Was Jesus a Progressive Socialist?

[Cow Poke]

Ouch!!!!!
You can call me anything you like...... I can take it.

But an extreme atheist's sock-puppet? You're just being wicked now.

I'm a hot-cold shower for many Christians. Some times my posts can warm them up, others will freeze them solid. It is my destiny.

Kidding! You're good.

[Cow Poke]

But it seems that much of what Jesus said is 'quote mining'...yes?

According to John, yes.

Scripture Verse: John 21:25

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

© Copyright Original Source

[Machinist]

I have never understood the mission to bend over backwards in defense of errors within the Bible. So what if the Bible contains errors? Some seem to believe that if errors exist in the Bible, then the entire universe will unravel, or that God somehow can't work with imperfect tools. My view has always been to take the errors into context and appreciate the overall story.

[Cow Poke]

I have never understood the mission to bend over backwards in defense of errors within the Bible. So what if the Bible contains errors? Some seem to believe that if errors exist in the Bible, then the entire universe will unravel, or that God somehow can't work with imperfect tools. My view has always been to take the errors into context and appreciate the overall story.

This is why inerrantists like me refer to the original manuscripts being without error.

[Mountain Man]

You cannot have paid much attention to what Jesus said, MM.
He showed beyond any doubt that storing up, hiding away, secreting ..wealth, is wrong.
Jesus clearly didn't like greed, unreasonable wealth, unreasonable poverty.

Or do you disagree with what he said...and did?

And yet in the parable of the talents, we see that the man who had accumulated substantial wealth was rewarded with even more wealth at the expense of another, so if you're going to insist on taking the parable of the talents literally, then you are forced to conclude that Jesus wanted the rich to get richer, and the poor to lose even what little they have.

Pro tip: parables should not be taken literally.

[Mountain Man]

You can help me MM.
Teach me.

Show me what Jesus did or said that supports unreasonable wealth, hoarding wealth, discarding 9any) disability ....?
Teach a moron like me, that Jesus did not want to progress out of that wicked system, that corrupt unfair divide.

You certainly would have to be a moron to sincerely believe that I ever said or implied such a thing, but I suspect you really don't believe it, and this is just more of your trolling.

[rogue06]

Not at all..........Right up to that last week Jesus was demonstrating, campaigning, debating for social progression away from Temple and Priesthood corruption.
It's in the gospels.

He was calling for reform and replacing the temple sacrifices with His own.

Just like progressive socialists always do

[rogue06]

He didn't promote taxation for the gain of fat leaders.....of course not.
As a Galilean working man he was totally against the local taxation....it was very very hard indeed.
Studies outside the bible strongly suggest that, and since I don't believe that the boatmen of the lake were mild meek gentle-folks looking up to heaven but very hardened toughs (to survive) I feel confident to suggest that they needed scams for survival. Their night run down the Gadarenes is a joy to read..... where the pagans were...and all those pigs which they would have eaten. THey went down there to deal with them...no doubt in my mind. The lake had huge catfish in it which would often have got caught up in their nets, which they couldn't sell to Jews (carrion eaters), so any sensible boatmen would take them to sell to the pagans...night runs.

Have you seen how oppressive the taxation in Galilee and around the lake was? Really wicked. Zebedee must have been very very clever, and very very tough to survive.
I'll answer your other points next post.

fishing a.JPG

Government tax collecting has long been a brutal process. It is why Robin Hood was said to have targeted tax collectors when he stole from the rich to give [it back] to the poor.

What exactly is your point?

And why do you call Jews "carrion eaters"?

[rogue06]

Yes it is.


No. Socialism is when 'the people' support taxation to fulfil their needs.

Funny how you have to make up your own definitions for words to support your nonsense. You wouldn't happen to know a Jorge Fernandez by chance?

[Cow Poke]

Funny how you have to make up your own definitions for words to support your nonsense. You wouldn't happen to know a Jorge Fernandez by chance?

He's purposely being facetious. Pretty well admitted it.

[rogue06]

Socialism is all about the people wanting to put in in order to get services out for the good of all.
And certainly socialism is against fat greedy rich folks from hiding away their riches in order to avoid or evade taxation. That's the kind of thing the Priesthood was probably up to, reading Jesus's words.

Socialism is coveting. It is deciding that you want something someone else has and using the force of arms (the government) to take it.


And show me a socialist leader who isn't a "fat greedy rich folk" and I'll show you 20 who are.

