Was Jesus a socialist?

SLUSK

It seems to me that Jesus advocated socialism, said stuff about giving one of your shirts to the man who had none and also threw out the merchants from the temple.

So was Jesus a socialist or not?

BrianCalgary

I would say not. Jesus called the individual to initiate the act of giving, not the government to do so.

Throughout the Bible rulers were also instructed to rule with wisdom.
Individuals to give and care for the poor, widows and orphans.

free gaff?

no more of a hippy. just look at him. he doesnt even wear shoes.

Fanny Cradock

Yes, very good. Now back on track, please.

IMO, if one labels Jesus as a person who was concerned with challenging the political order of the day it completely misses the point of the cross and the resurrection.

Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.The whole point of the cross and the resurrection is twofold. Firstly it's offers the promise of redemption form our sin. Secondly, it is the ushering in of a new way of existing that is free from sin and decay and death.

While in a historical sense it seems obvious that Christendom has had a chequered past with regards to social reforms - at least in terms of what we know find to be acceptable, Christianity - manifested, for example, through radical social reforms fronted by individuals like Martin Luther King Jr and William Wilberforce - has lead to societal changes that are now celebrated. Still, despite these positives, if one ignores the spiritual and divine aspect of Jesus - the cross and the resurrection - and instead concentrate on the nice things he said, then you demoted him to the role of politician or rabble-rouser.

chrisr001

It would be nice to have Christ's own autobiography,
if He had chosen to write one.

Definate candidate for the most misquoted individual of all time.

Daftendirekt

Does Jesus give any opinion on politics in the Bible?

chrisr001

Dunno, if He did then it was probably edited out.

lugha

Ì would say he was, even if he may not have been primarily concerned with politics or affecting social change. The idea of feeding the poor and visiting the sick and imprisoned strike me as socialist to the bone. I have often found it curious that those with right wing economical leanings tend to embrace Christianity to a far greater extent than left leaning types. Indeed I wonder how some of them can reconcile the mantra about camels, needles, rich men and heaven with the considerable personal wealth that they have acquired.

PDN

chrisr001 wrote: »

Dunno, if He did then it was probably edited out.

Moderator's warning.

Stop the muppetry.

chrisr001

can I have a definition of that?

Pride Fighter

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.

With those quotes in mind I would say that yes Jesus was a Socialist.

dlofnep

He had socialist tendancies - but the ideology wasn't written back then, nor was the same government structures. I like alot of his philosophies - The assisting those in need, and the idea of not being so quick to judge people. I say this as an atheist, but I do like some of the messages Jesus taught.

PDN

chrisr001 wrote: »

can I have a definition of that?

If you want to start a thread about whether Jesus was misquoted or not, then you are free to do so - providing you remain within the Charter. If so, then be prepared to present evidence and discuss the matter with those of us who have an interest in, or have studied, textual criticism.

However, just posting on threads about Jesus being misquoted is simply distracting from the subjects of the threads and will result in infractions or a ban.

If you want to discuss this further then please do so by PM. Otherwise take it to Help Desk.

chrisr001

I wouldn't say that putting Him in any category is meaningful.
If He was a socialist, did He proclaim Himself as one?
If He did, well and good.

Also, thanks, PDN,
will do.

lugha

chrisr001 wrote: »

If He was a socialist, did He proclaim Himself as one?
If He did, well and good.

He was arguably the first socialist so the classification would not have been devised. He hardly proclaimed himself as Christian either though presumably he was the first Christian?

starn

Of course he was

panda100

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I would say not. Jesus called the individual to initiate the act of giving, not the government to do so.

Throughout the Bible rulers were also instructed to rule with wisdom.
Individuals to give and care for the poor, widows and orphans.

Also Jesus laid a heavy emphasis on the role of the family.This would be quite contradictory to socialism which see 'family values' as getting workers to take on burdens that should be picked up by the state, as well as add to the oppression of women and deminisation of homosexuals.

Excelsior

panda100 wrote: »

Also Jesus laid a heavy emphasis on the role of the family.

Jesus has nothing positive to say about "traditional family values" whatsoever.

A more interesting question than was Jesus a socialist (and lass anachronistic) is to ask if socialism can be viewed historically as a Christian heresy?

panda100

Excelsior wrote: »

Jesus has nothing positive to say about "traditional family values" whatsoever.

