The Jesus that was written about might have been a "socialist" (insofar as one can apply modern political labels to historical figures), but I can't help but feel that a lot was left out of the texts.
Early christianity was an apocalyptical death cult. They didn't write anything down for decades, because they literally thought the world was going to end within the lifetime of the original followers of Jesus.
They only started writing when it became clear this whole apocalypse business was more of a long term thing, and by that time the teachings had probably adapted to material reality quite a bit.
Like giving away all your wealth and living in poverty being presented as the ethical choice seems hyperbolic, if noble, but it makes sense to mean this literally if you believe the world will end within the year. And this is something that made it into the texts. I wonder what kind of stuff didn't.
Arguably, Jesus wasn't a socialist and his teachings about wealth aren't all that cool when you put context around it. Jesus was a Jewish Apocalypticist. He thought that in the imminent future, the Jewish God would strike down the powerful and the oppressors i.e. the Romans and establish His Kingdom on earth. In light of that, Jesus talked about sharing among each other and not hoarding wealth because why would you do that if wealth is irrelevant in God's kingdom. Of course the apocalypse never came so Christians have to twist Jesus' words into something that sounds timeless but somehow not about sharing wealth.
Yeah. Being nice to the less fortunate is a tenet of most major religions. Your religion isn't getting big if it doesn't have a bit of populism in it.
Jesus repeatedly spoke against trying to fundamentally change political and economical structures. If he was a socialist he was a leftcom of some sort.
I mean, I sort of agree with chud Evangelicals when they say Jesus didn't have an overtly political message. He was talking to his followers, talking to them specifically about sharing shit with each other and MAYBE taking care of the poor people of their in-group. All in preparation of a coming apocalytic event. Even these things are a small part of his message. Tbh I don't really see Jesus' sayings to have much value, either politically, socially, or religiously.
Yeah, there isn't really a single shared canonical bible between denominations. I've never bothered to look that closely, but you could probably learn a lot about the different christian offshoots just by looking carefully at what they value when constructing their foundational text, and specifically looking at what they discard.
Exactly this. The vast majority of debate over which books belonged to the canon took place in the first 300-400 years of Christianity. The foundational text for 99.5% of all denominations today is the 66-book collection known to everyone on earth as The Bible(TM). Yeah, the catholics readded some books in between due to their specific theology, but the idea that sects just shave off entire books they don't like on the reg is ridiculous.
The Jesus that was written about might have been a "socialist" (insofar as one can apply modern political labels to historical figures), but I can't help but feel that a lot was left out of the texts. Early christianity was an apocalyptical death cult. They didn't write anything down for decades, because they literally thought the world was going to end within the lifetime of the original followers of Jesus.
They only started writing when it became clear this whole apocalypse business was more of a long term thing, and by that time the teachings had probably adapted to material reality quite a bit.
Like giving away all your wealth and living in poverty being presented as the ethical choice seems hyperbolic, if noble, but it makes sense to mean this literally if you believe the world will end within the year. And this is something that made it into the texts. I wonder what kind of stuff didn't.
Arguably, Jesus wasn't a socialist and his teachings about wealth aren't all that cool when you put context around it. Jesus was a Jewish Apocalypticist. He thought that in the imminent future, the Jewish God would strike down the powerful and the oppressors i.e. the Romans and establish His Kingdom on earth. In light of that, Jesus talked about sharing among each other and not hoarding wealth because why would you do that if wealth is irrelevant in God's kingdom. Of course the apocalypse never came so Christians have to twist Jesus' words into something that sounds timeless but somehow not about sharing wealth.
Yeah. Being nice to the less fortunate is a tenet of most major religions. Your religion isn't getting big if it doesn't have a bit of populism in it.
Jesus repeatedly spoke against trying to fundamentally change political and economical structures. If he was a socialist he was a leftcom of some sort.
I mean, I sort of agree with chud Evangelicals when they say Jesus didn't have an overtly political message. He was talking to his followers, talking to them specifically about sharing shit with each other and MAYBE taking care of the poor people of their in-group. All in preparation of a coming apocalytic event. Even these things are a small part of his message. Tbh I don't really see Jesus' sayings to have much value, either politically, socially, or religiously.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yeah, there isn't really a single shared canonical bible between denominations. I've never bothered to look that closely, but you could probably learn a lot about the different christian offshoots just by looking carefully at what they value when constructing their foundational text, and specifically looking at what they discard.
deleted by creator
That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about, discarding things they disagreed with.
Again, exactly what I mean.
Except, I would assume, catholics, who are themselves the largest group? Unless you mean they take it as scripture, and then some other stuff, too.
I'm not saying they don't share most of the text, all I'm saying is that the texts don't match exactly, and there isn't one single canon.
All of this isn't even getting into the issue of translations.
deleted by creator
Exactly this. The vast majority of debate over which books belonged to the canon took place in the first 300-400 years of Christianity. The foundational text for 99.5% of all denominations today is the 66-book collection known to everyone on earth as The Bible(TM). Yeah, the catholics readded some books in between due to their specific theology, but the idea that sects just shave off entire books they don't like on the reg is ridiculous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulcinians
-The fall of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and return of the Church to its original ideals of humility and poverty;
-The fall of the feudal system;
-Human liberation from any restraint, and from entrenched power;
-Creation of a new egalitarian society based on mutual aid and respect, holding property in common and respecting gender equality.