[rogue06]

Jesus was a Galilean....... Romans were not taxing Galileans (although Rome took a cut), Levites were the taxation officials up there.
Celcus (not a Christian's friend) wrote that there were ten boatmen and TWO tax officers with Jesus, most interesting, and since Judas was a money man, bag holder, etc and had a very nasty nickname from his past, I think he was the other tax officer.... but that's just my impression.

Incorrect.

Galileans in Jesus' time paid three taxes (although they had different names). A tribute to Rome, taxes to Herod and tithes and offerings to the Temple and priesthood.

[rogue06]

Gee I can play semantics too. Jesus took 2 fish and multiplied them. That's PROFIT! Jesus was a Capitalist! That is basically how you are arguing Jesus was "progressive" and a "socialist" -- by playing semantic games.

d6e9a771-9df8-455f-a7ca-4221a304469c.jpg

Scripture Verse: Matthew 25:14-15

Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed
to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

Assuming that the location of Bethphage has been correctly identified, coming to Bethphage from the north (necessary if Bethphage is the first to be reached) would place Jerusalem on the right, and Bethany on the left - that is, to get to Bethany on the way to Jerusalem, the traveller would have to detour. Approaching from the east, the traveller would reach Bethany first. Jericho is to the north and east of Bethany, so it would depend on whether the traveller first went south from Jericho and then turned west (reach Bethany first), or west from Jericho and turned south (reach Bethphage first.)


Bethany - Bethphage.jpg

But it does not seem that Mark intended to provide an itinerary. What does a first century reader do with a map? How would a first century writer present the place names in accord with a map? Look at that map as it would have been presented in the first century - the first century writer would have read the map from top to bottom, as we would in like circumstances - but - the first century map had east at the top, not north. Maps were oriented (note the significance of that word) for the rising sun until the compass became a thing. Reading in first century map order, which town comes first?

Bethany - Bethphage Oriented.jpg

And given that Mount Olivet is just to the north of Bethany and Bethphange, and that Mark 11 expressly mentions Mount Olivet as a place Jesus stopped at in His approach to Jerusalem

Scripture Verse: Mark 11:1

Now when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus^[a] sent two of his disciples

© Copyright Original Source

it is clear that he veered off the main approach from Jericho and took the trail that led to Mount Olivet. From there it would have been natural to continue on to Jerusalem from there by way of Bethphage and Bethany -- and in that order -- rather than to turn around and head back to the main road.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Evidence supporting this majority opinion isn't particularly compelling. Internal evidence available from Luke shows that he was a companion traveller with Paul.

It shows no such thing. All we can deduce about the author of Acts comes from the text and nothing else. Nor should we assume that actual authors or writers hold the same opinion and outlook on the world as said author or writer implies in a text. Did Shakespeare agree with Polonius' comment "neither a borrower nor a lender be"? Or did Shakespeare put those words into the mouth of his character to tell us something more about Polonius?

It would appear that whoever wrote Acts was a gentile and male and clearly had some Greek education. However, that the writer was a companion of Paul seems unlikely. The writer's knowledge of geography is also questionable. He seems familiar with the region around the Aegean Sea that divides modern-day Greece from Turkey and shows a knowledge of the cities of that region. However, when the narrative moves inland the geographical details become more vague. Furthermore, reading Acts no one would realise that Antioch and Lystra were Roman colonies as no local, provincial, or imperial officials appear in the texts for those cities. if one relied on Acts as a sole historical source one could imagine that the cities of southern Asia Minor were governed entirely by mobs

Helms ... Helms. Oh yes, the professor of English Literature. Surely you could come up with an author who is actually accredited in the field of Biblical literature

Why should these texts not be subjected to textual criticism as is any other text?

I also recall you were somewhat dismissive of a regius professor of divinity's opinions because, presumably, they did not agree with your own.

So the claim is that Matthew misread the text of Zechariah and invented a story to make the event fit with the (misunderstood) prophecy. But that misreading would involve the same kind of error that is needed to have Jesus being in two different places when he instructed his disciples to collect the colt. If such a misreading were in play, Matthew's record, not Luke's, would conform with that of Mark.

Firstly these three gospels were written at different times and in different places. It is generally accepted that both Luke and Matthew worked from a version of Mark but we have no idea if both authors had access to precisely the same version of that text. .

It should also be remembered that these texts were initially "stand alone" and written for each author's specific community, and each author added their own colour and texture [narrative embellishment]. It was only when the canon was being decided that these four texts with their divergent internal narratives were brought together in the anthology we know as the New Testament.

When placed side by side in that manner a dispassionate and critical reader can easily determine the internal contradictions and differences found within those texts.