Definitely a current issue: Was early Christianity communist?

originally posted by: peskyhumans
The disciples ask all their followers to sell their houses and all their possessions and give the disciples the money...The book then claims they divided up the money equally and provded for everyone equally.

But who is everyone?

And how long was the communalism supposed to last?

Can it be they wanted to help people whom Roman-governed Judea would have persecuted out of being Christian?

Surely there were so many poor that they could not have supported all of them, if they had simply been trying to establish Marxism.

And as I've stated before, what if they only intended the communalism to last until society was converted to Christianity or at least made safe for it? Or, barring that, at least until there was little risk of Christianity being wiped out?

originally posted by: TheValeyard
UGH SO MUCH MENTAL GYMNASTICS in this thread just to justify people's corporate greed.
You don't have to like it, but if you can't get over it, then you're definitely not a Christian, because the red letters weren't important enough for you to read and comprehend them.
Go ahead, cope harder. This shouldn't even be contraversal, and it's really sad anyone thinks it's a valid debate.
He WAS. You don't want him to be, because you're greedy, but he WAS.

What about John 18:36?

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: Insurrectile
a reply to: Phallacy

"The meek shall inherit the earth".

Conflate me that, dear wealthy Evangelicals?

Does "meek" mean "poor?"

This is going to be a long thread when we keep splitting the wordlettuce.

So meek means rich and a commune doesn't imply communism. Good talk!

originally posted by: Insurrectile

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: Insurrectile
a reply to: Phallacy

"The meek shall inherit the earth".

Conflate me that, dear wealthy Evangelicals?

Does "meek" mean "poor?"

This is going to be a long thread when we keep splitting the wordlettuce.

So meek means rich and a commune doesn't imply communism. Good talk!

No, it's not a word splitting argument. Having humility is good spiritual advice for all people.

originally posted by: Insurrectilecommune doesn't imply communism.

In fairness to your argument, it doesn't say they were trying to help exploited, embattled brethren instead of establishing a new economic system based on everybody sharing everything as an end to itself.

It doesn't spell out that the need for such living would fall away if they ever achieved a society which wasn't so hostile to people who wanted to be saved and not live with their soul being made public.

Please consider both sides of that point though. What you mistook for communism may simply have been a temporary expedient to protect people who would be economically blacklisted into leading sinful lives.

originally posted by: Insurrectile

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: Insurrectile
a reply to: Phallacy

"The meek shall inherit the earth".

Conflate me that, dear wealthy Evangelicals?

Does "meek" mean "poor?"

This is going to be a long thread when we keep splitting the wordlettuce.

So meek means rich and a commune doesn't imply communism. Good talk!

careful you'll end up with the commonwealth being communist, as its there in the word commonwealth it mneans communist...

originally posted by: pthena
Why focus on the woman who fed and clothed Jesus when he needed it?
You could focus on Acts chapter 5.

Please bother to wade through the OP if you don't see the point.

Acts Ch. 5 verses 1-11 is just two long paragraphs and anyone interested in this subject can easily read it.

Do you see a similarity between Mary Magdalene and the couple in Ch. 5? They were wealthy.

What if they both were wealthy because they were both in the same line of work, outlined in the OP?

What if, whereas Mary Magdalene repented wholeheartedly and turned her ill gotten gains toward the salvation of souls, the married couple kept money they had earned, perhaps by the sale of their souls?

Perhaps it implied loyalty toward their former way of life rather than a wholehearted turning away to the faith? What if they had cause to fear their former bosses?

Social welfare was not unheard of in the ancient world.

I only know of two examples but I am not a classical scholar.

Deuteronomy 24:19 instructs farmers to only reap their field once. Any grain which was missed on the first pass was to be left standing for the poor to gather up.

The citizens of Rome were entitled to a grain dole.

It cannot be said that the Lord's mission was to introduce social welfare because it already existed.

a reply to: Solvedit

Christianity and communism are two distinct ideologies with different principles and beliefs.

And although there may be some superficial similarities and intersections in certain aspects regarding the ideologies.

One is a religious belief system centered around the teachings of Jesus Christ, as documented in the Bible.

And the other a socio-political ideology advocating for the collective ownership of the means of production and the absence of social class.

