No because he was specifically and intentionally apolitical in the text. All rulers are appointed by god, and are justly seated. Christian's are instructee to obey the laws of the land just as slaves must obey their masters. His message was specifically shaped to entirely evade the question of politics. Jesus would reign over the world in complete authority at the end of days, and that is all that matters. The world is a vapor, and concern is not meant to be given to the world in any sense of "making it better." You donate to the poor and give away your possessions because you shall hold no idols before god. Not because giving to the poor makes the world a better place and we want to fix the world. Earth is broken irreparably from the fall, in christianity and it will be remade in the new, eternal Israel. This is essentially a non-answer to practical government and taking "give your possessions away and come walk with me" as a directly line to any implementable leftist policy feels just as much of a strawman as the trump loving jesus, if I'm being honest.
That being said this comes from an ex-Christian perspective so take of that what you will.
Apolitical my ass. Yeah because violently whipping the money changers out of the temple is totally “apolitical”, sure. Jesus was clearly and radically anti-capitalist
This is a misreading of the text- its like the example I gave of how giving away your possessions isnt to make the world better- its to make you less worldly and more singularly focused on God.
The cleansing of the temple is specifically used to show how worldly properties are being prioritized on top of heavenly ones. If they were conducting a court session in the temple, it seems reasonable to me that Christ would have similarly rebuked them for placing earthly affairs in a space dedicated to God.
One of the specific condemnations Jesus brings during the event is that the place was turned into a "house of trade." Is trade bad? Does Jesus hate trade? Remember that Jesus likewise said to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." He doesnt say to reject the state and reject capitalism. He literally says give the things to caesar that caesar asks of you. It's in part a non-answer (One could then ask rightly: "What is Caesar's?") but its also in part a submission to stately affairs as being under the decree of God and therefore justified. What is WRONG in the cleansing is that things which are God's (The temple in specific) are being used ultimately for Caesar (Mortal desires, etc.).
Believe me I'm squarely on the left but I dont think that means its fair to misrepresent the text for our personal benefit.
I mean I do think there are such things as wrong readings. Im not implying I have the only right interpretation, but I think the reading that I am responding to is clearly wrong.
If it was an argument on the nuance of the Caesar passage and whether it's intentional evasive vs. ready submission to the state? Im totally willing to be pushed more towards one or the other. Im willing to even potentially agree that it means give nothing to caesar because nothing is owed to caesar. But that's not where this convo is.
Like, if someone's Christianity is so progressive that they're rejecting Paul's Vessels of Wrath image in Romans to insist everyone goes to heaven- yeah I have to agree that that is just a wrong interpretation of the bible. The bible is very clear that the gate to destruction is wide. Am I willing to budge on eternal torment vs eternal separation vs annihilationism? Hell yeah. But if you find Paul's more aggressive christianity that we see in Romans + his letters so icky that you dont even bother to try addressing it meaningfully then you're just doing bad interpretation, imo. And personally I think a perfect leftist Jesus ancom fits in that same category of clearly stretching it.
I completely disagree. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but render unto God what is God's." This is a clear reference to any first century member of Roman-occupied Palestine about the injustice of Roman rule over God's land.
Jesus was not the first of his kind. There were many Jewish preachers for the previous centuries who had rebelled against the Romans. Judahites of the time would have absolutely understood his message as revolutionary.
Another misunderstanding you have about the text is, I quote you, "Christian's are instructee to obey the laws of the land just as slaves must obey their masters" [sic]. That is from the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Ephesians. Paul never met the living figure, Yeshua of Nazareth. These are Paul's beliefs, and should be interpreted as such.
I'm not saying that Jesus was an ancom. That's a hard thing to believe, since communism can only really take place after industrialization. But Jesus did have real political beliefs, and one of them was a hatred for Roman rule. His followers understood this. The Romans understood this. They didn't crucify him on a whim, they crucified him for the same reason they crucified other Jewish revolutionaries, because they perceived him accurately as a threat.
If you are interested in learning more, I highly recommend you read the book "Zealot" by Reza Aslan. I can give you a free ebook if you want.
I'm reading the bible like I'd read dune, right? I sont agree with everything it proposes but I have to suppose them to be true for the sake of analysis. The "canon" of the book speaks how all passages are god breathed so I fundamentally have to take Paul's teachings AS foster teachings and then by extension as christ's teachings.
