7 ms·

Christianity was always for the poor (2024)

fithisux 2y ago
Like it politico-economical incarnation, the communism (because its ideology was an ad-hoc smear campaign against Christianity, a tree that decides to saw of its roots).
ivape 2y ago
Important to note that Christianity also spread amongst the poor/common/persecuted folk first. It wasn't really spread initially by any power structure or crusade. And Christ straight up kicking out business from the church (as in he flipped their tables over, literally): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple
- pzmarzly 2y ago
  Also, it was spread BY the poor. Early Christians happily donated away all their wealth, thinking the Christ will come and bring an end to the Roman empire any day now. There is a theory that this was a critical factor in how fast the early Christianity spread across the Roman Empire - that these newly-bankrupted believers had no choice but to travel and try recruit new members to the Church, in a Ponzi-scheme-like fashion (except nobody was cashing out).
- goatlover 2y ago
  The Jewish Temple wasn't a church. Animals were sold there for people who couldn't bring animals with them to sacrifice on that Jewish holiday when they made pilgrimage to Jerusalem. There was plenty of disagreements between Jewish sects. We get the early Christianized perspective on some of the disagreements the Jesus movement had with the Pharisees and Sadducees, who also didn't agree with one another. Paul wasn't poor. He was an educated Pharisee who could write Greek, like Philo or Josephus. Some of the communities he wrote to like the one in Rome probably weren't poor either. But the Jesus movement led by James the Just and Peter after his death probably was, if the Ebionites were their 2nd-4th century descendants.
- elcritch 2y ago
  It’s interesting to use crusade in that fashion. The origins of the Christian crusades were to help free lands with still largely Christian populations from Muslim conquerors. It wasn’t to spread Christianity. Now the crusade’s definitely went awry and became an excuse for Venetians and others to take land and power. Especially by the fourth crusade and sacking of Constantinople, etc.
  - jowea 2y ago
    Depends which crusades. The Baltic Crusades definitively were to spread Christianity.
  - sorokod 2y ago
    Southern France was largely Christian yet Albigensian Crusade was a thing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
- anon291 2y ago
  It's still left wing coded in many non Christian areas. For example, India. It came as a surprise for my parents that Christianity is right wing in America, but all American political parties are part of the global left in general.
  - slater 2y ago
    all American political parties are part of the global left in general The Republican Party is very much not part of the "global left". By global standards, they're far right. And the dems are centrist, not left.
    - anon291 2y ago
      Yes it is. Saying you shouldn't educate the lower classes or not educate girls would be met with huge resistance from most Republicans, whereas that is a common enough sentiment in many areas. People who fought for that are considered left wing. America is a fundamentally leftist nation. The social issues American political parties fight over are not applicable in most parts of the world. In most parts of the world left wing political movements (communists) hold the same social lines as the GOP. From a property perspective, America never had to deal with land redistribution because America never had a feudal system that required it. This property rights make sense in America in a way they didnt in feudal systems. For example the communist party of Kerala enacted major land reform to redistribute land, but now that the land is redistributed, ownership carries on as normal. America had the opportunity to skip the first step. Americans have no idea how good they have it
      - dibujaron 2y ago
        This is an interesting perspective, thank you for sharing. We often hear that (compared with Europe, I suppose) America's two parties are relatively far right. Interesting to see the opposite opinion.
        jowea 2y ago
        I think people saying that are comparing them to their favourite European social democracy yes.
- m463 2y ago
  We need an adblocker like that. Every poor person's phone and browser is turning into a cash register for thieves and merchants.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Christianity also spread amongst the poor/common/persecuted folk first Modern Christianity is probably closer to what Justinian codified [1] (to when the first Bibles date [2]) than earlier traditions. (Not an expert.) [1] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Justinian-I/Ecclesiastical-policy https://www.britannica.com/biography/Justinian-I/Ecclesiasti... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
exceptione 2y ago
[flagged]
- ivape 2y ago
  [flagged]
- exceptione 2y ago
  I rather see people engaging than giving lazy down votes btw. If these facts are inconvenient, try to choose a better way to handle them.
  - dang 2y ago
    Users (correctly) flagged your GP comment because it broke the site guidelines, including these: "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity." "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
