Octavia156
OTO/EGC
Caring, Sharing, fish and bread....
was Jesus Christ the first Socialist? Or even the first Communist?
was Jesus Christ the first Socialist? Or even the first Communist?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was Jesus the original Socialist?
- Thread starter Octavia156
- Start date
I would say "no". Jesus did not have (as far as we can tell) nor did he preach an economic philosophy. He became human so that humankind might become God, to bring spiritual salvation. He did have social teachings but this is distinct from an actual economic ideology.
The Early Church however did have a kind of economic philosophy, based upon Jesus' teachings, that now goes by the name of "Mutualism". This philosophy of social mutualism eventually led to the collapse of the Roman economic system of patronage.
Socialism, at least in its pure Marxist form, is an economic philosophy in which the means of production are owned by the state rather than by individuals. In a Communist state private property is abolished and individual freedom is subordinated to the state, which assures (theoretically speaking) that everyone is equal.
In the Book of Acts once finds an economic system described that has similarities with Socialism but in essence is very different:
In the above system, renunciation of property is voluntary and not given over too a state but to a non-governmental religious body that works as a kind of charity bank for the needs of all the faithful. Also of note is the fact that people still had "possessions", they simply no longer saw them as uniquely there on. This is because these Early Christians realized that life itself is borrowed and that ultimately only God has true, lasting ownership over anything. Christianity has never rejected the right to own private property. We see it as a natural right but not an absolute one; rather as a right that has a use that should be for the benefit not only of yourself but for everyone in common.
The Acts economy is not state-imposed but voluntarily and from the grassroots - from the bottom up and not the top down - emphasising individual persons as opposed to the Communist one which is state-imposed, totalitarian and views people as simply cogs in a great machine. Christianity emphases not only equality but also freedom rooted in Christ.
Furthermore there is an emotional unity - a solidarity of heart and oneness of spirit, over and above distinctions of class, race or gender, to the biblical economic sharing that is lacking in Communism.
Communism views human history in terms of class warfare and the eventual victory of the working class over the upper classes. The Christian religion is not time-bound but looks to eternity. St Paul says in Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Christianity therefore claims that distinctions of class, spiritually speaking, do not actually exist; whereas Communism views reality in terms of class conflict. Christianity holds that people of different classes, alternatively, should be united in harmony within the same body of Christ and see themselves as brothers and sisters over and above their social class, rather than in a state of warfare with each other.
Social conditions are important for Christians to improve, this world needs to be bettered, however there is a world beyond this world in Christianity that the materialistic belief structure of Communism lacks - a spiritual universe, and it is through membership in this spiritual reality through baptism, that the Christian transcends class, racial and sexual differences on earth via a unity in the transcendent body of Christ, rather than through revolution.
In a Communist system the state becomes deified and people become like cogs in a faceless sea of humanity, whereas in Acts the Roman Empire (the state of that period) had nothing at all to do with the monetary fund created and run by the Apostles.
Jesus and his Apostles did not preach that the Roman Empire should take over the means of production and abolish all private property too create a "dictatorship of the proletariat" after a working class revolution to topple the bourgeoisie and upper classes, did they? :no:
Communism posits a kind of secular messianism whereby salvation is received through the earthly overthrow of unjust capitalist economies or industries and the creation of a working class dictatorship of (supposed) equality between workers. Christianity rejects as idolatry any form of state-worship or secular salvation.
Therefore they could not have been Socialists or Communists.
The Early Church however did have a kind of economic philosophy, based upon Jesus' teachings, that now goes by the name of "Mutualism". This philosophy of social mutualism eventually led to the collapse of the Roman economic system of patronage.
Socialism, at least in its pure Marxist form, is an economic philosophy in which the means of production are owned by the state rather than by individuals. In a Communist state private property is abolished and individual freedom is subordinated to the state, which assures (theoretically speaking) that everyone is equal.
In the Book of Acts once finds an economic system described that has similarities with Socialism but in essence is very different:
In the above system, renunciation of property is voluntary and not given over too a state but to a non-governmental religious body that works as a kind of charity bank for the needs of all the faithful. Also of note is the fact that people still had "possessions", they simply no longer saw them as uniquely there on. This is because these Early Christians realized that life itself is borrowed and that ultimately only God has true, lasting ownership over anything. Christianity has never rejected the right to own private property. We see it as a natural right but not an absolute one; rather as a right that has a use that should be for the benefit not only of yourself but for everyone in common.
The Acts economy is not state-imposed but voluntarily and from the grassroots - from the bottom up and not the top down - emphasising individual persons as opposed to the Communist one which is state-imposed, totalitarian and views people as simply cogs in a great machine. Christianity emphases not only equality but also freedom rooted in Christ.
Furthermore there is an emotional unity - a solidarity of heart and oneness of spirit, over and above distinctions of class, race or gender, to the biblical economic sharing that is lacking in Communism.
Communism views human history in terms of class warfare and the eventual victory of the working class over the upper classes. The Christian religion is not time-bound but looks to eternity. St Paul says in Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Christianity therefore claims that distinctions of class, spiritually speaking, do not actually exist; whereas Communism views reality in terms of class conflict. Christianity holds that people of different classes, alternatively, should be united in harmony within the same body of Christ and see themselves as brothers and sisters over and above their social class, rather than in a state of warfare with each other.
Social conditions are important for Christians to improve, this world needs to be bettered, however there is a world beyond this world in Christianity that the materialistic belief structure of Communism lacks - a spiritual universe, and it is through membership in this spiritual reality through baptism, that the Christian transcends class, racial and sexual differences on earth via a unity in the transcendent body of Christ, rather than through revolution.
In a Communist system the state becomes deified and people become like cogs in a faceless sea of humanity, whereas in Acts the Roman Empire (the state of that period) had nothing at all to do with the monetary fund created and run by the Apostles.
Jesus and his Apostles did not preach that the Roman Empire should take over the means of production and abolish all private property too create a "dictatorship of the proletariat" after a working class revolution to topple the bourgeoisie and upper classes, did they? :no:
Communism posits a kind of secular messianism whereby salvation is received through the earthly overthrow of unjust capitalist economies or industries and the creation of a working class dictatorship of (supposed) equality between workers. Christianity rejects as idolatry any form of state-worship or secular salvation.
Therefore they could not have been Socialists or Communists.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Nope.
Octavia156
OTO/EGC
any justifiction to that?
I'm sure I'm wrong.. but the wpirit of debate is that ione backs up ones answers with some kind of evidence/opinion/reasoned argument
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Certainly not the first or original.
Octavia156
OTO/EGC
it has been pointed out to me by PM that Plato may have been the first socialist.....
Still Christianity is quite a Socialist religion is it not?
If Jesus were alive today - what do you think his political leaning would be?
Still Christianity is quite a Socialist religion is it not?
If Jesus were alive today - what do you think his political leaning would be?
Jesus would tell us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's due--but also to not diminish our faith by doing so. Regardless of whether our government is conservative, liberal, fascist, socialist or whatever else, He would still want us to do charitable works, stand up for the oppressed, and hold our faith courageously, especially in the face of opposition. Giving taxes to the government that the government then uses for welfare is not what Jesus had in mind when He told us to provide for the poor.
Octavia156
OTO/EGC
Caesar what now?
But we're not living in times for Caesar... I'm asking - apply Jesus ideas to yoday... if he wouldn' bet socialist or would he communist?
or what?
But we're not living in times for Caesar... I'm asking - apply Jesus ideas to yoday... if he wouldn' bet socialist or would he communist?
or what?
He condemned the rich, advised people to give away their wealth if they wished to go to heaven (Matt 19: 21-24)
His early followers were socialists, if not communists. Acts 2: 44-45.
Daily Kos: Early Christian church run on socialist principles
Even today theChristian Hutterite communities hold all property communally and live as communists.
His early followers were socialists, if not communists. Acts 2: 44-45.
Daily Kos: Early Christian church run on socialist principles
Even today theChristian Hutterite communities hold all property communally and live as communists.
I am applying Jesus' ideas to today. Substitute "Caesar" for "the government."
He wouldn't be either socialist or communist. He would be for charity and love between people. Nothing more, nothing less. Charity and love can exist in any political or economic environment. Jesus isn't a politician, nor does He care about something as petty as politics, and I honestly believe that He really wouldn't care about politics. "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36)
@Vouthon:
The story of Ananias and Sapphira seems to disagree. Peter even says that the property they owned, and the money they gained from selling the property, was theirs. But because they kept some of it, they were struck dead. Sapphira, not knowing her husband was dead, confirmed the story (i.e. not lying about it), but is struck dead as well.
Acts says it is because they "cheated" and "lied," but how could they cheat and lie when it was a voluntary donation?
This caused a lot of fear in the people. Which is very unfortunate, since 1 John 4:18: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love." (NASB)
The story of Ananias and Sapphira seems to disagree. Peter even says that the property they owned, and the money they gained from selling the property, was theirs. But because they kept some of it, they were struck dead. Sapphira, not knowing her husband was dead, confirmed the story (i.e. not lying about it), but is struck dead as well.
Acts says it is because they "cheated" and "lied," but how could they cheat and lie when it was a voluntary donation?
This caused a lot of fear in the people. Which is very unfortunate, since 1 John 4:18: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love." (NASB)
CaptainNobody
Member
I always found it disturbing how people in the modern world always try to shoehorn the teachings of Christ into their modern-day ideas. American Republicans see shades of the GOP in the Bible, while leftists also see what they want to see.
We must realize that he social institutions of Jesus' time were quite different from those of our own, and that to draw any sort of analogy would be making leaps and bounds in terms of scriptural interpretation.
That said, Jesus' contempt for possessing a lot wealth was perhaps coming from a spiritual angle rather than a political one, as one might glean from His advice to "store up goods in heaven" and not on Earth.
We must realize that he social institutions of Jesus' time were quite different from those of our own, and that to draw any sort of analogy would be making leaps and bounds in terms of scriptural interpretation.
That said, Jesus' contempt for possessing a lot wealth was perhaps coming from a spiritual angle rather than a political one, as one might glean from His advice to "store up goods in heaven" and not on Earth.
ZooGirl02
Well-Known Member
He definitely wasn't a Communist. I don't think He was a Socialist either to be honest. Early Christians did seem to have a collective ownership of things though but I think they did that out of necessity due to persecution and such. It is also a practice of various religious orders, if not all of them, to have collective ownership of things.