• StillSeeking said on Feb 12, 2007....

  Amen!  Couldn't have said it better myself, Ned!

• kelly said on Feb 17, 2007....

  lt's fairly amazing how people like Pat Robertson, et. al. can twist what Jesus stood for (so they tell us) into things like pushing for the assassination of a foreign leader (Chavez), intolerance of gay people, intolerance of anybody who isn't like them, etc.

• anonymous said on Oct 11, 2008....

  Jesus never said "give me all" or "give the government all" He said for you to "give all" or "sell all", He never took from anyone and gave to anyone else i.e. he never forced anyone to give or sell, it was their CHOICE. He never said that A rich man couldn't enter the Kingdom of Heaven, he said it was hard and/or rare because as we all know: money is the root of all evil, it temps people into corruption and the "deadly sins". Jesus led by example, not by force. IF you believe in God, you have to believe we were put here for a reason, what do you think that reason is? I believe we're here to learn... learn that it's better to give than to receive, learn that material possessions mean nothing, learn to forgive and let God deal with most things, etc. Each person has to learn this on their own. When you take away a person's choice to do good on his own, you take away their ability to learn what he was put here to learn. In effect you are prohibiting (at best) or going against (at worse) God's will... his "plan" for us all. Isa 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. Isa 65:21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit [them]; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. Isa 65:22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: ...mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. Isa 65:23 They shall not labour in vain... Wow! doesn't sound socialist to me.

• anonymous said on Oct 15, 2008....

  excuse me if I get this passage wrong, but I think you'll get the jist of the point i'm trying to make. one of the ultimate socialist things that Jesus ever said was this: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." SOCIALISM.

• anonymous said on Oct 20, 2008....

  Of course Jesus was a socialist. He multiplied the loaves and fishes and spread the wealth amongst all who were listening to him. He tried to level the "health care" playing field by healing the sick -- and no one had to pay. He overturned the vendor tables in the temple and basically kicked the capitalists out. He would also have been in favor of welfare: giving to the poor, sick, and hungry.

• mmcginnis said on Oct 25, 2008....

  http://www.lcurve.org/writings/BiblicalLiberal.htm David Chandler, in this article, tries to make the point that Jesus (God the Son) was a socialist. By this logic then, so was God the Father as Jesus and the Father are One and the same. Contrary to Chandler’s views, the truth is that Jesus was NOT a socialist. He never taught Socialism. He taught love and humility and through these teaching, the natural reaction of his followers was to show love for all mankind, including providing for those who could not provide for themselves (The lame, widowed, old, and downtrodden). He did NOT suggest that we are to give to the lazy. In fact He did just the opposite. In 2 Thessalonians The Lord inspired these words: “Neither did we eat bread for nought at any man's hand, but in labor and travail, working night and day, that we might not burden any of you: not because we have not the right, but to make ourselves and ensample unto you, that ye should imitate us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, If any will not work, neither let him eat. For we hear of some that walk among you disorderly, that work not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye, brethren, be not weary in well-doing. And if any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, note that man, that ye have no company with him, to the end that he may be ashamed. And yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” Clearly, by this we are instructed not only to not provide for those who will not work, but to not even have company with him, so that he might be ashamed. As to the teaching of scripture, it could be summed up as in the Lords words in Psalms 14:23: “In all labor there is profit, But idle chatter leads only to poverty.” And in Proverbs 6:6-8 “Go to the ant, you sluggard! Consider her ways and be wise, hhich, having no captain, Overseer or ruler, Provides her supplies in the summer, And gathers her food in the harvest. How long will you slumber, O sluggard? When will you rise from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, A little folding of the hands to sleep- So shall your poverty come on you like a prowler, And your need like an armed man.” In neither passage above, does the Lord say that the idle, sluggard, or lazy person should be taken care of. On the contrary, He says that this type of person will reap his just rewards, poverty. God says that if we work, we receive profit. If we do not, we become poor. Now, that being said, when God set forth the first economy over the nation of Israel, He did not institute a capitalistic system nor a socialistic system. It was actually a mixture of the two. In fact, the Lords teachings on many subjects call for a balance of extremes, not one side or the other. God lays out the idea of ownership of property in Exodus 20:15 and 22:1-15, stating the punishment for those who take the possessions of others or trespass on another’s property. In Leviticus 19:9-10 the Lord lays out a type of welfare in that when a field is harvested, the edges of the field are not to be picked. In the same way, the fruit dropped while harvesting the vineyard are to be left, in both cases for the poor, but laziness was allowed to run its course without a safety net. Everyone was also instructed to give one tenth of everything they produced to the Lord. This was used not only to provide sustenance to the priests, but also to fund the needs of the Temple. Later, in the New Testament, the tithe was done away with and replaced with giving to the needy solely as one’s heart directs them to and taxes were still instructed to be paid to the government. Because in both the old and new Testament the Lord instructed that giving was to be a personal act, the lazy could be differentiated from the truly needy which is an impossibility under the one size fits all approach of government welfare systems. God’s approach to the economic system was one of balance. The idea was that each man would be rewarded for his labor and that the needy would be taken care of out of compassion of the individuals. However, the people of Israel repeatedly fell into imbalance. The problem was not in the Lord’s perfect economic system, but in that man is corrupt. With all this in mind, the points stated in the above mentioned article hold no validity, as I will show: When Jesus said “Blessed are the poor, for yours are the Kingdom of God” and for the rich man to sell all his possessions, He was simply saying that being unshackled by things makes it easier to give one’s life to God, not that EVERYONE should do so, but only those who are holding money and possessions up as a thing more important in life to them that God. Jesus was not concerned that money would lead to “moral decay” as Chandler suggests, but to the separation of one from God, because with money, one can apparently sustain oneself and thus would have no need for God to sustain them. In doing so, they conveniently forget the fact that it is God who provided the money and possessions in the first place. When Jesus fed the 5000, Chandler makes a statement that he suspects there was plenty of food in the crowd, but that the people were not willing to share it, and thus He had to drive home the point that they should join Him in giving away their food. First, this statement has no basis of fact in the scripture nor can it be deduced from the text even indirectly. The exact opposite is the case. In John 6:26, just after this incedent, we read “Jesus answered them and said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him." If Jesus was wanting to teach the people to share their food with everyone, then why does He condemn the people the following day for trying to find Him simply so He can feed them again? The fact is that Jesus was teaching the people that He is the “bread of life” that when eaten, will keep a man from being hungry again. Chandler’s remarks fall flat here. Chandler tries to make point after point that Jesus was a socialist, when nothing could be further from the truth. Socialism is a system in which the government takes from the producers and gives to the lesser or non producers. Jesus’ teachings are the exact opposite. Your excess is not taken FROM you against your will, but given BY you out of the love of your own heart to those in need and then only to those who cannot provide for themselves, unlike socialism which gives to all, including the sluggards.

