number of scholars who advance a social-constructionist interpretation of the emergence of hierarchies among humans concur with this Christian idea of primeval egalitarianism.

They argue that agriculture and the cultivation of cereal grains precipitated social hierarchies. For nigh on 100,000 humanity had hunted and foraged in largely egalitarian bands, until agriculture compelled them to fear scarcity during drought or famine and to generate food surpluses. As one scholar, Suzman writes, “ the sum of individual self-interest and the jealousy that policed it was a fiercely egalitarian society where profitable exchange, hierarchy, and significant material inequality were not tolerated. ”

A recent research paper examining inequality in early Neolithic societies confirms that the greater the surpluses a society produced, the greater the levels of inequality in that society.

So I agree with Francisco Suarez (1613) that: “ men are by nature equally free and subject to no one ” (DL 3.1.1).

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

As the cultural anthropologist and expert in primatology Christopher Boehm explained:

My argument also followed [Richard] Lee’s insights, but in an evolutionary direction. The premise was that humans are innately disposed to form social dominance hierarchies similar to those of the African great apes, but that prehistoric hunter-gatherers, acting as moral communities, were largely able to neutralize such tendencies–just as extant hunter-gatherers do. The ethnographic basis for that hypothesis was that present-day foragers apply techniques of social control in suppressing both dominant leadership and undue competitiveness. . . In 1993 I published the principal results of my continuing survey of forager and tribal egalitarians. With respect to both the hunter-gathers and the tribesmen in my sample, the hypothesis was straightforward: such people are guided by a love of personal freedom. For that reason they manage to make egalitarianism happen, and do so in spite of human competitiveness–and in spite of innate human tendencies to dominance and submission that easily lead to the formation of social dominance hierarchies. People can arrest this process by reacting collectively, often preemptively, to curb individuals who show signs of wanting to dominate their fellows. Their reactions involve fear (of domination), angry defiance, and a collective commitment to dominate, which is based on a fear of being individually dominated." (p. 64-5)

Many other anthropologists go further than Boehm, however, by postulating hunter-gatherer ‘egalitarianism’ as somehow the basic form of human society and not concurring with the premise of any tendency towards dominance hierarchies. See:

Hunter-gatherer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nearly all African hunter-gatherers are egalitarian, with women roughly as influential and powerful as men.[12]

The egalitarianism typical of human hunters and gatherers…is striking when viewed in an evolutionary context. One of humanity’s two closest primate relatives, chimpanzees, are anything but egalitarian, forming themselves into hierarchies that are often dominated by an alpha male. So great is the contrast with human hunter-gatherers that it is widely argued by palaeoanthropologists that resistance to being dominated was a key factor driving the evolutionary emergence of human consciousness, language, kinship and social organization.[14][15][16]

Mutual exchange and sharing of resources (i.e., meat gained from hunting) are important in the economic systems of hunter-gatherer societies.[20] Therefore, these societies can be described as based on a "gift economy."

 

[HarryStotle]

Jesus subverted traditional hierarchies: the greater in power must be the servant of the lesser, while the hierarchical superior (according to societal convention) must serve the hierarchical inferior. To this day, a vestige of this doctrine is reflected in the fact that the Pope, the supreme pontiff of the Roman Church, has as his preeminent title: " Servant of the servants of God ".

According to the New Testament:

Matthew 20

Clearly, Jesus didn’t “subvert” hierarchies and reduce them to an “egalitarian” model, as is clear from your own quotations. You need to read what you write more carefully.

He said and you quote, “…whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave…” And, “…whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant.” Both the words “first” and “great” connote hierarchy, with someone at the apex.

Jesus merely dethroned the powerful, the “great ones” who “lord it over” others and placed the “servant of the servant” at the top. That is still a hierarchy. Someone is still first and great in the hierarchy, it is just not the ones who “lord it over others.”

Let’s call that competency (based upon capable, caring and efficient service or ministry) over raw power or dominance.

Ergo, Peterson is correct.

 

[HarryStotle]

So I agree with Francisco Suarez (1613) that: “ men are by nature equally free and subject to no one ” (DL 3.1.1).

Unless, of course, they willingly or voluntarily subject themselves to someone they recognize as more competent and capable of making decisions than they are. I.e., God, for example, in the moral order; and those who demonstrate competency in the practical order, i.e., competent physicians, financial wizards, brilliant professors, capable designers, planners and engineers, etc., etc.

It would be foolish not to.

 

[Gabika50]

Liberation theology that sees Jesus as a “Good deed doer” tends to over emphasize that aspect of his charity. The problem is many governments where parliamentary systems are in place, they tend to really see him that way and churches as social welfare addendums rather than places of spiritual enrichment. So many Christian churches have “food pantries/food lockers” whereby they hand out food to a large group of people that generally are unchurched. I saw this when I was a volunteer in a parish in DC where the same people kept on coming and we gave food to the needy and greedy alike- all supported by the people of God… Many parishes there spoke of Jesus doing “social Justice” when they were really saying “socialism”. The correct way to view Christian charity is the term you used- distributist.

 

[laylow]

Liberation theology that sees Jesus as a “Good deed doer” tends to over emphasize that aspect of his charity. The problem is many governments where parliamentary systems are in place, they tend to really see him that way and churches as social welfare addendums rather than places of spiritual enrichment. So many Christian churches have “food pantries/food lockers” whereby they hand out food to a large group of people that generally are unchurched. I saw this when I was a volunteer in a parish in DC where the same people kept on coming and we gave food to the needy and greedy alike- all supported by the people of God… Many parishes there spoke of Jesus doing “social Justice” when they were really saying “socialism”. The correct way to view Christian charity is the term you used- distributist.

Jesus discusses charity more than any other subject. Some people, however, do not belong to a church, or do not believe in the supernatural. If the government doesn’t help, who is going to?

 

[Gabika50]

Churches can and should aid their people. Catholic charities in Europe does what the Salvation Army religion does in the US. They can help, but not replace the government dole. The balance has to be struck between workfare and welfare- hold your elected officials feet to the fire. If nothing has improved since they have taken office- vote them out!!!

 

[Sedona]

Good Evening HarryStotle: Anyone claiming to me the Messiah would make the same claims. I have already explained that one of the other messiahs was more directly responsible for the destruction of the Temple and the end of the sacrifices therein than Jesus, and all of them would claim to be the Son of God, because Son of God was a common title for Jewish kings, and the Messiah of course would be King of the Jews. Many of the other messiahs were in the first century, placing them at the same distance in time from Daniel. Most of of them were stripped of all and killed. As yet, there has been no end to sin, so I fail to see how that prophecy has been fulfilled. I’m just not seeing the distinction you are trying to illustrate. I understand that you feel that Jesus was the genuine Messiah, and it’s fine that this is what you believe. A lot of people believe that, however, I don’t see any support for it in any of these points you’ve listed. My only point throughout is that he had a number of socialist ideas, and that I admire many of his teachings, and for me that is enough.

All the best!

 

[upant]

But we have to be honest and concede that the earliest Christians practised a form of ecclesiastical communism.

wasn’t this predicated on the idea that Jesus was coming back for them in their lifetime. they thought they would not need possessions.

Social Security, Medicare, and other programs that ensure the common good.

a matter of opinion, if you invest what you pay in social security your return would be more than what the government will return to you under it.

. He healed them for free. In other words, he provided free healthcare,

not even close. you miss the faith part of his healing. Jesus healed those who believed in Him

And Jesus said to him, “Go, for your faith has healed you.”

if the person didn’t believe:

And because of their unbelief, he couldn’t do any miracles among them except to place his hands on a few sick people and heal them.

healthcare had a price greater than money.

He also talked about a redistribution of wealth

paul maintained his tent making skills, he did not burden the people to support him.

 

[Sedona]

Markets are unpredictable and no one is suggesting that no one works.

 

[upant]

This man has some credibility issues. I would be wary of posting his videos.

what do you find wrong in his message? he may have issues but his message was valid

What does life look like for that high income family in the US, living on $18,250 per year? How much do they spend on food, clothing, shelter, health services? $1520.84 per month budget geniuses!

a family living on… where is the personal responsibility in this? now i agree some through no fault of their own are living like this. but, how many are living a lifestyle that brings on these responsibilities too early? what happened to waiting until you could afford a family until you start one?

If we use this definition:
“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.”

has any country ever followed this? the state takes ownership not the community, a big difference.

 

[Gabika50]

Drastic life requires drastic measure; so I joined the service to get free medical and dental care and a fixed job to take care of my family of six. I did not put it on the state or the church to financially support my prior life decision to hold a dead end job in an unsafe area.