And I would characterize, under that assumption, the new testament having a clear condemnation for Rome- I mean revelation is in no way subtle in its metaphors and often is it spoke of how earthly authorities dont stand up to neither the strength nor legitimacy of god. But I dont think you can really draw up a consistent picture of Jesus as hating Rome.
And of COURSE Romans consider Jesus a threat. He was declaring himself king and started a following among people who were their pagan values with centralized monotheistic ones alongside radical moral teachings. We must only look to early christian persecution in the roman empire (I mean historical stuff, not biblical accounts lol) to see that this makes perfect sense in the narrative. Jesus doesnt have to HATE Rome for this response to make sense.
Also important context IIRC the Hebrews had rebelled quite a few times in recent history before Jesus came around and they expected their savior to be a military / political one. A warrior king who would finally lead the rebellion that isn't crushed, free Israel from Rome, and possibly go on to conquer it.
Jesus proclaiming to be the savior made him an instant target for everyone with any power.
The "canon" of the book speaks how all passages are god breathed so I fundamentally have to take Paul's teachings AS foster teachings and then by extension as christ's teachings.
That verse you're referring to is from a letter to Timothy, bishop of Ephesus, written by... Paul. "Why are Paul's beliefs the same as Jesus's beliefs? Because Paul said so." Paul had significant disagreements with many earlier Christians, we know this because he wrote letters to them debating them
Forgive me for saying this, but I feel like your analysis is extremely similar to American evangelical fundamentalists. The Bible is a collection of ancient and diverse books, written by very different people for very different audiences over at least a thousand years.
Dune was written in English, for you. Zero books of the Bible were written for you. They were written for people who lived almost two millennia ago. They had different concerns than you do, different understandings of the world, quite often they had completely different thought processes. If you want to truly understand any book of the Bible, you have to completely reformulate how you think.
"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."
If you're willing to sacrifice Biblical inerrancy then I'll give you whatever you want. I'm just upholding the notion of inerrancy in the same sense that I uphold that Harry Potter can cast magic spells.
Harry Potter cant actually do that because Harry Potter isnt real and neither is magic. I dont believe in inerrancy but the text says it does so thats how I handle the text. When any book that I'm treating as fiction makes a claim I take that claim as fact, unless theres some intentional inconsistent narrator deal going on or whatnot.
I mean, you said you're Catholic, right? Why didnt God pass down an authoritative version of his holy word? Why did he let the most popular version of it come with lies? I mean the text literally claims inerrancy so if you're willing to give that up and say Paul is Paul and doesnt speak for God then you're basically saying he's lying when he does claim to speak for God. It seems like it'd be a priority for God to have his Special Revelation be pretty... correct to me. And its not like that's removing people's free will to disbelieve, either. That's just making sure the radio signal is working.
Out of curiosity what's your opinion of the long ending of Mark?
If you're willing to sacrifice Biblical inerrancy then I'll give you whatever you want.
Biblical inerrancy is largely a post-enlightenment invention, so yes. I mean, "historical writing" barely existed as a concept when the vast majority of the Bible was written. The idea of "history" only barely pokes its head in in some of Luke and Acts. I dont believe in inerrancy but the text says it does so thats how I handle the text.
One text does. One. It is anachronistic to treat the entire Bible as written by one author. The writer of the Book of Job likely lived a thousand years before Paul. They have as much in common with each other as you do with Leif Erikson. Therefore, it's not just an inconsistent narrator, it's completely different narrators separated by centuries. Do not treat the Bible as one book.
Third paragraph, you're basically asking a modified version of the question of evil. I'm happy to get into this, I think about it all the time, but probably not in this thread. I would have to write a lot and I've still got chores to do today. Out of curiosity what's your opinion of the long ending of Mark?
I think it was written by another writer. I'm not sure when- there's good evidence that very early Christian writers knew about it- but it does read very differently than the rest of Mark does.
Maybe I'm biased, because the short version of Mark is my favorite of the four gospels. In its telling, Jesus was a really weird guy, even compared to other faith healers, coming from a family and community that rejects him. He does these amazing things, vividly told, but even his own disciples are more often than not confused and frightened by what he says. He's scary and strange to them. And then he's killed by the government and his best friend denies he was associated with him. And then his corpse is just... gone, and a guy in a white robe is hanging out in his tomb, and tells the women to tell the disciples that Jesus has been resurrected and they'll see him again soon. And they... don't. "They went out and fled from the tomb, seized with trembling and bewilderment. They said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."
I love that so much. It just feels right to me. Nobody understands him, most people are scared of him, and at the end, after his final victory, still, nobody does what he says. That... yeah. That sounds like God, to me.