• anonymous said on Nov 04, 2008....

  I don't believe anyone here is defending the point that we should provide for the lazy. We don't need the Bible to exemplify this common truth. Jesus was a socialist in the sense that he preached equality among his followers. He said to give to the poor; however, he did not categorize poverty as a result of laziness or adversity. Other parts of the Bible do this, however. Once the reasons for a person's poverty are known, then as a Christian one should be able decide what path to take. Help and care for that poor, or ignore and leave him to his own laziness. Above all Love/Charity is considered more important than faith. For those who cling to verses which blame the wicked for their wickedness, it is important to bear in mind that Jesus also advocated compassion.
  
  Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. He also said to his followers to not build treasures on earth, but on heaven where things are not temporary. (I'm sorry for not providing references) By these simple passages you can easily conclude that the son of God would not be so pleased by the way most modern countries are run. Capitalism (the most effective economic system this planet has seen) rewards greed and genius - we all desire to build temporary treasures and become wealthy.
  
  If more Biblical evidence is needed to prove the point that early Christianity resembled socialism then one need only to read the act of the apostles. The first Christian church did something no modern church has even done. "And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need." (Acts 2:44-45)
  
  Early Christianity by today's standards can easily be considered a form of socialism. Was Jesus a socialist? Probably not since neither socialism not capitalism were recognized as economic systems two thousand years ago. Jesus' ideas, actions and words were also guided by religious reasons not political ones, but any historically educated person will also now that religion has never been too far away from politics.
  
  One thing is certain: Christianity at its core (not the one practiced by modern Catholicism and Protestantism) is more socialist than capitalist.
  
  loui678

• anonymous said on Nov 04, 2008....

  Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. 33And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and(BD) great grace was upon them all. 34(BE) There was not a needy person among them, for(BF) as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold 35and(BG) laid it at the apostles’ feet, and(BH) it was distributed to each as any had need. 36Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means(BI) son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, 37sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and(BJ) laid it at the apostles’ feet. Acts 4:32-37

• anonymous said on Nov 27, 2008....

  "Above all Love/Charity is considered more important" Charity is when you give freely, not being forced to give. Force breeds hate (resentment and/or rebellion) not Love. "And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need." (Acts 2:44-45) Please note: They weren't forced they made the choice to do this after they saw miracles, heard a sermon/testimony, repented, were baptized, and received the holy spirit... 3000 in all. "all who believed"... "those who believed were of one heart and soul"... And that's the way it was before God split us up: Gen 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people [are] one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Gen 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. Gen 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. What do you think happened when our language was confounded and we were split up? Splitting the languages also had the effect of fracturing common wisdom and understanding. Since everyone believed the same thing they had no plural form of "The Understanding". The idea of religion came later as a result of the day of confusion at the Tower of Babel. "and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do" God Knew we would be corrupted/mislead to use that power to inadvertently destroy ourselves and sought to Change that. We have to learn the value of being/doing good the hard way so that we can't be corrupted/mislead once we have that power/understanding again.If you force someone to do/give something you are taking away their ability to learn and choose to do good. It is a God given right to give what is yours, It is NOT a God given right to force others to give what is theirs. It is that simple.

• Arjay said on Dec 24, 2008....

