Was Jesus a Progressive Socialist?

[eider]

Christians are supposed to share. To help those in need. But as I've repeatedly pointed out socialism is not the same as charity. Not even a little bit. Socialism is effectively coveting being enforced by law.

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.

[eider]

The other was the Roman Tax about which Jesus said “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

Personally I don't think it was Roman taxation (although Rome took a cut of Temple gains).
And I don't think it was a Denarius. I think the whole scene was much more clever than that. Jesus must have laughed himself silly (inside).
The Denarius was/is the same diameter as the Temple half shekel although It is less thick..... about half the weight. And both coins are silver.

I think the priests lied that the head on the coin was Caesar's. They had let the 'Temple' mint strike shekels with the Head of Melgart Heracles (Baal) upon it since about 39bc. And its reverse showed a graven image of a raptor and the abbreviation for 'Caesar' in Greek. So Jesus asking 'Whose features and inscription' was daring them to admit to a massive crowd that Baal was stuffed all over their Temple coins = them being torn to shreds.

Nobody got close enough to see what that coin was apart from who held it.
A Denarius
DENARIUS.jpg
A Shekel (different scale)
SHEKEL.jpg

[eider]

I have no problem with "acceptable." But perhaps some might argue that it was only because taxes weren't being used for social welfare programmes ...

Bingo!
Exactly!
Jesus believed in the welfare of all. Social Welfare.

[Cow Poke]

Personally....

OK, I like you - you're weird, and a bit of a , I think, but you seem like a good guy.

I'm just not taking you seriously on this anymore. I think you're having a little too much fun.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Carry on!

[eider]

He was essentially saying to just give the government what they want instead of making a fuss about it. That is not a ringing endorsement.

He was having a great time with that, more clever than the witnesses ever guessed....... IMO.
Hate hated Temple taxation, Sacrificial charges, the whole bloomin' lot, because it was not about social welfare.
Jesus was all for progression towards social welfare for all, and he certainly had words to say against the over rich.

[eider]

OR that the Roman Army would come down hard on you if you didn't pay, and Jesus didn't need to tangle with the Roman Army.

But, yeah, I don't see it as any kind of endorsement at all of taxation.

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.

[Sparko]

Fair Taxation is socially just. = Social Progress.
Of course he was!

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.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I have an issue with speculation being presented as fact.

Really?

CLAIM: Mark was never personally acquainted with Jesus of Nazareth. accepted - on the basis of known facts, with no contradictory evidence available.
CLAIM: Mark was not overly familiar with that part of the world. accepted - highly probable.
CLAIM: Mark was wrong about particulars of locations. rejected - speculative assessment for which opposing speculation is equally viable. And some of those speculations have in fact been demonstrated false. (this is of course limited to points that have been entered into discussion and which I have considered. It is of course, not a blanket assessment of all the points that might be raised.)

Looking at the textual evidence in Mark various academics have reached the conclusion that the simplest solution, as Nineham notes, is that "the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine". We also have to remember the reasons behind these texts being written.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

OR that the Roman Army would come down hard on you if you didn't pay

No it wouldn't. The collection of the direct tax passed from the Herodian officials to the procurator and his staff. The collection of the indirect taxes was farmed to the despised "publicans" mentioned in the Gospels. These were Jewish tax-farmers who purchased the tax-collecting concessions.

and Jesus didn't need to tangle with the Roman Army.

Bearing in mind that at this period in Judaea there was, a comparatively small auxiliary army presence. Galilee had its own army modelled on Roman lines - hence the account in Matthew concerning the centurion in Capernaum. The character would not have been a Roman centurion.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Can you show how Goodacre, Winn, Nineham and even Cranfield come to the opinion that the Author of G-Mark had 'little first hand knowledge of...... Galilee?'
They only travelled South of Galilee once in G-Mark's account!

Mark 7.31.

From post #99

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'

Adam Winn writes at some length about the various theories concerning the provenance of this gospel and the various issues with the author's apparent lack of knowledge of the region.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I acknowledge your opinion about that.
But my opinion is that The Baptist and Jesus (who you might not believe in) certainly wanted to end the oppressive, greedy, hypocritical, corrupt Priesthood and Temple practices.... hence what they said and did. Since I think that they failed in their attempts you can feel comfortable in your standpoint.
I'm simply telling that they most certainly tried, and thus were progressive socialists.

Can you understand that?

I can understand what you have written but you do not seem to comprehend that the gospels should not be regarded as overly accurate historical records. Their internal narratives cannot be assumed to be entirely as they are presented. These texts were to preach and teach. They were not intended to give a dispassionate historical [as we understand the term] account of events.

[tabibito]

There is an interesting passage in Mark's Gospel:


This is one of the very few accounts in Mark's Gospel not found in the others. Some have speculated that this incident is a cameo appearance of Mark himself, in which he added his own personal experience. If that were the case, then Mark would definitely have some knowledge of the geography of the area.

Speculation based on an isolated text that Mark may have been referring to himself isn't particularly compelling. It could easily be that Mark had been told the story by someone whom the other writers had not heard from, perhaps even the person himself. Evidence that Mark was not personally familiar with Judaea is scant, but the conclusion can be accepted (provisionally). However, lack of personal familiarity does not demonstrate error in the records - it doesn't even come close to being evidence of error.

Flatly, there is more reason to doubt the claim that Mark was the first written of the gospels than there is to doubt that he was unfamiliar with Judaea.

[Cow Poke]

No it wouldn't. The collection of the direct tax ...

By this point, dear Hypoxia_Atrocity, I have pretty well determined our dear friend is not really being serious, so I was going off script.

Y'all have fun.

[tabibito]

"Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse.

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

[eider]

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.

No Sparko......... no semantics, simply reading what is there.
And of course, feeding thousands of people for nothing can't fit your very poor analogy, trying to show the reverse of my posts.
In fact you're going to have to struggle somewhat to stray from my selection of verses throughout this thread, showing that Jesus was for Social Progress (of course Jesus was).

Sometime, you must explain how strong Conservative values fit with 'what Jesus said and did'.