Jesus: The First Communist

"Jesus in my belief was in fact the son of Caesar and Cleopatra…Caesarion…… "

This is close but I think Julius Caesar was a very popular general and helped the regular folk of the Roman Empire against the corrupt elites. He was pretty popular but got killed in a coup. And the early Christian religion was based on a guy named Jesus but by the time it was taken over by Rome they made him into more of Caesar like figure. There had been rumors that Julius son Caesarian had lived although I think that was false, romans emperors all had motive to kill that kid. But rumors were he was a live and would some day come to finis hwhat his dad started and stop the corruption. In the bible this is what Jesus was doing in Jerusalem, speaking out against the corruption of the Pharisees.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TheJourney

Question: Human nature being what it is, how do you propose people achieve a "true" communist system?

Please enlighten us.

True communism is probably impossible just as free markets are impossible.

Even if you could establish a true communist system you're going to run into the problem that people just aren't going to work as hard is they don't get any extra reward from it.

I've come to accept that the premises behind communism are too radically different for people in our society to really accept. This is why I've embraced something like left libertarianism as more within the realm of possibilities of what we can work towards in the not too distant future. So, now let's say we don't accept the premise of absolute equality, due to the decreased motivation that may happen. I would then suggest a gradient of potential income, where the lowest possible income level anyone could be is middle or lower-middle class, up to being rich, but not at all to the degree that some currently are.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

There is no abundant life under communist rule and the elites are not going to bring prosperity with no matter how much the Utopians keep trying to tell us.

Yeah. Except that you talk about Socialism now.

Communism is not the same, there is actually no need for an elite in a really communist society. Read the articles in my first post and you'll see what I'm talking about.
The communist ideal is a roadmap to a form of anarchy (without anomy) but with an emancipated and independent citizenry, not a dictatorship.

Yes, the most pure form of communism is anarchistic imo, and there is certainly no room for an 'elite class,' which is completely antithetical to what communism is.

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

There is no abundant life under communist rule and the elites are not going to bring prosperity with no matter how much the Utopians keep trying to tell us.

Yeah. Except that you talk about Socialism now.

Communism is not the same, there is actually no need for an elite in a really communist society. Read the articles in my first post and you'll see what I'm talking about.
The communist ideal is a roadmap to a form of anarchy (without anomy) but with an emancipated and independent citizenry, not a dictatorship.

Yes, the most pure form of communism is anarchistic imo, and there is certainly no room for an 'elite class,' which is completely antithetical to what communism is.

Lenin came up with the concept of "vanguard party" because the working class was too stupid they didn't have class consciousness so they wouldn't rise up. They needed a vanguard party to do it for them, aka Bolsheviks, and then supposedly the vanguard party once they achieved socialism would hand over power to the working class out of the niceness in their hearts. No one realized this was BS? Well Trotsky did albeit too late and he got an ice pick to the brain for his troubles.

a reply to: HorusChrist

No one realized this was BS?

You know...

Rich people giving up their possessions to be allowed into the Kingdom of Heaven, where everyone is equal in the eyes of God, or one King is a little a bit on the commie side of political POV. Hell if Jesus was alive and real today, I could picture him being labeled as an "Adversary"(Satan) to Capitalist interests.

But then again Politics and the Holy Spirit, really never mixed. I mean how many Kingdoms died slowly because of that, or were lucky enough to be smoughten(or Flatten) by Satan in an instant.

Hell, do the Cubans help more people by allowing them into their country, to receive medical attention and their beautiful beaches? Guess which country in Heaven these days even though they live in steel shacks.

The irony of those nails in that cross.

a reply to: TheJourney

It depends on the scale you're using to describe middle class. The bottom 10% in the US are poor relative to the US and most other developed nations but they have a very nice lifestyle compared to the people in Haiti who still don't have their homes rebuilt or the refugee's from Syria that are living in camps.

Remember, you can't put everyone in the middle, someone has to be on the top and someone has to be on the bottom. You can shorten or lengthen the gaps between the two but there will always be a gap. Even if everyone lives on equal means with equal lifestyles the services some people provide are going to be better than the services others provide and that will create a gap. People who know how to get it will enjoy better food, better service, and so on.

a reply to: windword

Remember too they were all JEWS not one Gentile. this was an Israel thing and it didn't go beyond it except that the Gentiles would send gifts for the poor brethren in Jerusalem who sold their possessions and had things in common before every thing ran out.