  From Arjay. Not only was Jesus a socialist, the entire liberal agenda begins with the Sermon on the Mount. I find it funny how many detest such a concept, that Jesus could be a socialist, and yet they do not cite the Gospels. Generalities at best, but they do not offer anything Jesus said and did. This is the perfect example as to why I consider myself a Red-Letter Christian, having put the deeds and teachings of Christ ahead of everything else. None of this going back and forth from the Old and New Testament to fit one's selfish desire, no confusing the Father and the Son to make an argument. If you accept the Gospels are the center of being Christian, then the contradictions melt away, everything else revolves around them. I would argue against anyone on this, because it is quite inconvenient to believe Jesus is not a Republican, even though they believe they have cornered the market on reality. Such Christians are in for a rude awakening, they are the ones who will come up to Jesus at the end of days, and our Lord will say, I never knew you. Prima scriptura. Start with the Gospels, make them first and foremost in your heart, and you will have to come to the conclusion that not only was Jesus quite liberal and radical in his deeds and teachings, he was indeed a socialist.

• anonymous said on Apr 02, 2009....

  The problem with this theory:Proverbs 10:4 says, "Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth." Proverbs 14:23 says, "All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty." 2 Corinthians 3:17 "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Galations 5:1 "The Messiah has set us free so that we may enjoy the benefits of freedom. So keep on standing firm in it, and stop putting yourselves under the yoke of slavery again." Why should we have wealth or make a profit? So that we can give to the church, charity and provide for our families. If you are under the thumb of Caesar then give him what is his. Since we have influence in American as to what kind of government we want then as Christians we should be for freedom and liberty, even if that means some greedy people get to keep their money. We should not covet our neighbor's things. Capitalism doesn't inhibit christians from being charitable, giving more to Caesar does.

• stevencarlyle said on Jul 22, 2009....

  Here is the question what would Jesus do if he were the President of the USA? Would he feed the hungry? Would he heal the sick? Would he execute people? Would he provide education for all? Would he take the clothes off of his back and give it to some one without? and would he welcome all the money changers and sellers into his fathers kingdom? We say that we are Christians but are we the Christians of Jesus or of the Church? Would he approve of the Vatican? Last but not least would he be upset that man will keep his money in banks and stocks while his Fathers (GOD's) children die from starvation, sanitation, and diseases that we can cure die by the rate of 17-18 children dying every minute or Some 70 million children dying between 2000 and 2007 I think he would ask what your return was?

• Cal-el said on Aug 17, 2009....

  Using verses from the Old Testament out of context does not prove that Jesus was a socialist. 2 Corinthians 8:1-9 (English Standard Version) Encouragement to Give Generously 1We want you to know, brothers,[a] about the grace of God that has been(A) given among the churches of Macedonia, 2for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and(B) their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. 3For they gave(C) according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, 4begging us earnestly(D) for the favor[b] of taking part in(E) the relief of the saints— 5and this, not as we expected, but they(F) gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us. 6Accordingly,(G) we urged Titus that as he had started, so he should complete among you(H) this act of grace. 7But as(I) you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in our love for you[c]—(J) see that you excel in this act of grace also. 8(K) I say this not as a command, but to prove by the earnestness of others that your love also is genuine. 9For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that(L) though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich. Jesus didn't become poor so that we could become rich materially, but spiritually. Mark 12:17 (King James Version) And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him. Most of these posts against the truth about Christ are driven by greed and power lust. You're fighting against the truth because of your own desire to make more money than someone else. You're worshiping the almighty dollar. In the fear of "Socialism" many of you have bought into the insurance corporations' lies. You feared that a social program would make us a Socialist nation so you backed huge corporations in which you have no voice instead of a government program that would help all people in a system in which you DO have a voice. Love, Hope, Peace, & Christ Is With Us All, Cal Jennings

• anonymous said on Sep 02, 2009....

  People shouldn't have to be forced to give, this is true. They should want to give, out of the goodness of their hearts, out of compassion for their fellow man. Love thy neighbour. To say that one is forced to share is to imply that they are reluctant to do so in the first place. Why should it matter if you give a little of your own, if everyone else is doing the same to you?

• cafenitro said on Sep 13, 2009....

  Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they are lazy. You can work 3 jobs and still be poor in America. Also, don't think you're quoting Jesus when you delve back into the old testiment for your quotes. The whole purpose of Jesus is to banishes the old testiment with a new one based on love and not the wrath of God. Christians today love to mix testiments to show Jesus would hang out with Dick Cheney. Jesus was a socialist because he preached socialist ideals and shunned capitolist ones. He was crucified for kicking the capitolists out of the temple.

• kennyandjo said 6 days ago....

  Here is one pastor's response to the question: "Did Jesus Teach Socialism?" http://kburchard.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/did-jesus-teach-socialism/ Enjoy... KB

Comment on "10 Reasons Jesus was a Socialist"

Currently tagged	Jesus socialism Jesus was NOT a socialist socialist charity politics god Not socialism christianity socialism One Understanding red-letter christian generosity atheism government Jesus socialism Christ sure why not health sorry (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously