Ruy Lopez

Read from a book by Albert Nolan, a Catholic priest biblical scholar, his own interpretation of the philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth as far possession of money or wealth.

Nolan interprets the harshest and hardest gospel passages for people to accept as a)the renunciation of possession of wealth, b) all material things should be shared according to need (pure communism? if this a correct conception).

Mt 6:24--Mammon and God are two masters. Love one and reject the other.
Lk 6:20--kingdom of the poor; as long as rich, he cannot enter the kingdom.
Mk 10:25--Impossible for the rich man to enter the kingdom; like a camel through eye of the needle.

My questions: Assuming Jesus did say these things and all the other topsy turvy and radical philosophies regarding power, service, social status, forgiveness, etc.

1) Agree or disagree with Nolan? Why?
2) At a time of absolutism, extreme privileges for the elite and ruling class, where did Jesus get all these ideas?
3) Was Jesus merely an impractical idealist and dreamer not to be taken seriously?

Julian

Christians in the very early church came mostly from the very poor, slaves and the uneducated. Combine that with, as you say "absolutism, extreme privileges for the elite and ruling class," and it is not hard to see that a message that tell the followers that all things will be just fine would be the perfect way to garner and keep followers. There is no question that Jesus was speaking to, and on behalf of, the poor and that his ideas were somewhat socialist. But also remember that the most important message of the early movement was about the kingdom of god. This would have been considered more valuable than physical wealth. Your last question is far too complex for me to answer briefly (or even particularly accurately) since there is no way to know for certain. It may also be a false dichotomy. All of what we know about Jesus comes from his followers and your question has been interpreted as such by me since we have no knowledge of a historical Jesus (or even of his existence) and his opinions.

Julian

Ruy Lopez

Thanks for the input Julian. Indeed we do not have historical evidence of Jesus' existence. What we have is a certain coherence of a philosophy all over the four canon gospels. This philosophy seems egalitarian, altruistic and totally selfless. e.g.

--renounce wealth and share possessions
--no end to forgiveness
--power does not mean domination of others but service to all. "Son of man did not come to be served but to serve.
--social status and prestige belongs to Satan's kingdom; in God's kingdom, the first shall be last and the last first.
-- lend without the hope of being paid back
-- the Samaritan example; look beyond Jewish solidarity. compassion for all humankind. etc.. etc..

The Christian Church that evolve into the 2nd to 4th centuries minimized a good deal of this philosophy. Sometime between say, 30 CE and 70-90CE, the above philosophy took shape. It is an outright radical way of living and social order. It came from someone or a group of people who thought the same.

What you are implying Julian, is that "early" Christianity was a reaction to the inequalities of the times. For material things, maybe. How about the other ideas?. John Lennon articulated it in "Imagine" (Imagine no possession; no need for greed or hunger; a brotherhood of man etc..) . Lennon would not be a surprise but during Jesus's time, where did this coherent idealistic social order come from?

I'm not a Plato or Socrates expert, is there a similarity?

Amaleq13

I believe similar concepts can be found expressed in sayings of the Cynic tradition.

Julian

As I see it, christianity seems to take a turn very early on. What seems to be a straightforward philosophical movement defined by the pithy aphorisms (Q, Sayings, etc...) so typical of intellectual movements (cynics, etc...) at that time begins to gain broader appeal. I do not find the support for the poor to be an original idea but spring from the nature of the followers. It is not hard to fathom a bunch of poor people coming up with marxist ideas. I do not believe it was in reaction to the rich but more a reaction from being poor. I think it is clear that the christians had no hope of becoming rich and that they respected the system (render unto Caesar etc...) but that they had a greater reward coming. In the meantime, because they formed a tightknit community, it behoved them to cooperate and support each other. Since they lacked power they only had the options of supporting each other and not be provocateurs.

Besides, some one the tolerant beliefs they espouse were not necessarily all that original. Reading up on the cynics and stoic and other movement we see that none of these ideas were as radical as you might think. I suspect they came about by necessity rather than intellect.

Also, remember that early christian groups did not think alike. What you see in the gospels today represents a very small subsection of what was available back then. So when you say that they "thought alike" you are looking at four gospel which have ben cherry picked from a larger selection, many of which had very different aims.

You can certainly draw a parallel between Lennon and the kingdom of god. Although, Lennon is more of a secular gnostic if that makes any sense. The idea of the kingdom of god also varied from group to group. Some groups thought it was already here, others that it comes later, others again that it could be created within the community through following the nice christian ideas you describe.

Julian

Toto

Early Christians probably did not come from the poor, but they might have come from the marginalized, as Rodney Stark has argued.

I think you will find that most of Jesus' sayings were common Hellenistic Cynic sayings.

Julian

Celsus (the real one, not Joel) says that they were recruiting from the uneducated, the poor, slaves, and lower classes. As far as I recall, Origen does not dispute this.

Julian

Toto

Celsus was denigrating Christians. We know that some Christians were educated and wealthy. Of course, these Christians could have done their recruiting among the poor.

Robert Price is of the opinion that the radical egalitarianism of Jesus' teaching was only meant for the most devout insiders, not the average householder

Julian

Origen confirms that they have both educated and non-educated followers, which is to be expected.
But he does not deny doing exactly what Celsus accuses him of. I also see no reason that Celsus should lie since the truth would be evident to all the readers of the book. There were then, as now, a disproptionately large number of poor so it only stands to reason that most followers would be poor. Contrast that with the more selective (or, possibly, less attractive) philosophical movements, which were frequently poor but generally intelligent and/or educated.
Interesting. Right off the top of my head, that seems very unlikely to me, however, Price is no dummy. Do you remember where he argues this?

Julian

Toto

I think it's in the Incredible Shrinking Son of Man.