    - exceptione 2y ago
      I am baffled by this moderation. It could be that it is my English which leads to misunderstandings. I mentioned some facts, - namely that there are lots of denominations, sects, and currents that do not just place some minor debatable emphasis here or there, but where the teachings are directly in confrontation with those of Jesus (in the words of the scriptures). Disagree? - namely that this phenomenon is especially large in the USA. This could (I phrased that more cautious than historians and theologians do) be a consequence of the "expelling/migration" of religious leaders gather their own following around highly, lets call it neutral, unorthodox teachings. That would explain a culture where all kinds of religious belief systems that are rather straying far from what Christianity consider the core of their beliefs, including a large proliferation of sects compared to Europe. - Project 2025 is sponsored and written by organizations of which we have evidence of being not aligned to democracy and some important human rights. I do not have the recordings at hand, but I might assume people are informed enough here. From an Europeans perspective, this is nothing new. Those are not flamebaits. They are an invitation for people to, for example, explain what they see on the ground, and how they see things going in the future, taking into account what the current power arrangements are. So I am baffled. If this all sounds egregious, then I conclude we have an Overton Window here. Notwithstanding that in academia this is not even a discussion topic at all!
graemep 2y ago
It raises some interesting issues about translation. The implication being translators veer away from what is uncomfortable to their society.
- StopDisinfo910 2y ago
  And the article only quotes the Greek bible which is itself a translation.
  - graemep 2y ago
    It quotes the New Testament which was written in Koine Greek. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      It was. But we're pretty sure that Jesus spoke Aramaic. So the books were originally written in Greek, but the source material for the gospels wasn't spoken in Greek.
      - renewedrebecca 2y ago
        Sure, but that is different than being a translation. A "translation" of the Bible is always considered moving from the original text, not from the likely language of the speaker.
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        Fair enough.
    - StopDisinfo910 2y ago
      Debatable and debated. There are evidences that Matthew wasn't written in Koine but Syriac and that significant fragments of the Gospels (which is what is quoted) are translation from Aramaic.
skybrian 2y ago
Well, it was until it became the state religion of the Roman Empire. Christians with the power of the state, at a time when religious tolerance wasn’t invented yet, were something else. Things got pretty complicated due to the bitter political disputes between the bishops of different cities.
a3w 2y ago
Was only calvinism a branch that said "Personal wealth is good, people deserve to strive for richness on earth for themselves as god will promote it for mostly his loved ones"?
- trgn 2y ago
  recently prosperity gospel in evangelical churches too
  - rikthevik 2y ago
    Robert Heinlein really nailed it in the 50s with the Fosterite Church of the New Revelation in Stranger in a Strange Land. Totally prescient vision of what Christianity + America was going to produce. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/01/15/a_triumph_of_science_fiction_prophecy.html https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/01/15/a_triu...
  - exceptione 2y ago
    Prosperity gospel is one mind-bending example of how you can turn one theme into the opposite. The bad thing is that this has been exported to the African continent too. I vaguely remember that in Asian countries this is big too.
  - throw_m239339 2y ago
    They can all converts to Islam. Not much changes since the 7th century. It allows wealth, polygamy and slavery. Now the Jacobin wont dare do some kind of exegesis... it would be deemed blasphemy.
    - StopDisinfo910 2y ago
      “By Allah, it is not poverty that I fear for you, rather what I fear for you is that worldly riches may be given to you as it was given to those who came before you, and you will compete to attain (more of) it with one another as those before competed with one another, and you will be destroyed as they were destroyed.” (Bukhari & Muslim) Feel free to seek out what the sharia has to say about usury (strictly forbidden) and what Islam considers a good way to use wealth (hint: giving to the poor, building orphanages, madrasa and mosques, doing pilgrimages). You will be hard pressed to find a monotheist religion which really likes the rich to be honest. I’m not going to give you about an explanation about all the way Islam has changed and become multiples since the 7th century because that would require a book length essay rather than a paragraph but you get my point.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
selfhoster11 2y ago
As a Bible-believing Christian, I am appalled by the ahistoricity and the lack of respect for the plain interpretation of the text of the Bible, as displayed by the author of this article. It's mind-boggling that one would choose to cherry-pick what amounts to a few chapters of a far larger body of teachings, and re-interpret Christianity as an economic movement. Consider: the core teaching of Christianity is that a certain person, Jesus of Nazareth, was the promised Messiah (the Anointed One, King of Jews, a role written about at length by the Old Testament), that He was the Son of God, that He had both a fully divine and a fully human nature, that He died a painful death on the cross as a price for forgiveness of all human sins and direct access to God for every person, and that He literally rose again from the dead three days after that. That's the core of the faith, that's the most important part that makes Christianity, Christianity. Those are the things you need to agree you believe in so that you can legitimately call yourself a Christian. The rest is secondary. Now tell me, how does this have anything to do with economics or the forgiveness of literal debts? The Bible is very direct and quotes Jesus as saying: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." (John 18:36). This verse outright contradicts any interpretation that Christianity is about political power or concerns on this side of the divide between mortality and the eternity (parenthetically, this is the reason why to me what American Evangelism developed into is so disturbing). It should be something of concern, but not the concern. Christianity is not communism. Christianity is not benevolent philanthropy. Christianity is none of those things that one tries to pin it down, if one adopts a frame free of God as the core consideration. Christianity is about trying to establish a connection with God, while it's not too late to do that. Trying to reduce it to a cause revolving around money in some way is absurd in the magnitude of misunderstanding on display here. I know that many here will be sceptics or non-believers, so many will skip this comment. But if you want to critique Christianity, at least do so in the spirit of not misrepresenting fundamental claims and tenets of the faith you disagree with. I trust that intellectual honesty is the name of the game on HN, and that's all I ask for.
- scientator 2y ago
  Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman argues that there are many versions of Christianity, and there always have been since its inception. What you are representing as the "core teaching of Christianity" is the version that was primarily articulated by Paul, and that became the orthodox version due to its eventual adoption as the religion of the Roman Empire. But even at the time of Paul there were rival interpretations. There were the Gnostics, the group led by James in Jerusalem, and even those who insisted one had to adopt Judaism to follow Jesus. And significantly, Jesus himself probably wouldn't have recognized the interpretation of Paul. And looking beyond early Christianity, one can pick any period of Christianity's history and find numerous rival doctrines.
johnea 2y ago
As someone who's pretty significantly left (at least in the US political spectrum) I've become pretty fed up with Jacobin. The author of this article is a religious historian, which explains a lot of the "circuitous" language (his word). But to me, the whole article is just "blah blah blah", pointless exposition with no real bearing on current reality. Whatever may, or may not, have been the case in the Levant 2000 years ago (and no one really knows); this is 2025, and according to many US "christians" the most famous quote of the little bebe jesus is "f_ck the poor, let 'em rot in the gutter". Ironically, failing to acknowledge that many of them fit into that very category. If the author would like to differ with the ideals of christianity regarding wealth, maybe he should write to the vatican? You know, that autonomous country inside of Italy, with it's own central bank, and storehouses of looted nazi treasure. The current pope aside, they haven't exactly been a savior of the poor historically. I'm sure many earnest, caring, giving christians will be downvoting my post. But a reality of our world, outside of philosophical sophistry. is that religion has been the source of more murder and mayhem than any other single cause. It may have been originally a practice of the poor, but the only reason it's still a phenomenon in the modern world is because the wealthy and powerful have promoted and used it as a tool to rile the poor into dismembering each other, to see which rich guy gets the goods. Sorry, I'm an evangelical atheist for life...
- palmotea 2y ago
  > this is 2025, and according to many US "christians" the most famous quote of the little bebe jesus is "f_ck the poor, let 'em rot in the gutter". Cite that's not to your imagination?
  - johnea 2y ago
    Just one article as a reference: https://newrepublic.com/article/176117/prosperity-gospel-christian-war-poor https://newrepublic.com/article/176117/prosperity-gospel-chr... and one citing the "optimal economic output" theory of the real lib-tards: https://thereformedconservative.org/christians-engaging-in-social-welfare-programs/ https://thereformedconservative.org/christians-engaging-in-s... For any large heterogeneous groups, one can only speak statistically. Many "christians" do still seek to help the poor, but there is a significant emerging trend, especially in the "prosperity gospel" that says god blesses the rich. or, to quote another fictional character: "Greed is good" Cooperation is a more productive strategy than competition. The primary reason to practice it, is because we'll all be better off. However with competition, a few players are able to reap even greater rewards individually, in spite of overall productivity being less. Therefore, competition favors the victors. As for the "losers", see the hyperbolic quote in my original post...
louison11 2y ago
Early Christian teachings were deeply anti-wealth — but context matters. Back then, wealth mostly came from land grabs, tax farming, and debt slavery. The rich were rich because the poor were poor. Christianity started as a movement of the oppressed under empire, and its ethic of radical sharing was a way to survive a brutal, zero-sum system. Fast-forward to today: most people aren’t living under that kind of direct economic violence. In fact, doing what early Christians did — selling everything and giving it away — would often create more suffering. Try paying for healthcare or your kid’s college without savings. In a modern context, investing, and wealth-building can be acts of love and protection — not greed. I don't think it'd make me a better man and father to just subject my entire family to poverty. So maybe the point isn’t “money = evil,” but “systems that enrich some by grinding down others = evil.” The ethical challenge is still valid — just adapted for a world where your 401(k) isn’t funded by enslaving your neighbor. It's not that we should interpret the Bible differently and make it say whatever we want; but that like any story, we need to look at the context within which it took place.
- cherryteastain 2y ago
  > Try paying for healthcare or your kid’s college without savings. In a modern context, investing, and wealth-building can be acts of love and protection — not greed. Only because the present (American) system is set up as such.
  - louison11 2y ago
    Exactly. But we're talking about the present, aren't we? And with all its flaws, the present isn't all that bad. Capitalism has been a powerful instrument for economic growth and financial liberation. Declining global poverty rates, more opportunities, etc.
    - grafmax 2y ago
      China’s economy has been responsible for approximately 75% of the global poverty reduction since the late 1970s [1]. It seems like we should credit socialism not capitalism with the reduction in poverty. Today we enjoy countless benefits due to workers’ movements of the past. These benefits were fought every step of the way by the business class. It’s highly ironic to attribute all this to capitalism. [1] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/l...
teleforce 2y ago
Fun facts, before muslim migration to Yathrib (now Madinah), one of the popular and richest Christian Byzantine Roman Emperors namely Heraclius was questioning the Meccan leader Abu Sufyan at the time (who later in his life become muslim) regarding Muhammad [1]. One of the question was “Do the nobles follow him or the weak?". It's reported that Abu Sufyan answered: “The weak and poor among us follow him. As for the high born and noble, none follow him.” The Emperor after that replied “I then asked you if the noble or the weak followed him. You answered that the weak followed him. Even so has it been with all the prophets, such having followed them.” [2] [1] Heraclius: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclius [2] The Hadith of Heraclius | Part 2 | Heraclius Interrogates Abu Sufyan on the Prophet: https://www.aljumuah.com/the-hadith-of-heraclius-part-2-heraclius-interrogates-abu-sufyan-on-the-prophet/ https://www.aljumuah.com/the-hadith-of-heraclius-part-2-hera...
Woodi 2y ago
No, christianity is not only for poor. Jacobins do jacobins propaganda. In article "rich young man is mentioned" - uh, oh, hi should give everything! Let's see: - first Jesus answered: obey commandments in your life - that rich man duty too. - then when he answered he do that since his young years Jesus proposed him to leave everything behind - it was explanation what this man was looking for: heart tied to earthy things. And invitation. Not everyone should be monk but definitely we need more peoples devoting lives for others good: nurses, teachers. And that story shows bright like sunlight that riches make your life miserable - and this article tries to state exactly reverse thing :> Who you trust? I recommend Jesus over Lucis.
mrozbarry 2y ago
I'm going to comment with the preface that I gave up reading the article. It feels like a word-salad, and I'm getting lost trying to find the point a lot of the time. Christianity is Jesus Christ substitutes the sin of a faithful man or woman with His righteousness. You cannot buy faithfulness, and you cannot obtain righteousness through good works on your own. The target has never been against wealth, but the love of money, or trusting in the things of this lifetime. For instance, Proverbs 11:28 says not to trust in wealth. Mark 8:36, Jesus states that if you seek wealth over everything else, what good is it when you die? In 1 Timothy 6:17-19, Paul encourages Timothy in his leadership to instruct wealthy people to not put their hope in their wealthy, but to do good with what God has given them.

