Jesus was a Liberal Hippie

Silly.

---

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

Yer thinkin' backwards."Communism comes from socialism" is not the same as "socialism leads to communism". You're saying, in effect, that because donuts are made from wheat, wheat inevitably becomes donuts. No, it's an informal way of saying non sequitur. I used the more dramatic term to get your attention.
It worked. But the topic here is not your misconceptions about socialism. It's "Jesus was a liberal hippie".Since this is the Bible Study forum, let's see what the Bible says, shall we?

quote:

---

Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

---

Hmm... sounds more socialist than neo-con to me.As for taxes:

quote:

---

Luk 20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's and unto God the things which be God's.

---

Jesus didn't seem to agree with your right-wing rhetoric.

---

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

Sorry, in the Bible Study forum, I look for Bible quotes and I didn't see any any your post(s).On reviewing your supposed "dispensation", I still see nothing that remotely contradicts what Jesus said. Kindly deal with the questions more directly: How is "Sell everything you have and give it to the poor" not socialism? And how is "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" not condoning taxation? What does that mean?

---

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

Irrelevant. Jesus said "Pay your taxes", not "Whine about taxes". We're not talking about the right or wrong of taxation here. We're talking about Jesus' attitude toward taxation. Nonsense, but still off topic. The rich man asked Jesus:

quote:

---

Mat 19:16 ... Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

---

He said he had kept the commandments:

quote:

---

Mat 19:20 ... All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

---

And then Jesus said:

quote:

---

Mat 19:21 ... If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

---

Jesus said that the rich man had to divest himself of his riches in order to be righteous, in order to have eternal life. Who said it was?It's a formula for Christianity, for eternal life. It's not about "false claims of righteousness" at all. It's about what righteousness is.
In the rich man's case, righteousness meant giving up the excess goods that he had and redistributing it to the poor.

---

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

Where do you get that? Why is it not applicable to all rich men? Exactly. His problem was with possessions.He thought he had been righteous by keeping the commandments but Jesus told him that righteousness includes not hogging more than your share of worldly goods. The only additional thing he had to do to inherit eternal life was to sell his excess goods. Again, where do you get that? And that repentence involves selling their worldly goods and giving to the poor.Jesus didn't say "Bring your riches and follow me." He wanted the man without the riches. A return to the original teachings would only spell "neo-con" if the original teachings were neo-con. Let's just look at what Jesus said, what His policies actually were and see if they really are "neo-con". Instead of repeating that mantra over and over, why not repeat the pertinent points as they come up?

---

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

The most important part was to follow Jesus without his riches, which the young rich man wouldn't do. The story does not imply that he was unwilling to follow Jesus if he could keep his riches. It was poverty he balked at, not following Jesus. Otherwise, there is no reason for him to be described as a "rich man". Nitpick: Where does it say Nicodemus was rich?Presumably, Jesus had "audited the books", as it were, of the rich man and of Nicodemus. Maybe Nicodemus didn't pass the "means test".One was told to sell his goods and the other was not. If Nicodemus didn't have excess goods that needed selling, how does that change Jesus' words to the man who did?By the way, the phrase, "ye must be born again", is interesting. Not many newborns are rich, are they? (And if they are, they don't have power of attorney.) One interpretation of "ye must be born again" could be "ye must go back to when you had no material goods".Jesus told Nicodemus that he should already know about being born again:

quote:

---

Joh 3:10 ... Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

---

Maybe the "old school" that Jesus was trying to revive was not as money-grubbing as you make it out to be.

---

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

This is Bible Study. Back it up scripturally. Yet Jesus said:

quote:

---

Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

---

He did speak of "earthly things" too, like it or not.You still haven't answered the question: Why did Jesus tell the rich man to sell everything?Why didn't He say, "Bring all your stuff with you and we'll pass it out to whoever needs it"? Or, why didn't He say, "Put your brother-in-law in charge of your business and follow me"?Why did He specify that the rich man sell his goods before following? Scary when you have to peek outside the box, ain't it? Well, I'm the one who has quoted scripture. It seems to me the assertions and a priori presuppositions are on the other foot.

---

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

Fact is, Jesus didn't tell Nicodemus to sell his worldly goods, but He did tell the rich man to sell his worldly goods. You still haven't answered why Jesus would make that specific stipulation if it wasn't significant. Until you can do so, you haven't begun to discuss Jesus' position on worldly possessions. I'll be here. I suggest you give a reference so people can read it in context.

