I'm going to have fun in this class

[2bLikeJesus]

Day one of classes was today at my college, and boy did it start out with a bang!  The biggest bang coming from my Economy 201 Micro-economics (institution/firm or family economics) professor.  The professor started lecture by giving us our term paper subjects or people to write about, due at the end of the term.  He started listing major influential economists of history going back to ancient times, and those still alive today that we could base our thesis on.  Then he made a profound statement (that instantly decided my choice) that I think would be fun to discuss in this forum.  He asked "who was the most famous socialist", after getting various answers ranging from Karl Marx, to even Barrack Obama he stated, "no you are all wrong.  The most famous progressive socialist was Jesus Christ".  Wow...This is going to be fun...and I thought you all might like to join in on the fun.  Please, intellectual discussion and pointing out of scriptures and principles in God's word only.  THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ON CHURCH FINANCES OR ECONOMY, (please note: SFIC and don't take over this thread).

Bro. Garry

I will participate as well in this with thoughts, scriptures, and principles shown in God's word.

[No Nicolaitans]

Did he elaborate on why he considers the Lord Jesus Christ to be a socialist?

 

The Bible makes it pretty clear that God takes care of his children; whereas, the government uses its "children" to take care of the government in socialism.

The Bible also makes it pretty clear that God will reward his children for the work that they do; whereas, the government is rewarded by the work its "children" do in socialism.

The Bible also makes it pretty clear that not all of God's children will be rewarded the same for their work; whereas, the government treats its "children" the same regardless of their work in socialism.

The Bible also makes it pretty clear that the least will be greatest and the greatest will be least; whereas, the government is the greatest and its "children" are the least (and treated the same) in socialism.

 

At least, that's the supposed goal of Socialism. Everyone is treated the same, receives the same benefits, and enjoys the same rewards. It doesn't work, but the government likes it!

 

So what did the Lord Jesus Christ do that this professor deemed socialistic?

I know!

He offered himself as a sacrifice for everyone's sin. Everyone is the same...everyone is on common ground...everyone is a sinner in need of salvation.

 

Sorry Bro. Garry...probably not what you were looking for.

 

Edited September 29, 2015 by No Nicolaitans

[John81]

Did he elaborate on why he considers the Lord Jesus Christ to be a socialist?

 

The Bible makes it pretty clear that God takes care of his children; whereas, the government uses its "children" to take care of the government in socialism.

The Bible also makes it pretty clear that God will reward his children for the work that they do; whereas, the government is rewarded by the work its "children" do in socialism.

The Bible also makes it pretty clear that not all of God's children will be rewarded the same for their work; whereas, the government treats its "children" the same regardless of their work in socialism.

The Bible also makes it pretty clear that the least will be greatest and the greatest will be least; whereas, the government is the greatest and its "children" are the least (and treated the same) in socialism.

 

At least, that's the supposed goal of Socialism. Everyone is treated the same, receives the same benefits, and enjoys the same rewards. It doesn't work, but the government likes it!

 

So what did the Lord Jesus Christ do that this professor deemed socialistic?

I know!

He offered himself as a sacrifice for everyone's sin. Everyone is the same...everyone is on common ground...everyone is a sinner in need of salvation.

 

Sorry Bro. Garry...probably not what you were looking for.

 

Typically socialist-liberals take the words Jesus spoke to individuals as a mandate for government. Jesus said we (individuals) are to care for the poor and needy which the liberals declare to be a clear command for socialist government programs to redistribute wealth in the name of caring for the poor.

They also point to the Christians in Acts which "had everything common" as being an example of socialism/communism. Ignored is the fact these early Christians were living as family, not communists, and they were caring for one another as Christian family not by force of government.

These and other factors flood the internet and schools and most often go unchallenged and is becoming more accepted as fact by the unknowing.

[282Mikado]

Two of the most obvious scripture references I see that refutes the socialism view are:

1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

Most every time I hear the "Jesus was socialist" argument it usually stems from Acts 4:32. Of course if you read this carefully and in context you can easily see that this was not a directive from Jesus, nor was it even a mandate from the church leaders. It just explains how these people happened to do things at this time. Chapter 5 then tells of some of the problems that stemmed from this socialistic approach.

[Alimantado]

If He had a beard then He was a socialist. Simples.

[2bLikeJesus]

The parable of the talents in Matthew 25 certainly doesn't sound very much like socialism to me.  

Also the 10 commandments state 

Exodus 20:15 (KJV)
¹⁵  Thou shalt not steal. 

Note the period after the word steal.  This commandment does not read "Thou shalt not steal, unless the other guy has more than you do", or "You shalt not steal unless you are absolutely positive you can spend it better than the person who earned it".  It also doesn't mean "Thou shalt not steal, but it is okay to hire someone else, like a politician, to do it for you.

Then in the 10th commandment God eliminates the primary motive for stealing in the first place.

Exodus 20:17 (KJV)
¹⁷  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. 

God basically says, if it isn't yours keep your fingers off of it.
 

[No Nicolaitans]

Typically socialist-liberals take the words Jesus spoke to individuals as a mandate for government. Jesus said we (individuals) are to care for the poor and needy which the liberals declare to be a clear command for socialist government programs to redistribute wealth in the name of caring for the poor.

They also point to the Christians in Acts which "had everything common" as being an example of socialism/communism. Ignored is the fact these early Christians were living as family, not communists, and they were caring for one another as Christian family not by force of government.

These and other factors flood the internet and schools and most often go unchallenged and is becoming more accepted as fact by the unknowing.

That's why I asked if the professor said why he believed Christ was a socialist. Did he elaborate, or was it just a blanket statement given as "truth"...and now people from the class will parrot that Christ was a socialist; thereby, continuing to perpetuate the lie...

[OLD fashioned preacher]

Even with Ananias and Sapphira you find Peter making it clear that their property was THEIRS -- they didn't have to sell it, if they sold it they didn't have to give it all. He said in Acts 5:4 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.  This statement to Ananias has to be considered before the one to Sapphira of Act 5:8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

They apparently stated that they would give (x) amount and didn't. Sort of like when @ a meeting when preacher say they (and/or the church) will give (x) amount to (name the cause) and the harsh reality being 50% or less shows up. How many churches would be looking for pastors if the Lord killed off the liars?

[Standing Firm In Christ]

I'm not convinced that Ananias and Sapphira did promise to give "x" amount.  Look at the context...

Acts 4:32-37 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

What must be considered here?

That there was a multitude that believed.
Of those that believed that own houses and land, the houses and land was sold.
And the price was laid at the Apostle's feet.

Those that believed who had land laid the price at the Apostle's feet.  Ananias and Sapphira are not among those that believed.  We can see this, because those that believed and had land and houses to sell, laid the price at the feet of the Apostles. 

But a certain man named Ananias, with Saphira his wife,...

I believe they were not of the multitude that believed.  But sawsomething going on amongst the Beleivers and wanted to act as if they were of that multitude.

[2bLikeJesus]

He did not qualify the statement, but since this is a "debate participation" class every Friday, I guarantee you I will corner him on it.

[282Mikado]

I'm not convinced that Ananias and Sapphira did promise to give "x" amount.  Look at the context...

Acts 4:32-37 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

I believe they were not of the multitude that believed.  But sawsomething going on amongst the Beleivers and wanted to act as if they were of that multitude.

Regardless, what they gave and how much they actually gave was all by individual choice. Nowhere is it mandated that a Christian must give all they have to the community chest.

Another interesting reference is:

Acts 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. 

The word used for weak here is astheneo which means feeble, diseased, impotent or sick. It is not socialism to care for these types of people, it is common decency. Notice, we are ALL to labor for those who cannot labor due to some circumstance beyond their control. Not those who won't labor. Taking care of those who are capable of taking care of themselves is clearly against all scripture.  

[Ukulelemike]

What the first church in Jerusalem did was a matter on need in the immediate context. 3,000 had just been saved, many of them from other nations, and now they were staying in Jerusalem to learn. So a whole bunch of people with nothing needed to be cared for. Thus, the believers who could help, did so. This was not to be the permanent arrangement, however, in that Jesus had told them they would be witnesses in all the earth-so the intention was for them to learn, then move about and spread the gospel all over. So it was for then. Many others like to point to the first church and say THIS is how we should be living now, it was the arrangement the Lord intended, but in spreading out, we somehow lost something. No, the spread was commanded, such that, because they initially didn't, the Lord sent a persecution against them in Jerusalem to cause them to flee, and thus, the word was spread.

[Christian Markle]

Suggestion when dealing with claims about Christ: Stick (or at least start) with what Christ actually said (think: not everyone sees revelation the way we do). One may demonstrate that Christ validated the OT or commissioned the NT (ie Hebrews 1:1-2), but if Jesus was a socialist then his actual words will reveal this. If Jesus was not a socialist then his words will reveal this. Of course Jesus context (both immediate cultural context as well his spiritual context matters) and can be use and this opens us to using the whole Bible, but your audience needs to see how you got to Exodus or 1 Thessalonians when the topic was the person of Christ. Does that make sense?

[2bLikeJesus]

There is also a huge difference between voluntarily providing the needs a of person or group of persons, and socialism which is forced contribution with no option to opt out.  

[Standing Firm In Christ]

There is also a huge difference between voluntarily providing the needs a of person or group of persons, and socialism which is forced contribution with no option to opt out.  

Then, by that definition of "socialism", Jesus was indeed a socialist.