I actually think your quite right. I thought Jesus preached a lot about familys and honouring your mother and father etc,but actually looking for a suitable quote there and I couldnt find anything where Jesus specifically said how important the family was.
I was at mass today with my parents and the first reading was about how important sticking by your family is and the sermon was about how the family is the core of society. I must have confused the emphasis on family in The Old Testament and what Jesus actually said in the New Testament.

Denerick

In reality the question in itself is pointless, since we have very little idea of what any of the gospels actually say. We only ever read a fraction in our bible, and even at that it is a glorified retrospective account of an interesting historical character. The writers of the gospels no doubt glorified his actions, made him more magnanimous than he really was, and more generous than he really was. This is natural for any work written in this period, and if one to take a clear textual analysis of the gospels and use that as an historical argument on behalf of whether Jesus was a socialist or not, they're kind of missing the bigger picture.

Excelsior

Denerick wrote: »

In reality the question in itself is pointless, since we have very little idea of what any of the gospels actually say. We only ever read a fraction in our bible, and even at that it is a glorified retrospective account of an interesting historical character. The writers of the gospels no doubt glorified his actions, made him more magnanimous than he really was, and more generous than he really was. This is natural for any work written in this period, and if one to take a clear textual analysis of the gospels and use that as an historical argument on behalf of whether Jesus was a socialist or not, they're kind of missing the bigger picture.

I am a student of textual criticism and can find no backing for your claims about the (un)reliability and authenticity of the canonical Gospels in contemporary scholarship.

Denerick

Excelsior wrote: »

I am a student of textual criticism and can find no backing for your claims about the (un)reliability and authenticity of the canonical Gospels in contemporary scholarship.

Surely you're aware of the Christian tradition of glorifying heroes of the past with biblical attachments? In Umberto Eco's novel 'Baudalino', the bishop tells the protagonist about the best way to write a history (This is a paraphrase of course) 'Tell the story of your King or saviour in your own words, but always use the old Testament to glorify his speech. He'll never be forgotten if you do this correctly'. Its a tradition more marked in the medieval period, I'll grant you, but even so, one can hardly use the gospels as a clear cut historical narrative. They are, at the most charitable, inspired by the events of the time, but not necessarily a reflection of those times. I wouldn't get too enamoured with the opinions of scholarly theologians, they tend to get lost in their own constructed discipline and forget to question the more abstract fundamentals; instead of asking whether this text is actually accurate or not, they compare it with other contemporary texts of the time. Instead of questioning whether its a forgery, they'll use the words on good faith alone, ignoring the possibility of deliberate deceit and glorification.

In short, what I'm really getting at is that a textual analysis of any individual gospel is a reflection of the writer of that gospel, not the subject he's writing about.

Excelsior

Denerick wrote: »

In short, what I'm really getting at is that a textual analysis of any individual gospel is a reflection of the writer of that gospel, not the subject he's writing about.

Thanks for the advice Denerick; but in the sense you have outlined, how are the Gospels different to any history, ever written?

Denerick

Excelsior wrote: »

Thanks for the advice Denerick; but in the sense you have outlined, how are the Gospels different to any history, ever written?

Any history? Thats a topic that would span thousands of pages and not one we could dandy around in a few paragraphs! But I'll try and answer to the best of my ability, as succintly as possible... Its a well known fact that medieval historians in particular used the Bible at various points of their chronicles; for example, in one of the key sources for the second crusade the writer states that the number of soldiers crossing the straits around Constantinople were in the hundreds of thousands - a direct biblical allusion with no basis in fact. (I think it was Odo of Deuil who said that) This is but a drop in the ocean, but important nonetheless as an example.

The modern historian has only really emerged in the last 150 years, and its only been able to detach itself in anyway in the last 50 years - though there is a thriving debate about the impossiblity of objectivity constantly happening, resulting in tears on many a tweed jumper in university commons rooms...

P.S- in my opinion the Gospels are no different to any other history; because I believe Jesus was a mere mortal. And even if he wasn't, it would be irrelevant since the Gospels were written by mere mortals.

Fanny Cradock

Is Umberto well know for his biblical textual criticism?

Excelsior

It isn't really just leather elbowed dons who need to concern themselves with the impossibility of objectivity; you must too to hold the position you do. Of course the Gospels don't have modern assumptions but within their genre of bios they surely do seek to put distance between their author and the subject; self-consciously so (chapter 1 of Luke; last chapter of John).