---

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

I have never said that it was.The rich man's problem was refusing to share his wealth with the poor. You're reading that into the text.Jesus said to the rich man:

1. Sell what you have and give to the poor.
2. Follow me.

He said to Nicodemus:

1. Ye must be born again.

By your logic, neither following nor being born again were "formulaic" either.But "formulaic" is a red herring anyway.Forget about the secret formula for salvation. Jesus told the rich man to sell everything he had and give to the poor. How is that not a socialist policy?

---

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

That's your (incorrect, biased) idea of socialism. When I say "socialism", I mean putting the good of society foremost, sometimes at the expense of the individual.As nwr has pointed out, the topic is "liberalism", not "socialism". My view of socialism seems to be more a propos to the topic than yours, but to be fair I suggest we drop the use of the term. Jesus told the rich man to give his riches to the poor. That's "liberalism" at the very least. So you say, but until you actually post those "copious other versus", your word will not be taken as gospel. If it's a "hasty generalization", then don't be so hasty in handwaving it away. Then explain, don't just assert. Hardly anybody here is going to read Matthew 25 and then read your mind to try to figure out what you mean. Either explain yourself or save the wear and tear on your keyboard.And make that "liberalism", not "socialism". I know that. I'm suggesting that you put the reference in your signature, for the benefit of those who don't carry their Bible-search utility in a quick-draw holster.

---

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

You should put in a smilie (with a quote-miner's helmet). A little farther down in the same chapter (ironically):

quote:

---

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Mat 25:42 For I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

---

I love how the dogmatists always ignore that section.

---

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

Sorry, that ain't the way it works. If you want to make a point, you have to make it. For your own sake, if you wants to get your point across, you gots to put it across.Still waiting for an answer: Why did Jesus stipulate to the rich man that he sell what he had and give to the poor?

---

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

Render unto Ringo that which is Ringo's. You do keep saying that but that isn't an answer to the question. I don't see that in the text at all.What must be done is sharing with the poor. The result of that deed is letting go of greed, letting go of sin (and the poor like it too).Q: Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?A: If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.The question refers to what must be done - i.e. it is a physical matter, not a spiritual one.
And the answer also refers to what must be done. There's a "Peek" button in the lower right hand corner of every post that will show you how a lot of things are done. For quotes, just enclose "qs=Ringo" in square brackets instead of quotes, then put "/qs" (in square brackets) at the end of your cut/paste. So simple even Ringo can do it. Edited by Ringo, : Capitalism.

---

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

That's just the point though: We have to look at the example where it was a prerequisite.If it wasn't a prerequisite for Nicodemus, fine. Maybe Nicodemus didn't put his riches ahead of following Jesus. Maybe he had willingly given enough to the poor to meet Jesus' standard. (We'll see more about that if we ever get to Matthew 25.)But you can't just handwave away the fact that even one rich man could not have eternal life unless he divested himself of his riches. Add to that the whole "eye of the needle" thing, and it becomes pretty clear that riches are an obstacle to entering heaven.And I'll emphasize again: It was the physical act of selling and giving that Jesus specified - not a word about the rich man's spiritual condition. When I cite you, it's only intended as a landmark, so that you (and others) can tell what I'm responding to. I don't quotemine you with the intention of tripping you up. You're quite capable of doing that yourself.

---

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

I didn't say it was a "general" principle. I said it was a significant principle.There is a general principle:

quote:

---

Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, 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 would appear that Nicodemus was the exception rather than the rule. The "cross" is a burden, of course, not a literal torture/execution device. What would be burdensome to a rich man? Living without riches, maybe?Bear in mind also that the bulk of Mark 10 talks about selling one's riches and rich men not entering heaven. Sounds very material and non-spiritual to me. Excess of food or sex is a sin. So is excess of money. You contradict Jesus:

quote:

---

Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Mat 25:35 For I was hungry, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Mat 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

---

Again, not a word about one's spiritual condition, only one's actions. Note the tense of your quote: You are saved by grace. But what will get you into heaven - by Jesus' words, not just Paul's - is feeding the hungry, etc.It isn't the works that save you, but it is doing the works that indicates that you have accepted the gift of salvation. Exactly. And you keep ignoring the verses that say rich men don't get to heaven.

---

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