Jesus was a communist

[Anonymous]

Vin wrote:

roman wrote:

‘Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.’

I would be interested to know what your take on this qoute is. I see it as a fine religious sentiment with nothing whatsover to do with communism/socialism.

Socialism is not based on charity or philanthropy.  It is the common possession of the means of production. It is a left wing romantic conception of socialism.  Bill Gates donate more money than all us and he is not a communist. There are priests who have bow of poverty 

[Dave B]

iuI am not try to steer anyone away from the prolific Eusebuis for any devious reasons. But you are better off completely ignoring him general as he is notoriously inaccurate and a bit of a buffoon. That is not to say everything he wrote is garbage it is just it often not clear what is and what isn’t etc. As background, it is a long subject. On whether something ever happened or not and Geek myths etc you are better reading Origens Contra Celsum;  as Origen deals with that kind of thing contra to Celsums pagan position eg all the nonsense in Greek biographies of the God’s etc. Of course the same problem occurs with all the gibberish in the old testament. So as Origen said basically (and I read it a couple of years ago so can’t remember all the details of the arguments correctly) when Celsum took the piss out of the old testament for its shit Origen did the pot calling the kettle black thing. It is not straightforward nailing down Celsums position as it is all over the place. He is a straightforward Hellinistic/Roman pagan one moment a materialist ‘atheist’epicurean the next, attacks the old testament and Judaism and by default Christianity by bracketing them together. Then resorts to this Jewish friend of mine says Christianity is crap because of this and that and is just a Jewish theological heresy. Doing a Judaic theological critique of Christianity; I am not talking here about JC’s fornicating mother here which would be Judiac historical critique, Celsum comes across as pretty well read up and a bit of polymath. If it is not just obvious from the text, Origen repeatedly makes not of it. You can see Origen banging his fist on the table as Celsum switches from one position to another. Celsum also makes logical arguments pointing out contradictions between the gospels as people do now. Like why did he fall for the sponge soaked in gall crucifixion trick. Origen,  on the old testament rubbish fell back onto the [platonic] allegorical line. [That was one of several things that got him into trouble later and he was posthumously excommunicated as the old testament material theology moved back towards literal truth which we still have today amongst many modern Christians.] Plato himself had problems with the Greek god stuff because they obviously did shitty stuff and I suppose it had a parallel with the ‘Macionists’ objection to the old testament God. But Plato thought that stories like that were ok if the ‘allegorical message’ or content  in them was true. It he originated the content and form analysis. So to put it in a more modern context the content of Orwell’s 1984 and Animal farm was true even if the form was clearly not. One being set in the future and the other having talking pigs building windmills etc. You can take that or leave it. Another example re Origen and Plato would be Plato’s myth of Err. Plato also invented the thought experiment which is a part of modern science. Which he developed as part of the paradox of theodicy ie why with a good god is there evil etc. That was quite clever as you could see how Plato was attempting to resolve it albeit not totally successfully. I don’t want to go into that too much and it does look mad on the surface of it but part of it involved a kind of Hindu like reincarnation thing, including potentially after ‘death’ choosing to try a second life as a penguin sort of thing. Dabbling with that kind of idea wasn’t part of modern Christian theology either. But I digress a bit. Whilst Celsum was questioning the historical accuracy of the old testament material and Origen was saying it was allegorical and that Hellinistic allegories were just that but shit allegories etc. They were both discussing JC as history albeit different versions of the same story. JC as the low class, less than Leonardo DiCaprio carpenter with his fornicating yarn spinning mother and JC as son of god. I mean Celsum’s position was quite understandably modern really, from just a non class position, why was JC ugly and deformed? He is not like that in the modern Robert Powell films or 5th century art etc. They went mad on a Christian forum I went onto when I raised that and threw me off. There is an interesting clip in Luke about heal thyself which is one of the several out of context stuff and what was that supposed to mean stuff in it. You might think there were loads of them. Origen rolls with that one and was quite ok with it as according to him it was as was prophesised in the old testament Issaiah I think?; dropping the allegorical stuff. The Messiah would be no oil painting, a tenuous interpretation but so what. Although Origen got a bit tetchy over the carpenter accusation for some reason; maybe because he was an intellectual. Although justyn the martry from 140AD provides details of JC making yokes and ploughs. Justyn the martry also has JC being born in a cave/stable that appears elsewhere. Actually that was normal; peasants would often have stables next to the farm carved out of the soft rock and women would birth in the stable because it was not the kind of thing you would do in the house as it might mess up the carpet and furniture. So having been born in a stable/cave is like saying you were not born in a maternity ward and looses its modern Monty python ‘Luxury’ thing.  I mentioned the Apollonius because Adam talked about other similar dingbat stuff circulating around the time and both sets of material have a remarkable set of similarities. Although you have crazy stuff in the gospel material with talking clouds etc it looks positively rational compared to the Apollonius material where there are dragons and satyrs etc and it is really flaky when it comes to geography and historical anachronisms. And is totally laughable compared to the gospel material; we would have had much more fun if that one was the one that ran. I have not read that for a long time but there is easily found stuff on it. Adam mentioned historical data points, from Josephus? , being used to ‘authenticate’ a mythical gospel narrative. That is actually an excellent point, up to a point. It has been observed that the author of Acts, who is supposed to be the author of Luke, was cutting and pasting material from Josephus into Acts at least. It is a bit tenuous as I think there are three cases and it just involves short phrases but linguistic analysis of classical Geek is potentially more informative than what you might expect from clumsy English or even normal Greek.  However there are historical data points and historical data points. They used historical data points to date stuff as they didn’t have a 2016 system. So you would include stuff like that instead of a calendar date and do a 12thyear of the reign of Augustus or th 22ndOlympiad or whatever. It is always a headache for the historians following it but the scientist came to the rescue as we can now track back and accurately date new moons and eclipses are always a nice one to recalibrate it. As it seems to have turned out the historians made a reasonable job of it and don’t seem to have been out by much more than +/- 2 years. I think the Augustus Census and Quirinus census in Luke is, perhaps by another, justan attempt at dating rather than giving authenticity to a fraudulent document.  I used to think all that Plato shit was well shit and I still do really. But I do have this Phd online thesis that I am hacking my way through. I am into them now as I have read some science ones for my chemical analysis shit that I do and some of them are great.  

