I believe that Jesus was among the first socialists in the world, how do you love capitalism and still hold the bible to be true? Acts 2:45Acts 4:32-37Luke 14: 13,14Matthew 6:24Matthew 19:21If not a socialist then I would at least argue that Jesus believed in having the bare minimum. Living only with what you need and not over consumption.
good grief BOP you again expose your blatant exaggerated example of ignorance. Study first before you post drivel
This is just trolling on BOP’s part. Not buying it kid.
You cannot fit God into a small box or definition of an earthly political party or philosophy. Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets. He died for the sins of men and rose from the dead to defeat and conquer death. He did not come to fulfill a political philosophy or economic system.
and yet we as dummies do respond to his crap. I amaze myself
People bring him and the bible into political philosophy all the time. Abortion, gay rights, etc etc.
How is it that you can ignore scripture on some things whilst being die hard adherents on the other?
If its trolling then don’t respond. If you want to have an actual discussion you’re more than welcome
There is a difference between defining Christ and supplementing political philosophy with the Bible.
The bible says the scriptures I gave. If you want then I can say “the bible proposes socialist type living” rather than Jesus.
It doesn’t matter to me, kid, I just suggest you explore the Bible to learn the message of salvation through Christ.
The question is whether or not the scriptures you cited say what you’re painting them as…
As well as the fact that you can’t take isolated scriptures out of context and say “this is what they mean.” Well, you can say it, but that doesn’t make it so.
I live in the Bible Belt, it’s been explored willingly and unwillingly.
Well if that’s the case then someone can say that about any scripture. For instance I have heard biblical experts in a documentary say that the word abomination during biblical times was the same as saying “weird” now. So with that in mind then I don’t think being gay is a sin, it’s just weird.
I want everyone to keep in mind that I’m not trolling here. These have all been legitimate questions posed.
BOP: Enough, As I said before you know absolutely nothing about the Scriptures, the intent of the Scriptures and where the Scriptures come from.
Study history we see through the old Testament first familial or tribal groups with the father or elder as titular head, then God allowing a Kingship government within the tribal network. But through all this the Patriarchy leadership was God driven, God led through the Priesthood and the Temple. Even in the Kingdom period, God and the Temple was foremost wherein the Law was the rule of the land. Even through the destruction of Israel and Judea and the enslavement by first the Assyrians, then the Chaldeans [ or Babylonians] and ther The medopersian empires, clear in through the Brief Greek excursions and Egyptians up to the time the Romans took over the LAW was still the rule of the Israelites. Nothing is said of socialism.
Coming into the Roman rule era Israel is a subject of Rome with a puppet king but the rule and control of the Jewish people is still the LAW which is still administered by the Temple and Priesthood. This is what Jesus comes into. Now Jesus preaches and Teaches Returning to God, that God has come to Earth to save mankind from their Sins, that the people have over the centuries subverted the LAW and as we are doing with the constitution rewriting and altering it to suit the purient interests of the leaders. Jesus , NO WHERE , teaches socialism in any form. He Teaches allegience to God and as it is to God it is to Him. He teaches service above leadership, but God reserves the right to implement what government they live under. All this time we have here is the training ground for our homegoing. Jesus does not teach against government, whether Rome or the Temple rule, or the kingleadership, whatever government is inplace is viable if God placed it in power. As for Rome, Jesus told the Pharisees regarding the taxes to Rome, to" Render unto Caesar, things that are Caesar’s and unto God things that are God’s.
BOP; There is NOWHERE any allusion WHATSOEVER of Jesus advocating a Socialistic form of government nor any other form of government.
Looks like a serious question and there is apparently a Christian Socialist movement dating back to the 60’s which I presume is somehow rooted in the bible. Christian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Obviously…the matter is in some dispute!
“A text out of context is a pretext.”
Acts 2:45: Were you to read and think a bit about the entire chapter 2, you might notice several things. This happened during a holiday time - from Passover through Pentecost. There were Jewish people and converts there in Jerusalem, pilgrims from all over and beyond the Roman world. 3000 people converted to Christianity on the day of Pentecost, and more were being converted daily. Those who were not from Jerusalem or nearby were far from their homes and their places of business. Those Christians who were from Jerusalem or nearby supported their new brothers and sisters in Christ while they got reestablished. Not socialism, just love in practice: no government forced the mutual support, nor was it imposed by the leaders of the nascent church.
Acts 4:32-37: Still the same historical context, explained above. If you read into the next chapter, you find the account of a couple who tried to make themselves look good by dishonestly representing their gift to the church as the entire proceeds from selling their property. The lie cost them their lives. Peter called out their lie:
But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back for yourself part of the proceeds from the sale of the land? Before it was sold, did it not belong to you? And when it was sold, was the money not at your disposal? How have you thought up this deed in your heart? You have not lied to people but to God!”
Note that Peter specifically stated that the land, prior to being sold, was their own. And that he further stated that after the sale the proceeds were likewise theirs. IOW, they were not obligated to sell their property, and once they did they could have given as much or as little as they chose (provided they were honest about whatever they chose to do).
Being charitable among each other has continued among Christians to this day, but “having things in common” was a temporary way of dealing with an extraordinary situation.
Luke 14:13-14: Please do read the entire parable, and the one that follows (Luke 14:7-24). Jesus did not condemn having things. What He did condemn in these two parables was seeing less well off people as inferiors - socially and spiritually.
Matthew 6:24: This is part of what is commonly called The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapters 5-7. It’s a compendium of a large part of what Jesus taught in his three years of ministry. It’s well worth reading. If time is an issue, the immediate context for this verse would probably be 6:19-34. Again, as verse 33 illustrates, Jesus was not condemning having things. What he was urging was: not being consumed by things and the desire for things; devoting more thought and energy to important things, particularly one’s relationship with one’s Creator.
Matthew 19:21: The fuller context for this is 19:16-30. Jesus is talking to a particular person about what he needs to do, spiritually. I.E. the advice is for him, personally. And Jesus put his finger on that young man’s spiritual roadblock, his wealth. The young man’s reliance and trust was in his wealth. As Jesus pointed out, it’s a common roadblock. But the roadblock is in the young man’s heart (and other such people’s hearts), not in the wealth itself. Put another way, people may or may not own wealth and there is no harm in it. But if the wealth owns them or is what they see as the source of personal value or security, their wealth is harming/hindering them.
As for how others reacted to your post, what can I say? The Jesus-was-a-socialist (or commune-ist) meme has been around for centuries. It comes from treating the Bible as a source of sayings (usually to support a preconceived idea) rather than understanding what particular verses mean in context. Folks here have been hearing it their entire lives, often from people who don’t really care about what Jesus actual meaning was (or were trying to get a rise out of them … need I say that they perceived you to be doing this?).
Jesus didn’t subscribe to a political philosophy. Only life philosophies.