Like it politico-economical incarnation, the communism (because its ideology was an ad-hoc smear campaign against Christianity, a tree that decides to saw of its roots).

ivape 2y ago

Important to note that Christianity also spread amongst the poor/common/persecuted folk first. It wasn't really spread initially by any power structure or crusade. And Christ straight up kicking out business from the church (as in he flipped their tables over, literally): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple

pzmarzly 2y ago
Also, it was spread BY the poor. Early Christians happily donated away all their wealth, thinking the Christ will come and bring an end to the Roman empire any day now. There is a theory that this was a critical factor in how fast the early Christianity spread across the Roman Empire - that these newly-bankrupted believers had no choice but to travel and try recruit new members to the Church, in a Ponzi-scheme-like fashion (except nobody was cashing out).
goatlover 2y ago
The Jewish Temple wasn't a church. Animals were sold there for people who couldn't bring animals with them to sacrifice on that Jewish holiday when they made pilgrimage to Jerusalem. There was plenty of disagreements between Jewish sects. We get the early Christianized perspective on some of the disagreements the Jesus movement had with the Pharisees and Sadducees, who also didn't agree with one another. Paul wasn't poor. He was an educated Pharisee who could write Greek, like Philo or Josephus. Some of the communities he wrote to like the one in Rome probably weren't poor either. But the Jesus movement led by James the Just and Peter after his death probably was, if the Ebionites were their 2nd-4th century descendants.
elcritch 2y ago
It’s interesting to use crusade in that fashion. The origins of the Christian crusades were to help free lands with still largely Christian populations from Muslim conquerors. It wasn’t to spread Christianity. Now the crusade’s definitely went awry and became an excuse for Venetians and others to take land and power. Especially by the fourth crusade and sacking of Constantinople, etc.
- jowea 2y ago
  Depends which crusades. The Baltic Crusades definitively were to spread Christianity.
- sorokod 2y ago
  Southern France was largely Christian yet Albigensian Crusade was a thing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
anon291 2y ago
It's still left wing coded in many non Christian areas. For example, India. It came as a surprise for my parents that Christianity is right wing in America, but all American political parties are part of the global left in general.
- slater 2y ago
  all American political parties are part of the global left in general The Republican Party is very much not part of the "global left". By global standards, they're far right. And the dems are centrist, not left.
  - anon291 2y ago
    Yes it is. Saying you shouldn't educate the lower classes or not educate girls would be met with huge resistance from most Republicans, whereas that is a common enough sentiment in many areas. People who fought for that are considered left wing. America is a fundamentally leftist nation. The social issues American political parties fight over are not applicable in most parts of the world. In most parts of the world left wing political movements (communists) hold the same social lines as the GOP. From a property perspective, America never had to deal with land redistribution because America never had a feudal system that required it. This property rights make sense in America in a way they didnt in feudal systems. For example the communist party of Kerala enacted major land reform to redistribute land, but now that the land is redistributed, ownership carries on as normal. America had the opportunity to skip the first step. Americans have no idea how good they have it
    - dibujaron 2y ago
      This is an interesting perspective, thank you for sharing. We often hear that (compared with Europe, I suppose) America's two parties are relatively far right. Interesting to see the opposite opinion.
      - jowea 2y ago
        I think people saying that are comparing them to their favourite European social democracy yes.
m463 2y ago
We need an adblocker like that. Every poor person's phone and browser is turning into a cash register for thieves and merchants.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Christianity also spread amongst the poor/common/persecuted folk first Modern Christianity is probably closer to what Justinian codified [1] (to when the first Bibles date [2]) than earlier traditions. (Not an expert.) [1] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Justinian-I/Ecclesiastical-policy https://www.britannica.com/biography/Justinian-I/Ecclesiasti... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