Also they were not forced to give up or sell anything. it was all voluntary.

The death of that couple was for LYING to the Holy Ghost

a reply to: BubbaJoe

Bubba,

Not one pastor ruled any church organization in the first century.

churches were led by a group usually three Elders that the rest in that city appointed.

A Pastor usually taught today it is all messed up. Pastors of the head of the church not Christ and elders are subordinate to the pastor.

No pastor was to make a living off the church.

only one verse tells them to communicate in all good things to him that teacheth.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

So what if they were Jews? Peter was, supposedly, a "Christian" promoting the teachings of Jesus Christ. The fact that this story teaches that God is willing to strike someone dead for not giving everything they own to the church has nothing to do with "Jewishness".

a reply to: kaylaluv

You wrote: QUOTE "Jews were a very exclusive group - they didn't just accept everybody. Jesus was just the opposite. "

This is not entirely true - that is if you read Matthew chapter 15 closely - where a SyroPhonecian woman (gentile) comes to 'ho Iesous' for help with a bleeder daemon and is basically given short schrift by the good Rebbe because she was not an Israelite

'Lady, the Bar Enasha ('son of man') was sent ONLY to the Elect of the Lost Sheep of the House of Yisro'el, and anyway since when is it right to take the children's bread out of their mouths and throw it away on the dogs under the table///"

Where the term 'Dogs' was a common 1st century Palestinian Aramaic word for 'gentiles' e.g. in the dead sea scrolls for example ('dogs gentiles and other unclean animals...')

So it is clear from the Greek words placed into the mouth of ho Iesous in texts like these that R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean ("Jesus") had NO mission to the goyim (=gentiles) but only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Yisro'el...

See also texts such as: Matthew 10:5 = "The Twelve ho Iesous sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. "

Calling a Syro-phonecian gentile woman a 'dog' is akin to modern English-speaking people calling someone a 'co ckroach' (excuse the spelling) - so it would seem that the good Rebbe played favourites after all....

originally posted by: Sigismundus
a reply to: kaylaluv

You wrote: QUOTE "Jews were a very exclusive group - they didn't just accept everybody. Jesus was just the opposite. "

This is not entirely true - that is if you read Matthew chapter 15 closely - where a SyroPhonecian woman (gentile) comes to 'ho Iesous' for help with a bleeder daemon and is basically given short schrift by the good Rebbe because she was not an Israelite

'Lady, the Bar Enasha ('son of man') was sent ONLY to the Elect of the Lost Sheep of the House of Yisro'el, and anyway since when is it right to take the children's bread out of their mouths and throw it away on the dogs under the table///"

Where the term 'Dogs' was a common 1st century Palestinian Aramaic word for 'gentiles' e.g. in the dead sea scrolls for example ('dogs gentiles and other unclean animals...')

So it is clear from the Greek words placed into the mouth of ho Iesous in texts like these that R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean ("Jesus") had NO mission to the goyim (=gentiles) but only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Yisro'el...

See also texts such as: Matthew 10:5 = "The Twelve ho Iesous sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. "

Calling a Syro-phonecian gentile woman a 'dog' is akin to modern English-speaking people calling someone a 'co ckroach' (excuse the spelling) - so it would seem that the good Rebbe played favourites after all....

Jesus also said basically 'don't talk to me about your claims to being a Jew, for God can make a jew out of a stone.' You can go back and forth on this and many other issues depending on what verses you want to focus on.

a reply to: windword
you still don't get it do you.

Peter preached the Gospel of the Kingdom so did Jesus and the other 11 disciples

Part of the kingdom was its expectation of its king to rule. they sold their stuff because they thought their King was returning directly. It didn't happen and by acts 5:5 the first Death of a kingdom disciple (see Genesis 5:5), many were still practicing communion living.

Paul who taught the Gospel of the Grace of God, never taught that the body of Christ was to have all things in common nor did he encourage it and then bring the value of it to lay at the disciples feet.

So what you ask?

Thing that are different are not the same. They were kingdom Christians not Grace Christians like what we had today. They later accepted to live by grace through faith. Even at the time of Paul over 500 of the Kingdom brethren were still alive but there was no longer a common purse for all. They went back to work and ate their own bread.

