Was Jesus a Progressive Socialist?

[Cow Poke]

That is Paul's idea.

Interesting - so you think John copied the idea from Paul, eh?

[rogue06]

You were the one trying to "shackle" the phrase "progressive socialist" to Jesus and John the baptist.

Jesus and John were both teaching about caring for others, and sharing. Love your neighbor as yourself. That is not socialism, even if that is what socialists claim they are all about. Socialism is a form of government, not a way of life. It is about forcing equality on people by taking from those who have and giving to those who don't. It is not voluntary. It is not "sharing" it is stealing and redistributing by force.

Socialism is in effect nothing more or less than coveting.

[Machinist]

Wouldn't a socialist...I mean someone who is educated in and truly devoted to socialist doctrine, necessarily have to believe that the nature of man is intrinsically good?

[Sparko]

Wouldn't a socialist...I mean someone who is educated in and truly devoted to socialist doctrine, necessarily have to believe that the nature of man is intrinsically good?

No. They believe mankind is selfish so the Good Government has to step in and forceably make everyone equal by stealing from the haves and giving to the have-nots.

[tabibito]

Interesting - so you think John copied the idea from Paul, eh?

The comment does come from someone who believes sound evidence exists that Mark didn't know the geography of Judaea, so it the rest of her fairy-tale shouldn't come as a surprise.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Interesting - so you think John copied the idea from Paul, eh?

The gospel of John? That is a much later and more theologically developed work.

Edit I was tempted to write that George and Ringo had the idea first!

[Cow Poke]

Socialism is in effect nothing more or less than coveting.

It's worse - it's coveting, and having somebody else force the other guy to give you what you want.

Actually, it reminds me of the Luke 12:13 thing - Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”

They wanted Jesus to enforce social welfare.

(As I recall, Jesus wasn't so keen on that notion)

[Cow Poke]

Wouldn't a socialist...I mean someone who is educated in and truly devoted to socialist doctrine, necessarily have to believe that the nature of man is intrinsically good?

That would have been the case in Acts 4, where the "goodness" of people caused them voluntarily to share with others. There was no need to have a "law" or "system" that forced people to give up what they had.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The comment does come from someone who believes sound evidence exists that Mark didn't know the geography of Judaea, so it the rest of her fairy-tale shouldn't come as a surprise.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html
Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine'

[tabibito]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html
Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine'

Bethany Bethphage: It would be normal to say that a person went through Albury Wodonga en route to Wagga Wagga even if that person starts the journey from Melbourne, despite the fact that the person will pass through Wodonga before getting to Albury - it is simply a standard usage pattern. But contrary to the confident assertions about the location of Bethphage, no-one is certain of its exact location anyway. Way too much confidence placed on conjecture for this argument to be viable (on the basis of current knowledge).

Sidon to Galilee via the Decapolis: The return trip might be the equivalent of going from London to Paris via Hamburg, but no more than that - more likely via Amsterdam. According to Mark, Jesus went from Galilee to the region of Tyre which includes Sidon (Mark doesn't mention the route, so it is reasonable to assume he took the most common paths), spent some time in the region, and went from Sidon to the Galilee via the Decapolis: working a circuit seems perfectly normal conduct for an itinerant preacher. In the ordinary course, mention of the route taken is likely to indicate that there was a detour.

[NorrinRadd]

I've been noticing that, too --- I have never come across ANYBODY else referring to John simply as "the Baptist". :shug:

I sometimes refer to him simply as "the Baptizer." No particular reason.

[NorrinRadd]

To be fair, he did say that when he calls them socialists he doesn't mean that they were Socialists.

Thereby demonstrating that the entire thread is feckless, vacuous trollery.

[Cow Poke]

I sometimes refer to him simply as "the Baptizer." No particular reason.

That makes more sense.

[eider]

He wasn't just attacking the current system - he was offering Salvation and eternal life.

That's a Christian construct, imo.

Both Jesus and the Baptist were set against the outrages of the Priesthood and Temple. That's it.
Their actions and words show this beyond any doubt.

[eider]

Thereby demonstrating that the entire thread is feckless, vacuous trollery.

Nope. Thereby proposing that Jesus and the Baptist both were set against the outrageous practices of the Priesthood and Temple.
Anybody who disagrees with you risks being called a troll.