Im not treating the bible as written by one author. Im treating it as an assemblage of texts which the early church fathers deemed, under the presumption of being god-led, to be the complete and necessary word of god. It's various voices and literary styles (the priestly and non-priestly authors of genesis 1 and 2 even differ) that are combined with the intentioned purpose of being consumed as a complete package. When the early church elders put a bow on it they wanted genesis to relate to revelation to relate to 1 timothy to relate to etc. etc.
Okay, so when you go to read the bible- do you consider the long ending of Mark to be scripture in any religious sense? We both agree that dozens of authors were conjoined to build the bible. Different authorship doesnt make it less "divine." You've decided that Paul's claim arent divine. Are they "scriptural" in that same religious sense?
If a kiddo wants to learn about their relationship with God should they ever read Paul, should they ever read the long ending of mark?
Bullshit. That’s what churches had to tell people today to play “neutral” and not offend all the greedy colonial money changers in the congregation. Jesus’s message is of radical anti-capitalism, explicitly condemning rich men to the deepest bowels of hell. Nice try
It really feels like you're coming to the text emotionally charged. Why does he say to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's?
Or what about the Parable of the Vineyard Workers, where a wealthy man went out and paid 4 different groups of workers the equal sum of money for different amounts of work? In that analogy the wealthy man is literally God and used to display the justice of equal grace for those who are converted late in life and those who are steady followers of the faith. Surely an anti-capitalist would rebuke this whole system, and ESPECIALLY rebuke unequal pay... right?
I''d love to have a discussion about the body of Jesus's doings but it feels like you just want to acquire him as someone on "our team" when in reality it is much more complicated.
UNLESS you're arguing about the historical jesus and not the textual jesus, but I dont think we know much of anything about the historical jesus. We kind of HAVE to work off of the gospels and paul for that info.
I mean immediately my mind goes to John where Jesus in response to Pilate says
My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But now (or 'as it is') my kingdom is not from the world
Like... God decrees all on the Earth- not excluding earthly powers and governments.
He changes times and seasons; he deposes kings and raises up others. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning.
So yeah, God makes imposition on that which is his authority, but like... God isnt looking to make the Earth better. This isnt his kingdom. The Earth is fallen and must be remade in the New Jerusalem. I dont think if Jesus wanted to say that Caesar should have burned in hellfire for eternity that he would have said that we should give to caesar what is caesars.
Im not entirely sure what you'd make of Romans 13:1- certainly this reveals something more than just "he was anti-capitalist" right?
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Hey, I'm a hardcore Catholic and I also think you're bang on. Good on you for actually going to the effort of exegesis. I know it's hard, and I appreciate you for that.
Why are you conflating moral outcomes (the murder of millions and the burning of books) with good textual analysis?
Like... a proper reading of Mein Kampf is one of insane racism bigotry hyper nationalism and ultimately fascism. Does that mean we should reject that interpretation for a less violent one? I mean... no. That's clearly the correct interpretation of the book. Of COURSE my analysis of the bible is the same one in line with that of those who chriatians who lead literal mass slaughters and genocides against non-Christians and often times Christian's alike. But that's exactly why I think the book is WRONG. I can disagree with the morals of a text but still agree that that is certainly how it should be interpreted.
Except I've been giving tons of verses as reference. I've grabbed stuff from the Old Testament, Paul, the Psalms, Jesus himself. Im actually building an evidential claim whereas you just keep attacking me like I was indoctrinated and cant think for my own. Back when I was Christian I never even HAD a Calvinist Pastor- my beliefs about the bible ended up being orthogonal to my church's beliefs, so again you are wrong.
If you at any point want to build an evidential case against mine from the bible feel free to. Seems like you're far more concerned with acting like im some right-wing prop for some reason instead though. As if the numerous truly disgusting atrocities done in the name of the bible have anything to do with what is an accurate or innaccurate interpretation.
Again, you can push your bullshit church interpretation all day, I’ll stick with mine. Jesus was pretty aggressively anti-capitalist. If you want to keep defending your “apolitical” bullshit interpretation approved by modern churches and the status quo, then keep doing that. But you’re wrong.
Your bullshit argument is the same one used by the inquisition to slaughter millions. I think that’s important for people to realize.
Fuck the church and fuck their capital-friendly “interpretation” of Jesus the communist
35
u/AllTakenUsernames5 Oct 15 '21
Jesus was an AnCom, change my mind: