Was Christ a communist?

no, you don't. but, your op is whether or not jesus was a communist, and yet you keep asking me about benedictines and early christians. their personal government choices have little to nothing to do with the personal economic policies of that crazy desert fellow.

They draw their conclusions from the same scriptures as you do, don't they?

yes, but their conclusions have nothing to do with the life of a man who is no longer available to defend himself.and just because they decide that the scripture tells them that they should be communistic doesn't mean that jesus was a communist. it's not a legitimate argument.

You mean to say that because you decide that Jesus is not a communist on the basis of the scriptures (what else do you have to go on) that you somehow have a legitimate argument, but that if the Christian communists decide that he is a communist on the basis of the same scriptures, their argument is somehow illegitimate?I fail to follow this line of reasoning.How can we assume that you know more about his life than they do?And why do you assume that he would regard being called a communist as something he needed to defend himself against? As someone who defended the poor, even if he didn't agree exactly with the description, surely he wouldn't consider it too far from the truth.

i'm not saying that they don't have a legitimate argument. i'm saying that you don't have one by using their existence to say he was a communist. argue the scripture, not the followers.and you don't have to be a communist or a socialist to defend the poor.

Their argument is legitimate, but mine isn't?Here's some more communistical scriptures for you:

You have given examples from the Bible and from history of groups that believed they were following Jesus' teachings. You might just as well use the existence of snake-handlers as evidence that Jesus taught snake-handling.You need to show what Jesus taught, not what people thought He taught.I have already suggested that Jesus' instruction to "sell what you have" was not universal. I'll ask again: Who would they sell to?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

congrats. a listing of early christians being communistic. still has nothing to do with jesus.

I see your point. But look at it this way. If Jesus was starting off an egalitarian movement that did not place values on owning property and material posessions, then his initial following can sell to the non-believers, which appears to be what they did do. Your question would only come into play if his movement caught on in a big way. But it didn't, and it was perhaps a false Christianity which took over instead, with the exception of those groups of monks and nuns who opted out of the various socio-economic systems that they lived in, and chose to live communally instead.Of course, I could well be wrong, but it's hard to see from Christ's teachings that he intended something like an organized church built around the Roman Empire, or Christianity modelled around European fuedalism, or modern Christianity. I think it's arguable that Christianity was co-opted in an un-Christ like direction. Don't you think that's possible?If so, that doesn't necessarily mean that modern Christians should be forming some kind of Christian communist party, but perhaps they should consider setting up networks of communes on which true followers of Christ could really live in a Christ-like manner. I'm half serious about this. Camels cannot be fitted through the eyes of needles, and capitalism only works if lots of people are struggling to get themselves into a position from which they cannot go to heaven.

Which is why I say the "communistic" message was not intended to be universal. Jesus came for the whole world, didn't He? He wanted His movement to catch on in a big way, didn't He?But "sell what you have and give to the poor" requires three roles: the seller, the buyer and the recipient of charity. The rich should reduce their material goods in favour of the poor, but there's the third party, the buyer, who doesn't fit into the communist equation.Jesus also said:

quote:

---

Mar 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

---

He recognized the different roles. Where did He say He wanted to do away with them? There's no doubt that Christianity has been co-opted in many un-Christlike directions. So far, you haven't shown that communism is a Christlike direction.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

how does selling one's goods to an interested buyer constitue communism again?

I may have made a reasonable attempt to show that universal Christianity is incompatable with capitalism. Because the rich cannot go to heaven, then capitalism can only function if the successful capitalists are not Christians. (They may consider themselves to be, but that's something else). However, your quote about there always being poor was one I knew about, and I was expecting it to come up. It seems to me that Christ did not expect the world to become truly Christian. Therefore, there are still poor and rich, and most people in "Christian" societies do not actually behave like Christians and are not Christians if the Christian communists and socialists are right. I don't think that any amount of going to church and praying actually makes someone a Christian.
Christ also describes the traders and profiteers in his temple as thieves. He wants them out of the temple, but calling them thieves rather than just people who are doing the wrong business in the wrong place is another typical left-wing type of reaction. Profit is theft, the communists say.I think that if Jesus had had his second coming during the McCarthy era in the U.S. he would definitely have been up in front of the committee for un-American activities, or whatever it was called. The guy was a pinko, let's face it. When did he ever congratulate someone on having achieved the 2000 year old equivalent of the American dream, maybe having a great mansion built for themselves, or something like that?You partly agree that Jesus might have thought his followers should be "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" type people. So, surely Christians should be voluntary communists, because that phrase is all that communism really means.I have to say that the only reason that I got interested in this is that right wing Christians always struck me as being slightly odd, because from childhood, all the teaching I could remember seemed to be anti-rich, pro-poor. Conservative Christians would be correct, I'm sure, in Christ's eyes on things like monogamy and family values, but certainly not on economics.

Umm... it doesn't. That's what I've been trying to say. If Jesus had been advocating communism, He would have left no place for the buyer.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That's not necessarily what it says though.

quote:

---

Mar 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

---

It could just mean that "you can't take it with you" - i.e. when we do enter heaven, we all have the same material goods: none. You're presupposing your own conclusion. All Jesus said was that He didn't expect poverty to end. You're the one who's assuming that Christianity was intended to end poverty. What if the "Christian communists" are wrong? He might have called them thieves because they were taking too much profit, not necessarily because they were taking a profit.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You're not allowing for the fact that Jesus is the son of a God who's notorious for playing silly mind games. He doesn't intend the entire population to be followers of Christ, so there will always be wealthy people for Christians to sell to.