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

The mentioning of Jesus on Josephus works is an interpolation.( the bible has 2,700 interpolations )  He never mentioned him because he never existed.

There are interpolations in Josephus and the debate is about what and why, Marcos?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_JesusUsing it as proof of non-existence of Jesus is extending the value of the text to unsupportable.It is interesting to try to understand who became Christian in Roman Empire. It is a common belief that it was the poor. But others suggest at one period it was more a middle-class movement of the privileged. The word  Pagan, after all is related to Peasant, and they always being more conservative minded stuck to their old religions. Maybe though it was urban and not rural. I mentioned in an earlier post that despite the seemingly anti-feminist content, it was women, widows in particular, those women with property,  on the whole who converted as the early church provided protection for their wealth.As for christian communism i refer to the many Church Fathers and to the Middle Age rebel movements. St. Ambrose (3rd century): "You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his."Omnia Sunt Communia, comrades

[Young Master Smeet]

Meeks wrote:

The key to the urban Christian strategy was the private household. Not only do we hear several times in Acts of the conversion of some person ‘with all his [or her] household’ (16:15, 31–4; 18:8; cf. 10:1; 11:14; John 4:53), but Paul also recalls baptising households (1 Cor 1:16; cf. 16:15–16), and in his letters he several times expressly mentions ‘the assembly (ekklesia ¯ ) at N’s house’ (1 Cor 16:19; Rom 16:5; Phlm 1; Col 4:15). However, the ‘basic cell’13 of the Christian movement in the cities was not simply the household gathered for prayer. Some groups formed in households headed by non-Christians, like the four named in Romans 16:10, 11, 14, 15, not to mention the familia Caesaris (Phil 4:22). Conversely, not every member of a household always became a Christian when its head did, as the case of the slave Onesimus shows (Phlm 8–21). It was not unusual for a householder of some wealth to become the patron of one of the clubs or guilds that flourished so abundantly in the early Roman empire. Sometimes cultic associations with such patronage incorporated much of the household, as in the famous Dionysiac association founded by Pompeia Agrippinilla in Tusculum (early second century ce).14 In other instances, the patron had no direct connection with the group he assisted, save for the honours that the clients returned for the favours rendered; for example, a number of synagogue inscriptions record benefactions by pagans (cf. Luke 7:5). The formation of the Christian ‘assemblies’ thus followed a familiar pattern.15

Meeks wrote:

The range of social status in the early Christian groups thus seems very nearly to replicate that of the society at large, omitting the two extremes – the Roman aristocracy and the agricultural and mining slaves and the landless peasants. If there is anything peculiar about the social complexion of the Christians, it is precisely the mixing of these varying levels in such intimate communities, though efforts were made in many cases, as we have seen, to maintain a sense of hierarchy within the groups. There is some evidence, moreover, that a mixing of status indicators characterised many of the individuals who were attracted to Christianity – especially those who became its leaders. In the Pauline mission, which is the only circle of the movement for which we have substantial evidence, those individuals prominent enough to be identified either in the letters or in the Acts are typically persons of inconsistent status. That is, they rank high in some indicators of status, such as wealth or prestige within the sect, but low in others, such as servile origins, mercantile sources of their wealth or the fact that they are women.24 More general statements in the early Christian letters and other paraenetic literature give us the impression that a great many of the converts were free traders or artisans, some of whom were reasonably well off, but many of whom could identify with ‘the poor’ – not merely the working poor, Greek penetes ¯ , but the destitute ptochoi ¯ – whose cause is often upheld in early Christian aphorisms and admonitions, as it had been in Jewish wisdom literature.

Meeks, W. (2006). Social and ecclesial life of the earliest Christians. In M. Mitchell & F. Young (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Christianity (Cambridge History of Christianity, pp. 144-174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Osiek wrote:

Tertullian gives quite a bit of detail about the common fund of charity collected in the church of Carthage in his day. A monthly voluntary offering from everyone goes not towards common banquets, as was customary in the burial clubs and trade guilds of the time, but to the feeding and decent burial of the poor, to the support of boys and girls without parents or property (oddly, he does not mention widows), for old domestic slaves presumably abandoned by their owners, for shipwrecked sailors, and for those in prisons or condemned to the mines, or in exile on an island for the sake of their Christian identity (Apol. 39.5–6). Here is a treasure of information about Christian charitable enterprises. We would like to know if those abandoned slaves and shipwrecked sailors were all Christians; probably they were. The common funds of charity were undoubtedly intended for members of the community only, and were in fact one of the attractive things about Christianity. Tertullian goes on to quote the familiar saying about Christians: ‘See how they love one another’ and ‘See how they are ready to die for one another’ (39.7)

Osiek, C. (2006). The self-defining praxis of the developing ecclēsia. In M. Mitchell & F. Young (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Christianity (Cambridge History of Christianity, pp. 274-292). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doesn't sound much like communism, or is just the later degenerated form?

[Dave B]

i I suppose it would be interesting also to see who else was a communist in the Roman empire around JC’s time? The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, by Philostratus, tr. F.C. Conybeare, [1912], at sacred-texts.com CHAPTER III His other discourses he delivered under the trees which grow hard by the cloisters; and in these he dealt with the question of communism, and taught that they ought to support and be supported by one another. While he was doing so on one occasion, sparrows were sitting quite silent upon the trees, but one of them suddenly set to chirping as it flew up, just as if he had some p. 352 p. 353 exhortations to give to his fellows; and the latter, on hearing it, themselves set up a chirping and rose and flew up under the guidance of the one. Now Apollonius went on with his argument, for he knew what it was that made the sparrows take wing, but he did not explain the matter to the multitude who were listening to him; but when they all looked at the birds and some of them in their silliness thought it a miraculous occurrence, Apollonius interrupted his argument and said: "A boy has slipped who was carrying some barley in a bowl, and after carelessly gathering together what was fallen, he has gone off, leaving much of if scattered about it in yonder alley, and this sparrow, witnessing the occurrence has come here to acquaint his fellows with the good luck, and to invite them to come and eat it with him." Most of his audience accordingly ran off to the spot, but Apollonius continued to those who remained with him the discourse he had proposed to himself on the topic of communism; and when they returned talking loudly and full of wonder, he continued thus: "You see how the sparrows care for one another and delight in communism, but we are far from approving of it, nay, should we happen to see anyone sharing his own in common with others, we set him down as a spendthrift and talk about his extravagance and so forth, while as for those who are supported by him, we call them parasites and flatterers. What then is left for us to do, except to shut ourselves up like birds that are being fed up and fattened, and gorge ourselves in the dark until we literally burst with fat?"  http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/aot/laot/laot18.htm There is book by someone discussing this passage which also interprets it as appollonius supporting communism. It is a more interesting synopsis, I will try and find it later. There is an argument in fact that antecedent Pythagoras and Pythagorean communism etc was invented by the neo Pythagoreans who were? There are a lot of similarites  between JC and early Christianity etc with Apollonius. JC did a sparrow thing that is toward the top my list of stupid things he said. You can’t help wondering if it was redacted and was originally closer to the Appollonius version. Communist sparrow stuff also appears elsewhere in the valentian communist stuff I think. There are some more explicit quotations on Christian communism in Tertullian that Roman also picked up in his book. It looks like like there was a bit of a split with early Christian communists with the free love stuff of the Valentinians. But some of the Valentinian stuff probably hostilely quoted, maybe out of context, by the ‘orthodox’ lot looks like hippy communism and might have sat well with Fred’s  The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. And his sex love monogamy?  I am out of time, might come back later?

