[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[Krimel]

John,
I think it would be crystal clear to an unbiased reader that the practices
of the church discussed in Acts are to communism as the figs that fell from
their communal figs tree are to gravity. Jesus consistently sides with the
poor and down trodden against the wealth and powerful. The communist slogan,
"From each according to his ability to each according to his need," sounds
like something out of Luke. But it is tough stuff for many to swallow and
you get lots of Sunday school white washing like some of which you bring up
below. Once that whitewash gets on you it is difficult to scrub away. But
let me take two of your critiques as examples.

> [Krimel]
> Jesus' advising the young rich man to sell all he owns and 
> give it to the poor etc.

[John]
Now there's a clear case of examining one's real priorities, rather than
specific advice on economic matters.  The guy shouldn't have bragged about
how good he was at keeping the law, and he'd have gotten an easier-to-follow
directive.

[Krimel]
The disciples ask Jesus about what the frickin' deal with that was. He tells
them flat out, "Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to
enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the
eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. And
they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can
be saved?"

It isn't self righteousness that's the problem it is wealth.

This passage is also problematic for Christians from its very beginning when
the young man asks, 

"Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" 
And Jesus said unto him, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but
one, that is, God."

Jesus seems to clearly deny of his own divinity. He does it again later when
he asks his disciplines, "Who do men say that I am." Check out the
differences in that story between the version in Mark and the latter retell
in Matthew.

The other example is this:

[John]
I'd point out one important passage that obviates your point, just a bit.
It was the place where Judas complained about the cost of the anointing oils
and said the money would have been better spent feeding the poor and the
master replied, "the poor you have with you always."

Seems a bit cold this actual Jesus, compared to the modern super- loving
Jesus that is preached everywhere.

[Krimel]
Yes it is a puzzlement. I won't pretend to unravel it either, other than to
point out that the gospel writers were constructing their story as a
fulfillment of prophecy. The ceremonial anointing was done for the King of
Israel. Samuel anoints Saul and David. So on a purely symbolic level it
connects Jesus to the line of David and the Kingly aspect of the messiah. 

On a more down to earth level it suggests that there were actually people
among the Jews, who saw Jesus as "The King of the Jews". It wasn't just
among the Jews either Pilate had a sign to that effect posted near the
cross. In this view Jesus was a political revolutionary. 

Social progressive, Communist, political revolutionary, terrorist,
bodhisattva, sage, I can spell out cases people have made for all of the
above and more. As Schweitzer pointed out there are as many versions of the
historical Jesus as there are 1st century historians. But what I take from
it, bottom line, is the text is not what I think it is but it sure isn't
what the whitewashed versions says it is either. And it damn sure doesn't
mean what Glenn Beck says it means.

It's a puzzlement, like I said.