Reince Priebus was complaining on Fox about Democratic Socialists and said that they were the wrong kind of radicals:
Sorry, he doesn’t get the credit he deserves, but you know, the most offensive thing that’s going on now with these guys and and and Nixon in Florida and El Sayed, you know, they’re they’re they’re trying to equate themselves to Jesus. They’re calling themselves radicals, you know, Jesus was a radical. I’m a radical, you know; using the same word doesn’t make them equivalent.
…
The irony is Christ was a socialist, but perhaps Supply Side Jesus is not.
Christ was not a socialist, as the concept of socialism wouldn’t be described or understood for like 2000 years after he was born. Why do people try to assign modern philosophies to people who predate them by hundreds of years.
What are you talking about? It’s not like they didn’t have money, credit, debt, markets, etc.
Enough of the features of capitalism to have an opinion about it.
Because it helps to contextualize certain concepts and ideas for modern people? Like I’m pretty sure the Minoans, Egyptians, and Hallstatt didn’t call themselves that yet we apply it to them regardless. Or as a more direct comparison it’s rather easy to call the Confederates fascist since it broadly aligns with the political spectrum we now call fascism.
Acts 4:32
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
Matthew 25:31, starting from 37
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’”
I think you need to read your Bible, Jesusaurus.
This right here is the good stuff
People used to fly around all over the place before gravity was invented in 1687.
Gravity is a physical reality but socialism is a philosophy. A human invention.
Christ might have had ideas in common with modern socialism, but he also had ideas in common with a lot of other modern philosophies too.
The point is, he simply cannot have been a socialist, because socialism as a concept didn’t exist and we can’t ask him now if he would agree with the label.
Socialism isn’t just “doing stuff for people” and I don’t think Jesus opined a lot on the ownership of the means of production or the inherent value of labour
I am shocked that someone with Jesus in their user name would struggle with synthesizing information regarding religion.
Shocked.
Also, if you don’t think he had an issue with capitalist exploitation, read the part about the money changers again.
Because the concepts that created the philosophy of socialism did not exist… Right
Perhaps it would be more apt to say “Jesus’s actions align with socialism” but that’s just a long form way of saying that Jesus was a socialist. Just because the term didn’t exist back then doesn’t mean that he wasn’t a socialist.
Ada Lovelace is regarded as the first ever programmer, and she lived about 150 years before the first computers were invented.
People were doing math well before math was documented and defined.
Dinosaurs weren’t called dinosaurs until humans named them that, but they were always dinosaurs.
Using modern terms to label history is just a simpler way to discuss historical events and people.
Jesus wasn’t anything by that standard.
Well, he was a carpenter. And I heard he threw some awesome parties (just…trust me when I say, BYOB. And snacks)
he wasn’t even real, relax.
There’s little reason to believe a historical Jesus didn’t exist. There were any number of such Messianic preachers wandering around ancient Palestine at the time. The general consensus among historians is that Jesus did exist as a real historical person.
Considering there is literally not a single contemporary text about Jesus… I doubt that.
I mean, that kind of doesn’t matter to the point I’m making? And also he was real. Probably not the immortal son of god, but real