Was Christ a communist?

I haven't read the whole thread, but I see the topic has wandered to monogamy, which is way off topic, so I'll take a shot at the OP.I am in a situation where I'm part of a group actually doing the verses mentioned in the OP. "From everyone according to his ability; to everyone according to his need," is what we ask of those who live in Rose Creek Village. And we're doing it right here in the good ol' capitalistic US of A.My comment on the communism of Biblical Christianity is that it's really true that human nature is human nature, even in the church. It's obvious from Paul's letters that there were problems in his churches, just like we face today. What I mean is that not everyone gives according to his ability. Some people--no, lots of people--are lazy. Thus Paul had to suggest, "If anyone will not work, let him not eat."We've found that a mix is essential. There really has to be some reward for working harder. That reward does not have to be monetary. In fact, a worker that has worked his rear end off helping to get a business off the ground for very moderate wages--by American standards--and no overtime occasionally gets discouraged. It is amazing, though, how almost everyone is encouraged once they realize they are creating a future for children growing up and helping support a lot of single moms (America has plenty of those, and plenty of those are needy). Once their basic needs are met, they are quite willing to make sacrifices that they can see are helping people.To tie this back to the point of the thread, my answer would be that Christ was not a communist by definition. Christ made a family out of his followers. They were, all of them together, a family. Just as most any parent would take in a grown child, with their family, that had lost a job and fell on hard times, and would help them however they could, the whole family of Christ helps each other in just that way.So I would add to your Scriptures the one that says that giving is so that one person's abundance supplies another's need and later, perhaps the second will supply the need of the first. It is mentioned that there were rich people in the church, and they were not told not to be rich. They were told to be eager to share. This is the principle of Christ, that his disciples would be united as a family, taking care of one another, and using whatever excess they had, not for worldly pleasures, but to help the poor.

Matt 5:32 and a similar passage in Luke.

Well, when I say Christ was not a communist, I only mean that in a political & legalistic sense. The idea behind communism, from each according to his ability & to each according to his need, is a Christian idea. Though Christ addressed issues that were political, it seems to me he avoided politics altogether. Note his famous statement about taxes paid to Caesar. Well, ok, Christianity is an agricultural epoch religion, but that's unavoidable when you live in an agricultural epoch. I certainly don't believe Christianity only applies in an agricultural setting. Our village is as close to a tribal setting as you can get in the United States, and nothing would change if our method of sustenance were switched to hunting & gathering. I understand why everyone says this, but it's only partly true. Indians, aborigines, etc. were astonished by the concept of *individual* land ownership. While they might not say they "owned" land, a tribe would most certainly defend its territory, not only against invasion but also against the raiding of its resources, which is awful close to the equivalent of owning land.

Completely true. I think I'll start a thread on that. It may not be today, but soon.

Actually, he also recommended it to at least his entire "little flock" in Luk 12:33. Acts 2 thru 4 suggested that group did follow.That practice didn't quit. Tertullian described sharing everything buy their wives as a normal practice in AD 200. Justin describes the same 50 years earlier. They both indicate this was typical Christian practice, not some unusual thing they were doing.

No, I think the evidence is that both Jesus and the early churches practices sharing, not communal ownership. Both references I gave, Tertullian and Justin, describe a voluntary sharing, carefully making a point that the sharing was not mandatory. This despite the fact that they were willing to boast that the result of this was that they shared everything.They had a communal treasury that was used to help whoever was in need, whether it was support of widows and orphans (no govt. welfare at that time) or helping someone going through a temporary time of need. Weekly and voluntary collections were taken for this.This seems quite in line with what Jesus taught, IMO.

The concept of self may be part of being an individual, but you're applying it in a way that is not accurate concerning individuals. In a tribal setting, there is a definite "we" mentality. You can call it a Borg collective if you want, because it wouldn't be totally inaccurate.It affects us even in big, individualistic countries like this one. There's still an "us vs. them" mentality that is part of our makeup. Our culture strongly influences our sense of right and wrong. It's unavoidable, because we're made that way.Thus, despite the concept of self, individuals in tribal settings would definitely be prone to at least some sort of communism, because group ownership and individual ownership get very mixed in that setting, even in each individual's brain.And when I say tribal, even small towns can be like that.

I probably won't be able to check this board until Monday, but I have to ask why you think this. I must be missing something, because I didn't get this from your post. Can you explain this thought?

I guess that depends on your definition of the communist ideal, and on what size a group you're talking about. I'm picturing tribal living, for example, where food varies in its sharing, but the land belongs to the tribe. Bears don't survive by living in groups, but a lot of other species, including homo sapiens, since that's the species at question. You might try referencing wolves rather than bears as a much better example. I must have missed your ultimate answer, because I don't know what that is. I didn't read the whole thread, so maybe you said something earlier I didn't see. What's your ultimate answer? I think the discussion is about whether he was shy about it and to what extent he was recommending communism. He did tell people to sell all they have and give to the poor, and he did tell them not to worry about what they would wear or eat. That's hardly the American dream. In fact, in his story about the man who was achieving the American dream, becoming rich enough to retire at a young age, he called that man a fool.