For those that are not feeling the Bern, what does the following describe?

 

Acts, Chapter 2

37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

 

and

 

Acts chapter 4

30By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.

31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

32 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.

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34 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,

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

36 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,

 

and, the penalty for not acting as described above, Acts Chapter 5

1But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

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.

5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

Neither. Socialism is forced and anti freedom. What is described here is choice of an individual.

 

Every liberal or socialist could do what is described here today. But I notice by your posting you haven't sold your computer or your smart phone.

That's easy... it's neither.

Its true , Jesus was a socialist , I saw it on a tee shirt . Fact .

As has been stated, it is neither. It is an incredible example of generosity among the first Christians. Luke is not waxing eloquent regarding any particular economic theory.

 

But this example does not fit the definition of socialism.

 

As the example in Acts 5:1-11 demonstrates, giving is a free act at the choice of the giver, not coerced or imposed by the community. Ananias and Sapphira feigned giving all the proceeds from a sale of land to appear as generous as Barnabas (Acts 4:32-37). The sin in their action is that they claimed to be giving all when they held back some of the proceeds. Peter makes the point in v. 4 of Acts 5 that they had the prerogative to sell or not to sell the land because they were the ones who owned it. And after the sale, they could have decided to give it all or keep some of it. Their choice, not the choice of the community.

 

Acts 5:4 "Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

 

The control of the sale and the control of what to give was entirely in the sellers hand. That is not socialism. What they got in trouble for was the hypocrisy of presenting it as if they had given it all. Insincerity and lying was not tolerated at this juncture of the newborn Church and was punished.

 

Thankfully, not all insincerity is dealt with so swiftly and severely.

Striking a husband and wife down for not giving all of their proceeds does not sound like a "choice of the giver" and fits my idea of coerced exactly. Give or die. I am not convinced your interpretation is correct, especially given the other passages preceding it, which you did not address.

They were allowed to give any amount or no amount. I do take into account the entire passage you quoted. I focused on the verse that demonstrates this example does not fit the definition of socialism. They were not allowed to get away with lying. The giving was not coerced. And it wasn't any human who imposed the judgment.

 

This passage is descriptive of the love and generosity that existed in the Church. It is not a prescription advocating for a particular economic system. Trying to make it say so is forcing an outside agenda on the text.

Striking a husband and wife down for not giving all of their proceeds does not sound like a "choice of the giver" and fits my idea of coerced exactly. Give or die. I am not convinced your interpretation is correct, especially given the other passages preceding it, which you did not address.

 

You failed to highlight Peter's rebuke in Chapter 5, verse 3. I'll help.

 

" But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land?"

 

He was rebuked not for failing to give all he had, but in defrauding the community and telling them that what he had laid at the feet of the apostles was the entirety of the proceeds. He lied, openly, to the entire community.

 

If you're trying to suggest that communal living -- which is still practiced in many Christian communities, especially those of Catholic religious orders -- is somehow mandated by God for all mankind, I think you're stretching.

Jesus was a white European male. Clearly a capitalist.

 

More evidence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heFkmvxZytY

But seriously...

 

Mankind was justified through Christ by grace. That treasure is for all. Elements of socialism? Sure.

But seriously...

 

Mankind was justified through Christ by grace. That treasure is for all. Elements of socialism? Sure.

 

I agree. I like this post.

I do find it interesting that republicans will rebuke socialism even though there are some elements of socialism in the works of Jesus. We all know republicans love and know Jesus better than any atheist liberal ever has so the irony in that always makes me chuckle.

Except socialism and communal living aren't the same.

I do find it interesting that republicans will rebuke socialism even though there are some elements of socialism in the works of Jesus. We all know republicans love and know Jesus better than any atheist liberal ever has so the irony in that always makes me chuckle.

 

socialism and generosity are not the same, by a long shot. Jesus did not advocate for socialism.

 

I don't think being a Republican means one knows Jesus better than an atheist but I would generalize that a Christian "knows Jesus better than any atheist liberal" by definition.

 

The issue here is that a sacred text is being used to do a "gotcha" on Christians to try to say they don't follow their own sacred book because if they did they would all be socialists. In the process, the text is twisted to say something that is consistent with this agenda. Although it has been said that the Bible can be made to say almost anything, I do not hold to that idea. I do think that the Bible has been used illegitimately to say "almost anything." But this is an abuse of the text and does not follow simple rules of interpretation, including such things that are used in reading and understanding any text.

 

Many places in the Bible also seem to assume some elements of capitalism are legitimate and to be adhered to. That doesn't mean a particular form of capitalism or all motives and practices of capitalists are consistent with Biblical ethics any more so than the motives and practices of socialists. The problem arises as we try to read our own agenda back into the text. This is what is being done in this thread. I am merely pointing this out. No, the texts in the OP do not teach socialism.

 

I don't think this sort of thing, the attempted "gotcha", is a commendable way to go about a dialogue on political or economic issues.

 

BTW, who equates "Republicans" with "Christians"? That is a mistake!

Here is what Catholics believe. I'll just provide the link rather than trying to explain it myself.

 

Catholic Social Teaching

 

Definitions:

 

Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

Social teaching - (from the link) - Its roots are in the Hebrew prophets who announced God's special love for the poor and called God's people to a covenant of love and justice. It is a teaching founded on the life and words of Jesus Christ, who came "to bring glad tidings to the poor . . . liberty to captives . . . recovery of sight to the blind"(Lk 4:18-19), and who identified himself with "the least of these," the hungry and the stranger (cf. Mt 25:45).

 

They are not the same thing.