Rules to study the bible you violate are 1) type of literature, 2) figures of speech, 3) who, 4) what, 5) where, 6) when, 7) why, 8) which, 9)how, 10) comparing scripture(spiritual) with scripture (with spiritual) and one must have and let the Holy Ghost to teach them the Bible, 11) things that are different are not the same and 12) Rightly divide the word of Truth.

Any other type of study without these rules will not result in truth but in contradiction, confusion and false teaching.

The type of Christian Peter was is not the same as today that is another misnomer of many who claim to understand Christianity and the Bible.

a reply to: Sigismundus
Jesus said to her it was not fit to give the food of the children (Israel) to the Dogs. she was a female what term would you call a female dog? You got it. But he said it politely though because God would not use vulgar speech.

He accepted people and does but as he said his ministry was to the lost house/tribes of Israel.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Peter preached the Gospel of the Kingdom so did Jesus and the other 11 disciples

So, Jesus was just one of the 12, preaching the same old same old?

Rules to study the bible you violate are.........

What a bunch of garbage! Words are words! The story clearly teaches that not giving all of your money to the church is cause for God to strike you dead!

And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

And there it is, the purpose of the story.........to promote fear.

a reply to: windword

my point is you fail to follow the deductive rules of studying any text not just the Bible and as such you come to the wrong conclusions.

you have a bible program you search the three Gospels in quotations.

First Gospel: "Gospel of the kingdom" only found in the Gospel ministry to Israel and being preached up until Acts 10 where the words of Peter are cut short. This gospel was preparing Israel for the Kingdom Rule of Christ . Didn't happen but will in the future (God postpones his plan for the Kingdom).

Second Gospel: "the Gospel of the Grace of God" Paul is called to take the Gospel of the Grace of God to the Gentiles and all men Jews and Gentiles get saved during this times the same by faith through the grace of God. this iwll go on until God resumes his plan with Israel.

Third Gospel: "The Everlasting Gospel": Preached from the heavens by an angel. This gospel is presented to all men at the end of the Seven year tribulation. Up until that the end of the Tribulation presentation of the Everlasting Gospel the Kingdom Gospel that Christ is Israels king will be in affect and all teaching of Christ will resume i.e. such as having all things in common.

Following correct studying rules of literature and Rightly dividing the word of truth will go a long way. But without the Holy Ghost to teach you you will not come to any conclusion of truth.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

my point is you fail to follow the deductive rules of studying any text not just the Bible and as such you come to the wrong conclusions.

What you fail to deduce is that, in reality, you have place telling me that my conclusions are wrong. I can read and comprehend just fine, thank you. All your dancing about isn't going the change the fact that I'm also capable of "critical thinking".

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ChesterJohn

And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

And there it is, the purpose of the story.........to promote fear.

Just because people become fearful does not mean that was the purpose. In not studying correctly and not having the Holy Ghost to teach your conclusion is in error. You left out the contextual verse and made a pretextual error, it is what we call deductive study by eliminating the context and entering your pretextual idea in this case "that God wanted the church to fear him" was the reason for his death.

here the reason for it and it is stated clearly in the text when studied correctly

Acts 5:1-5
Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost:

and his wife

Ac 5:7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. 8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. 9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

the purpose was not fear but that no one should try and think that lying to God is a good thing, and rightfully so, fear of God should be had and held by all Christians. the conclusion was they wanted kudo's for giving all when they had not. They wanted praise like Barnabas but without the truthful sacrifice they were claiming.

That is why the church today is in such disarray "No Fear of God".

Just like you don't fear him. But I would not expect you to understand that but only fear it.

a reply to: windword

there is comprehension then there is pretextual conclusions that you are comprehending into a text by not clearly understanding the context. So in that case you comprehension may not be a clear as you think.

Try not coming to the book with a CRITICAL mind but a pure heart wanting to know truth. Not one trying to prove something or God wrong to others but that you may know the truth of God without prejudice.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Context and comprehension are not the problem. The problem is with your dancing around with smoke and mirrors trying to tell me that the actual words don't mean what they say.

The fact of the matter is, the lesson the story conveys is that people should fear God's wrath for not donating ALL their money to the church. There's no amount of flim flam, silver tongued gibber jabber that you can throw out to me that going to get you around that FACT!