[Dave B]

i Ahah Found it! Apollonius of Tyana the Nazarene! by Dr. R. W. Bernard (1964)  When Apollonius came to Ephesus, the citizens left their work and followed him, paying homage and applause. The first discourse of Apollonius given at Ephesus was from the porch of the temple of Diana, after the manner of the Stoics, exhorting them to spend their time in study and philosophy (spirituality) and to abandon their dissipations and cruel sports. He also preached on "Community of Goods" (`communism') illustrating his discourse with the parable of the sparrows.* ….While discoursing one day in one of the covered walks of Ephesus, on mutual aid and the advantages of `communism,' it chanced that a number of sparrows were sitting on a tree nearby in perfect silence. Suddenly another sparrow flew up and began chirping, as though it wanted to tell the others something. Whereupon the little fellows all set to chirping also, and flew away from the newcomer. Apollonius's superstitious audience were greatly struck by this conduct of the sparrows, and thought it was an augury of some important matter. But the philosopher continued his sermon, pointing out that the sparrow had invited it's friends to a banquet. Thereupon a boy slipped down a lane nearby and spilt some corn he was carrying in a bowl; then he picked up most of it and went away. The little sparrow, chancing on the scattered grains, immediately flew off to invite his friends to the feast. Most of the crowd then went off at a run to see if it were true; and when they came back shouting and all excited with wonderment, Apollonius spoke as follows:"Ye see what care the sparrows take of one another, and how happy they are to share with all their goods. And yet we men do not approve; nay, if we see a man sharing his goods with other men, we call it wastefulness, extravagance and such names, and dub the men to whom he gives a share, fawners and parasites. What then is left to us except to shut us up at home like fattening birds, and gorge out bellies in the dark until we burst with fat?" …………..  http://www.mountainman.com.au/Apollonius_the_Nazarene_7.htmwill locate the tertullian thing later unless roman wants to do it; I do have it somewhere.

[Dave B]

i The levellers as Whinstanley noted were ‘falsely’ accused of free love etc, which they regarded as calumny. [That also popped up in Tertullian in his distancing himself from ‘orthodox’ early Christian communism from Valentian? ] The argument of the leveller detractors went. You believe in common property. Women are property. Ergo women are shared for sexual gratification. I suppose the idea of women sharing men for sexual gratification was unthinkable. These so called heretical Marcionite/Gnostic early Christians appear much more ‘feminist’ girl power than the orthodox ones and in that sense uniquely radical for the time. The Marcionite/Gnostic catergory is ‘problematic’ as they say as it covers a range of positions. Actually Paul is a much more of a shithouse misogynist when it comes to Burka them up than Mohammed in the Quran. Most of the Islam shit that we think about comes from the Hadith material, which is equivalent to the babblings of ‘our’ post 5thcentury saints; or modern Islam? Prefer the gospel material myself the Quran if boring and repetitive by comparison.      Actually the leveller stuff had been a bit of a myth as well; Karl had not and did not know about the Whinstanley material. Bernstien of all people dug it out around 1890; it was probably very close to being lost as well and that was in the era of the printing press and only 300 years before it. Got more time now and have cancelled a night out too tired.

[Dave B]

i Roman’s short book has no index!!!!!!!!!!!Had to dig it out of my own ‘gospel 5’ ‘favourites’ links  file that is filling up with 300+ so need to start a gospel 6 soon.But it is the Zeitgeist of it ?It looks like a lot of these early Christians were simple commodity producing artisans;Eg Didache considered late first early 2ndcentury and written in non rulling class common greek?The appolonius stuff about flatterers and suckers etc does look like the contra Lucian argument and the freeloader stuff in Didache.An expected problem with this kind of stuff?  there is a tradition of  communist shit with Artisan  re the Proudhonist and the English in the early 19thcentury etc.They often called their income from sales ‘wages’ and that dates back to Cicero who first mentioned wage slavery re artisans.The radical English Artisans in the early 19thcentury called the sale of their product ‘wages’ eg Thompsons making of the English working class.There are problems with this re mutual aid type communism etc etc. Anyway; Chapter XXXIX. …..There is no buying and selling of any sort in the things of God. Though we have our treasure-chest, it is not made up of purchase-money, as of a religion that has its price. On the monthly day,58if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he be able: for there is no compulsion; all is voluntary. [6] These gifts are, as it were, piety's deposit fund. For they are not taken thence and spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts, and eating-houses, but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines, or banished to the islands, or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God's Church, they become the nurslings of their confession. [7] But it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. See, they say, how they love one59another, for themselves are animated by mutual hatred; how they are ready even to die for one another, for they themselves will sooner put to death. [8] And they are wroth with us, too, because we call each other brethren; for no other reason, as I think, than because among themselves names of consanguinity are assumed in mere pretence of affection. But we are your brethren as well, by the law of I our common mother nature, though you are hardly men, because brothers so unkind. [9] At the same time, how much more fittingly they are called and counted brothers who have been led to the knowledge of God as their common Father, who have drunk in one spirit of holiness, who from the same womb of a common ignorance have agonized into the same light of truth! [10] But on this very account, perhaps, we are regarded as having less claim to be held true brothers, that no tragedy makes a noise about our brotherhood, or that the family possessions, which generally destroy brotherhood among you, create fraternal bonds among us. [11] One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives. [12] We give up our community where it is practised alone by others, who not only take possession of the wives of their friends, but most tolerantly also accommodate their friends with theirs, following the example, I believe, of those wise men of ancient times, the Greek Socrates and the Roman Cato, who shared with their friends the wives whom they had married, it seems for the sake of progeny both to themselves and to others; whether in this acting against their partners' wishes, I am not able to say. [13] Why should they have any care over their chastity, when their husbands so readily bestowed it away? O noble example of Attic wisdom, of Roman gravity-the philosopher and the censor playing pimps! …..http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-05.htm#P425_201743

[roman]

Marcos wrote:

The mentioning of Jesus on Josephus works is an interpolation.( the bible has 2,700 interpolations )  He never mentioned him because he never existed.Christianity was a working class movement which existed in Rome. Paul existed and he wrote ( or others wrote for him )  a lot of crap too, and he was not killed because of his beliefs, they killed him becausehe was part of the Herodian family and he was considered a criminal. He was not a Jewish either, he was a  Syrian and a citizen of Rome. He suffered from Syphilis and the medication to treat it was  Opium or Hashi and that is the reason why he had those illusions about the third heaven and his encounter with Jesus. It is all crap too

Josephus mentions Jesus twice, the first one contains interpolation but the whole thing is not an interpolation, (if you take away the interpolated parts it reads exactly how a pharisaic Jew who didn't really care about Jesus would mention him) the second on is in reference to his brother and is not an interpolation.Christianity existed in Rome, and many other places, it wasn't a "working class movement" though, perhaps origionally in galilee and Jerusalem it was, but once it got outside it attracted many different people.He was not part of the Herodian family, and the Herodian family were loved by the Roman government.Jews were all over the roman empire …Source for the Syphilis?Where are you getting this interpolation numbers? And what does that even mean?I dont' know where you're getting any of this but it's completely bunk.

[roman]

Vin wrote:

roman wrote:

‘Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.’

I would be interested to know what your take on this qoute is. I see it as a fine religious sentiment with nothing whatsover to do with communism/socialism.

Luke 3:11 quoting John the Baptist, it's also quoted in some of the Qumran documents, and I think also some early Rabbinic literature.

[alanjjohnstone]

I linked to it on another thread a while back, but i suppose people forget…i did.https://www.gordon.edu/ace/pdf/F&EF09Stark.pdf

Quote:

Did early Christianity also attract lower class converts? Of course. Even when a wealthy household was baptized, the majority would have been servants and slaves, and surely some lower status people found their way to the church on their own. The point is that early Christianity substantially over-recruited the privileged,

 And DaveB forgot this earlier quote

Quote:

‘The Cynic Philosophers; From Diogenes to Julian translated by Robert Dobbin, 2012. On the early Christians; “ added to which, their first law giver taught them that they were all brothers, as soon as they commit the collective crime of repudiating the Greek gods, worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living by his commandments. They despise all worldly goods… and consider them common property….

Dave's emphasis“The use of all things that are found in this world ought to be common to all men. Only the most manifest iniquity makes one say to the other, ‘This belongs to me, that to you’. Hence the origin of contention among men.” – St. Clement.“What thing do you call ‘yours’? What thing are you able to say is yours? From whom have you received it? You speak and act like one who upon an occasion going early to the theatre, and possessing himself without obstacle of the seats destined for the remainder of the public, pretends to oppose their entrance in due time, and to prohibit them seating themselves, arrogating to his own sole use property that is really destined to common use. And it is precisely in this manner act the rich”. – St. Basil the Great.“Therefore if one wishes to make himself the master of every wealth, to possess it and to exclude his brothers even to the third or fourth part (generation), such a wretch is no more a brother but an inhuman tyrant, a cruel barbarian, or rather a ferocious beast of which the mouth is always open to devour for his personal use the food of the other companions.” – St. Gregory. Nic.“Nature furnishes its wealth to all men in common. God beneficently has created all things that their enjoyment be common to all living beings, and that the earth become the common possession of all. It is Nature itself that has given birth to the right of the community, whilst it is only unjust usurpation that has created the right of private poverty.” – St. Ambrose.“The earth of which they are born is common to all, and therefore the fruit that the earth brings forth belongs without distinction to all”. – St. Gregory the Great.“The rich man is a thief”. – St. Chrysostom.

[Dave B]

Celsum said in AD that it was almost exclusively a lower class movenent in order to discredit it. Origen still didn't deny it in 240AD

[roman]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I linked to it on another thread a while back, but i suppose people forget…i did.https://www.gordon.edu/ace/pdf/F&EF09Stark.pdf

Quote:

Did early Christianity also attract lower class converts? Of course. Even when a wealthy household was baptized, the majority would have been servants and slaves, and surely some lower status people found their way to the church on their own. The point is that early Christianity substantially over-recruited the privileged,

 

Rodney Stark is NOT a New Testament scholar, I've read his work, his a good sociologist, but his work on the first couple centuries is just not up to par … it's not due to "tradition" that people say that early Christianity was mostly made up of the poor, it's due to serious scholarship. See John Dominic Crossan and Richard Horsley's work.One of his arguments that Jesus was middle class was that his family traveled to Jerusalem for a festival (in one of the gospels), he doesn't argue for the historicity of that even, nor argue that a poor family would not be able to do that, nor does he bring up the fact that in the story his family coudlnt' afford animals for scrifice (the offered birds). But either way, that story is NOT part of the earliest material most likely to be historical and thus one would have to argue for its historicity. The fact that Jesus is called "rabbi" doesn't mean anything since it wasn't an actual title until AFTER the 70 C.E. where the pharisaic movement became the main Jewish religious sect.It IS true that some wealth people became christians (as seen in pauls letters), but as other actual scholars have pointed out the prophets and traveling teachers required the rich people for financial support, but that's not how you do history, you can't just take a text and accept it at face value, you have to examine it and see how it could fit in different social contexts, and compare it to other texts.In short, be careful when someone who isn't a scholar of early Christianity comes out and says all the actual scholars of early Christianity are wrong.If you look at the Q source without the Matthean and Lukean context, in it's own context, as well as the Markean material in it's oral tradition form (take the individual stories and sayings), it's clear the audience was peasantry.The writings are BY DEFINITION coming from the middle class and up … but that doesn't define the movement as a whole. The fact that Paul includes AS TRADITION, the communist ethic, and then complains about people who aren't working but living off the rich, is exactly what you'd expect when someone from a wealtheir background joins a movement made up of peasants. When you go to the second century you see the same thing, the tradition sounds like it comes from the peasantry where as the writers recording them and framing them are clearly educated and middle to upper class.

[alanjjohnstone]

I accept your caveat but he is also not a complete novice to be totally dismissed.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Stark

[roman]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I accept your caveat but he is also not a complete novice to be totally dismissed.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Stark

Absolutely, there are non scholars of Early Christianity that do great work … however, in Rodneys case, at least what I've read, he's not really studied the scholarship .. which is why he says things like it's "tradition" that says that the early CHristians were primarily peasants/workers … if he read the scholarship on it he'd know it's documented and argued to death … saying it's "tradition" ignores the scholarship and then he goes on to just quote texts without doing property exegesis, historical analysis or cultural analysis.

[Author]

Posts