The Jesus of the Bible was a communist. If you aren't a communist, then you are anti-Christ.

a reply to: ltrz2025

Your OP here mate is a prime example of someone taking the Bible just a Bit to literal.

God only knows the harm that Biblical misinterpretations have caused over the millennia .

a reply to: ltrz2025

I'm not a christian.

But you seem very adept at telling others about things you do not even claim to understand.

When you have a little talk with Jesus, come back and we can have a serious conversation about what He said and meant. Until then, why don't you tell me all about the culture surrounding law enforcement on Alpha Centauri, too? You know just as much about it as you can about Christianity.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Jesus practiced charity, not communism. Charity is when one loves their fellow man more than they love their money.

I'll answer you because, although you tried to go into some sort of personal questioning/judgement against me (which is irrelevant here), you did write a long post and would not be fair to not address it. I'll simply share what I shared in my OP:


“Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.” (Acts 4: 32–35)


This was not "charity", which is simply giving what you can spare. Jesus and his community was literally selling everything they owned to share it with others, which corresponds to Matthew 19:21. This is the way Jesus and his followers lived. Why would Jesus, that is God, live and preach different things? You are trying to deny him by claiming that it was about "charity". Think it through, or don't, your choice.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ltrz2025

I'm not a christian.

But you seem very adept at telling others about things you do not even claim to understand. When you have a little talk with Jesus, come back and we can have a serious conversation about what He said and meant. Until then, why don't you tell me all about the culture surrounding law enforcement on Alpha Centauri, too? You know just as much about it as you can about Christianity.

The fact that I'm not a Christian doesn't mean I don't understand the Bible, all the contrary, I've looked at it objectively and for over 4 decades. In fact, if you read my OP, all I practically did was simply transcribe what the Bible says. No idea about Alpha Centauri, sorry for that.

Best.

a reply to: ltrz2025

Ok. Accepted. Have you now sold all your stuff? I mean, you said it.

At what point did Jesus tell Simon Peter to sell his house and the house of his formerly sick mother in law? When Cornelius as a gentile came to faith, at what point did Peter tell him to sell his house, release all his slaves and servants, and sell everything he had?

originally posted by: ltrz2025
a reply to: TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Jesus practiced charity, not communism. Charity is when one loves their fellow man more than they love their money.

I'll answer you because, although you tried to go into some sort of personal questioning/judgement against me (which is irrelevant here), you did write a long post and would not be fair to address it. I'll simply share what I shared in my OP:


“Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.” (Acts 4: 32–35)


This was not "charity", which is simply giving what you can spare. Jesus and his community was literally selling everything they owned to share it with others, which corresponds to Matthew 19:21. This is the way Jesus and his followers lived. Why would Jesus, that is God, live and preach different things? You are trying to deny him by claiming that it was about "charity". Think it through, or don't, your choice.

Best.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
a reply to: ltrz2025
Your OP here mate is a prime example of someone taking the bible just a Bit to literal.

Simply addressing this due to how funny it is. So, if we are not supposed to take the Bible's laws literally, which are QUITE clear.... on whose "interpretation" should we rely on? Yours?....

a reply to: ltrz2025

Then there was that episode where Martha used a costly oil to wash Jesus's feet and Judas who managed the money for the Apostles chastised her because she could have sold it and used the money for so much good instead of using it to wash feet. But Jesus rebuked Judas.

Judas was certainly on your side in this debate. He was right. Martha could have sold it and raised money to help poor people. Instead, she used to wash Jesus's feet, an expensive luxury. If Jesus lived as you say, then He should have been on Judas's side in all of this.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Again, I'm not a Christian. Although I agree with many things regarding Jesus' doctrine (not all), I consider it all too narrow and atomized. Sort of like spirituality for dummies Vol. 1.

a reply to: ltrz2025

Many of the posters here did a good job explaining how the thought of the OP is erroneous. But I would like to add this.