I'm not for a moment suggesting that anything but the harshest examination possible should be applied to the Gospels but the reality is that there remains a very strong argument to consider them viable historical documents, even after centuries of (very positive) deconstruction.

Denerick

Excelsior wrote: »

It isn't really just leather elbowed dons who need to concern themselves with the impossibility of objectivity; you must too to hold the position you do. Of course the Gospels don't have modern assumptions but within their genre of bios they surely do seek to put distance between their author and the subject; self-consciously so (chapter 1 of Luke; last chapter of John).

I'm not for a moment suggesting that anything but the harshest examination possible should be applied to the Gospels but the reality is that there remains a very strong argument to consider them viable historical documents, even after centuries of (very positive) deconstruction.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing their use as both an historical and philosophical text (Take for example the written epics which survived the ancient world) Not all that is in the past is biased beyond repair; the mere fact that they written in their time tells us a great deal, and the scholarship for the Gospels in particular is voluminous as it is immense (And somewhat beyond my abilities as an enthusiastic amateur) I'm just saying that using the written words of some guy called Luke, or Matthew, or whatever to prove whether Jesus was a socialist/fascist/communist/liberal/conservative/whatever is pointless, since they are by necessity a glorification of his time on earth written many years after, in a world with only the most primitive abilities with the written word.

Also, Eco is one of my most favourite authors, and that was only an example. He reflects the reality of any 'history' written in the middle ages (One need only peruse any chronicle by men such as Fulcher of Chartres to get the picture) He's a medievalist and symbologist, but as far as I'm aware doesn't delve into the murky underwaters of biblical scholarship...

Fanny Cradock

Denerick wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing their use as both an historical and philosophical text (Take for example the written epics which survived the ancient world) Not all that is in the past is biased beyond repair; the mere fact that they written in their time tells us a great deal, and the scholarship for the Gospels in particular is voluminous as it is immense (And somewhat beyond my abilities as an enthusiastic amateur) I'm just saying that using the written words of some guy called Luke, or Matthew, or whatever to prove whether Jesus was a socialist/fascist/communist/liberal/conservative/whatever is pointless, since they are by necessity a glorification of his time on earth written many years after, in a world with only the most primitive abilities with the written word.

Also, Eco is one of my most favourite authors, and that was only an example. He reflects the reality of any 'history' written in the middle ages (One need only peruse any chronicle by men such as Fulcher of Chartres to get the picture) He's a medievalist and symbologist, but as far as I'm aware doesn't delve into the murky underwaters of biblical scholarship...

Humm... it seems to me that you are operating under certain presuppositions. The big one being that it is impossible for works from antiquity to be anything but fantastical elaborations on truth.

Perhaps this particular discussion is going off topic and rightly deserves a thread of it's own. If you chaps want (and others are interested in contributing - PDN and Charco spring to mind) I might start a new thread about textual criticism and place the last few posts from this thread in it. Sound good?

Denerick

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Humm... it seems to me that you are operating under certain presuppositions. The big one being that it is impossible for works from antiquity to be anything but fantastical elaborations on truth.

Perhaps this particular discussion is going off topic and rightly deserves a thread of it's own. If you chaps want (and others are interested in contributing - PDN and Charco spring to mind) I might start a new thread about textual criticism and place the last few posts from this thread in it. Sound good?

Fine! But I do disagree with you; I'm not saying that all works of antiquity are fantastic elaborations from the truth, I'm saying that what was in effect a hagiography (The Gospels that deal with the life of Jesus Christ) is fundamentally flawed and cannot be read literally, as a straight forward historical narrative. 'The History of the Pelopenniasian war' does not have this problem, for example.

33% God

SLUSK wrote: »

It seems to me that Jesus advocated socialism, said stuff about giving one of your shirts to the man who had none and also threw out the merchants from the temple.

So was Jesus a socialist or not?

Those things don't suggest socialism. Social Democracy maybe, but not socialism.
Unless Jesus said that the means of production should be handed over the the Proletariat then he wasn't a socialist.

Denerick

33% God wrote: »

Those things don't suggest socialism. Social Democracy maybe, but not socialism.
Unless Jesus said that the means of production should be handed over the the Proletariat then he wasn't a socialist.

But neither was he capitalist, judging from what the gospels actually say.

I think the modern parlour game of trying to get Jesus 'into your camp', so to speak, is admirably quaint and fluffy, but really shouldn't belong to any serious discussion of this nature.