It is also worth considering that in traditional Christian theology, heaven is depicted as a realm where God reigns supreme as king, where angels and saints worship and serve him, aka a monarchy which is not exactly synonymous with communism.

Religion and politics can be like oil and water, meaning mixing the two can be rather problematic at the best of times and generally lead to tears.

Why would Mary Magdalene and the city of Magdala be named after an Old Persian word?

Proto-Indo-European is the basis of almost all the local languages and there might have been older dialects in use.

a reply to: Solvedit

A quick search would seem to suggest that the naming of Mary Magdalene and the city of Magdala is not directly linked to an old Persian word.

Apparently the name "Magdala" is associated with the Aramaic word "migdal," which means "tower" or "fortress."

Mental gymnastics galor.
The answer is YES.
Highly Socialistic at least.

No, early Christianity was NOT Communist, because everything was VOLUNTARY. People sold land & possessions & gave the funds to be distributed amongst those who were in need, but there was NEVER a centralised state authority demanding that people sell their property & give the money to a centralised authority so it could be redistributed. Early Christianity was a charitable endeavour, not a sham statist redistribution of wealth strategy developed by those who hate the rich & want to control the flow of wealth centrally, thereby opening up opportunities for themselves to profit personally, like Judas with his hands in the common purse.

Also, why are you complicating the narrative concerning Mary Magdalene? She was named for the reasons stated in the text surely? And she had demons because her profession opened her up to the abuse of demonic forces. When she met Jesus she was liberated & transformed, becoming a dedicated disciple. I don't see why people have to come up with alternative explanations - let the text speak on its own terms. Demonic possession is a real thing, it's just a fairly uncommon thing, so it isn't much known of today. The profession of psychiatry is well aware that something like five percent of the victims of psychoses are basically oppressed by non-human spiritual entitites, but it isn't much spoken of as they have no way to treat the condition medically. Sometimes these people are fortunate to bump into a prayer warrior or an exorcist, who is able to liberate them from the oppression, thereby curing their apparent 'mental illness'. Rare, but real.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Solvedit

A quick search would seem to suggest that the naming of Mary Magdalene and the city of Magdala is not directly linked to an old Persian word.

Apparently the name "Magdala" is associated with the Aramaic word "migdal," which means "tower" or "fortress."

Why? Because it sounds like "migdal." However, it also sounds like "Magija Dalina" or Magdalina, or the town in which they practice mag-dalinimas, or Magdala.

So you in effect admit your version has the same basis as mine, except mine sounds more like the words being analyzed with etymology.

And why old Persian? They could also have been ethnic minorities raised in a place where the way to save one's soul depended on being devoted to a system that required knowledge of perhaps thousands of observances.

a reply to: Solvedit


What about "Sell everything you have and give the money to the poor."?

a reply to: Solvedit

" Recently a thread appeared in the History subforum about whether the intent of Christianity was communistic. "


Ah , Communism is an Atheistic Belief as in " There is no God " . So.............>/

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
Ah , Communism is an Atheistic Belief as in " There is no God " . So.............>/

From english.katholisch.de:

Pope: Marxists and Christians have a common mission
VATICAN CITY - Pope Francis wants "the courage to step outside the box" and an opening in dialogue for "new paths". Christians as well as socialists, Marxists and communists have a common mission, said the Pontiff, citing practical examples.

originally posted by: TheValeyard
a reply to: Solvedit


What about "Sell everything you have and give the money to the poor."?

The rich young man in Matthew 19 was asking how to obtain eternal life and was told to keep the commandments. So it must be enough.

He wanted more assurance. The Lord may have been counseling him to renounce his possessions because attachment to goods is not spiritually healthy.

Where does it say he had to start a movement to take over society and force everyone to live this way?

In fairness, it also doesn't spell out that they only wanted to provide a safety net for the poor while letting people improve their chances at eternal life, rather than making sure no one ever suffers class envy.


Communists probably wouldn't let the rich young man practice a life of renouncement, spiritual development, and prayer but would make him keep working for the state and the poor after confiscating his goods, assuming he got rich by having some talent or ability which he was able to use to provide a useful service. The point with communists would be that they want to take what he can do for them, not see him become entirely focused on eternal life.