Jesus told us to pray for God's kingdom to come. A kingdom is a government that has a king. The king of God's kingdom government is Jesus. He was the king designate while on earth, coming in the line of David he had the legal right to the throne. And since 1914 C. E. he has been ruling on David's throne, as Jehovah's installed king in heaven.

His kingdom will soon come to earth to take possession of the earth that rightly belongs to him as his possession, an inheritance from his Father, Jehovah God. And he will rule over the earth as king for 1,000 years, undoing the disaster human rule has caused. Communism included.

a reply to: ltrz2025

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Vatican the richest country in the world (for it's size) ?
Also, the pope is a freemason with ties to the 'elite' wealthiest of the world.
And, how about letting people live their lives and get of their backs expecting them to 'give up their assets' , because 'communism'.
No! That's just plain greed and selfish laziness, expecting handouts from others.
Oh , and nobody is stopping you from donating all your assets to the richest country in the world , or your local mega church

originally posted by: ltrz2025

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Finally, the Bible says we have to follow the rule of man just as we do for the lord.

Finally, the Bible says we have to follow the rule of man just as we do for the lord.
Exactly. The United States of America is NOT a Christian nation. It's a secular nation. But, if Jesus were "King", we'd be Communist.

This makes no sense. Does the US constitution forces you to have property and live in a capitalistic way? No, it doesn't, it's your own choice. You could live like a "communist" and it would be totally legal in the US. Or is it "illegal" to sell all your property and give the money to the needy?... In fact, there is people living like that in the US and all over the world.

Maybe tell that to the 1%ers who hoard more than 60% of the worlds wealth, instead of a struggling 99%er!
so sick of these double standard hypocrits

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: MykeNukem

You could follow him without doing that according to that verse, but you wouldn't be considered perfect.

Who's perfect?

That statement wasn't to the masses either. It was to one rich man looking for what was missing in his peace with God, so he asks Jesus what else is it that he needs to do. This was a direct reply to the problem of one man, but the OP is trying to suggest it was a overarching proclaim by Jesus.

I agree with ya completely, bro.

I was pointing out to the OP that even if we disregard context, the verse still doesn't say what he thinks it does.

a reply to: ancientlight

I would suggest that most of those 1%ers are in fact working very, very hard against Christianity. They want to be seen as gods walking among us.

originally posted by: ancientlight
a reply to: ltrz2025
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Vatican the richest country in the world (for it's size) ?
Also, the pope is a freemason with ties to the 'elite' wealthiest of the world.

Indeed. What you note here has clearly been one of the main criticisms against the Catholic church for ages, and it was also one of the center arguments for most of the Christian divisions and schisms. If you look deep into the Catholic church's rituals, you'll see that it is simply the refurbished Egyptian tradition of worshiping a King-Priest (that is, the Pope, or the Pharaoh), it rarely followed any of Jesus' commandments. I.E., Jesus says to love your enemies, this Church went on many crusades (holy wars) and burning people for almost a millennia.

a reply to: ketsuko

The closest you can get to what Jesus preached would be to go into a communal agreement with other Christians and voluntary agree to have and own everything in common. Many early Christian congregations did this, but it wasn't communist because they were not compelled to do it. They chose it of their own free will.

True... they lived in perfect harmony. And families today practice a similar kind of communism. No little child has to work or go hungry... they are provided for by their parents, who willingly sacrifice to give their children the things they need. The children do chores to help their parents out. Sometimes (used to be the norm), one parent pays the bills while the other maintains the home. A few families even take it to some degree beyond the normal time span, with children sacrificing for their parents when the parents get old and decrepit.

But that is all based on love, not on "equality" or "equity" or some other damned ideological philosophical nonsense. It works because of that. However, the larger the "communal group" becomes, the more apt one of the members will not love everyone else in the group... and forcing people into the commune simply multiplies that dynamic exponentially.

The sad truth is that most people really do not understand what it is they are promoting when they promote communism. They think it is some sort of Utopia where everyone else pays for them or where they will be in control of everyone else. It's not; it's simply a way for the elite, ruling class to exert as much power as possible as fast as possible over everyone else. Only the elite come out "on top," and that is both temporary and relative... the richest elite under communism have less than the average people in capitalism. They just have power over others, and that is what money promises.

One need only look at the very first chapter of the very first book in the Bible to see how that is a problem:

Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Everything... dominion over everything... all spelled out in excruciating detail, except one thing that is left out: each other. And that is what communism seeks in the end: control over each other. Control we were never given.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: MykeNukem

a reply to ltrz2025
"1. Jesus required a communist way of life for those seeking Christian salvation.

2. Jesus condemned wealth and property."

1. No, he didn't.

2. He condemned the LOVE of wealth and property, not wealth and property.

Not sure what it is you're trying to accomplish with this, but you failed.

It's just Satan talking out his butt again. When I saw the title of this thread, I knew who it would be that posted it. Matter of fact, your comment Myke, is the last one I'm reading. I'm not going to read any further so that I can just ignore Satan's response. Sometimes I wonder why I care so much, but we have to try and reach every last lost soul.

originally posted by: MykeNukem

I agree with ya completely, bro.

I was pointing out to the OP that even if we disregard context, the verse still doesn't say what he thinks it does.

It seems the OP invented the definition of the passage and then walked away. Typical of one that does a logic loop drive by and when their fallacy is pointed out they disappear. The funny part is I'm not even religious and I can see through it all.

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind

originally posted by: MykeNukem

a reply to ltrz2025
"1. Jesus required a communist way of life for those seeking Christian salvation.

2. Jesus condemned wealth and property."

1. No, he didn't.

2. He condemned the LOVE of wealth and property, not wealth and property.

Not sure what it is you're trying to accomplish with this, but you failed.

It's just Satan talking out his butt again. When I saw the title of this thread, I knew who it would be that posted it. Matter of fact, your comment Myke, is the last one I'm reading. I'm not going to read any further so that I can just ignore Satan's response. Sometimes I wonder why I care so much, but we have to try and reach every last lost soul.

Good call, you didn't miss anything worthwhile.

Pearls before swine.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: MykeNukem

I agree with ya completely, bro.

I was pointing out to the OP that even if we disregard context, the verse still doesn't say what he thinks it does.

It seems the OP invented the definition of the passage and then walked away. Typical of one that does a logic loop drive by and when their fallacy is pointed out they disappear. The funny part is I'm not even religious and I can see through it all.

That's because you're honest to yourself and believe in truth and reason.

I respect that, Christian or not.

Isa 1:18  Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD

originally posted by: ketsuko

I would suggest that most of those 1%ers are in fact working very, very hard against Christianity. They want to be seen as gods walking among us.

I think people focus too much on them, and you are not talking the 1% as that would be 350k to 850k (NY) annual wage, you are also not even talking .1% as that would be about 3 million annual wages. When we go to top .01%ers it is a range from 4 million to 16 million annual income based on the state, so still not that God level. I think once you get into the top 400 people out of 330 million, we are talking an overall wealth of 2.7 billion to get into that elite group and even then, when we look at 3 billion divided by 330 million it is 9 bucks a person. What this means is what makes one-person super rich is a beer and hotdog to the masses.

I have said many times that the super-rich might as well live on Mars as to how much direct influence they have on anyone of us on a personal level. We will have our careers, work for 40+ years, retire all without the super-rich really playing into any of that one way or another. I see most of this talk go down the path of envy when I read people talking about the evil rich and what they just do not do that someone thinks they should do. What I like to also ask is when was the last time anyone that talks about what the evil rich don't do actually invited a homeless person into their house to get them off the street, just helping one person... 4 million average level people in LA cannot find housing and care for 60,000 homeless when we are talking 15 to 20 households just take care of one extra person...Doesn't happen either, but boy people can bitch about the super-rich not feeding the masses.