exceptione 2y ago

[flagged]

ivape 2y ago
[flagged]
exceptione 2y ago
I rather see people engaging than giving lazy down votes btw. If these facts are inconvenient, try to choose a better way to handle them.
- dang 2y ago
  Users (correctly) flagged your GP comment because it broke the site guidelines, including these: "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity." "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
  - exceptione 2y ago
    I am baffled by this moderation. It could be that it is my English which leads to misunderstandings. I mentioned some facts, - namely that there are lots of denominations, sects, and currents that do not just place some minor debatable emphasis here or there, but where the teachings are directly in confrontation with those of Jesus (in the words of the scriptures). Disagree? - namely that this phenomenon is especially large in the USA. This could (I phrased that more cautious than historians and theologians do) be a consequence of the "expelling/migration" of religious leaders gather their own following around highly, lets call it neutral, unorthodox teachings. That would explain a culture where all kinds of religious belief systems that are rather straying far from what Christianity consider the core of their beliefs, including a large proliferation of sects compared to Europe. - Project 2025 is sponsored and written by organizations of which we have evidence of being not aligned to democracy and some important human rights. I do not have the recordings at hand, but I might assume people are informed enough here. From an Europeans perspective, this is nothing new. Those are not flamebaits. They are an invitation for people to, for example, explain what they see on the ground, and how they see things going in the future, taking into account what the current power arrangements are. So I am baffled. If this all sounds egregious, then I conclude we have an Overton Window here. Notwithstanding that in academia this is not even a discussion topic at all!

graemep 2y ago

It raises some interesting issues about translation. The implication being translators veer away from what is uncomfortable to their society.

StopDisinfo910 2y ago
And the article only quotes the Greek bible which is itself a translation.
- graemep 2y ago
  It quotes the New Testament which was written in Koine Greek. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    It was. But we're pretty sure that Jesus spoke Aramaic. So the books were originally written in Greek, but the source material for the gospels wasn't spoken in Greek.
    - renewedrebecca 2y ago
      Sure, but that is different than being a translation. A "translation" of the Bible is always considered moving from the original text, not from the likely language of the speaker.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        Fair enough.
  - StopDisinfo910 2y ago
    Debatable and debated. There are evidences that Matthew wasn't written in Koine but Syriac and that significant fragments of the Gospels (which is what is quoted) are translation from Aramaic.

skybrian 2y ago

Well, it was until it became the state religion of the Roman Empire. Christians with the power of the state, at a time when religious tolerance wasn’t invented yet, were something else. Things got pretty complicated due to the bitter political disputes between the bishops of different cities.

a3w 2y ago

Was only calvinism a branch that said "Personal wealth is good, people deserve to strive for richness on earth for themselves as god will promote it for mostly his loved ones"?

trgn 2y ago
recently prosperity gospel in evangelical churches too
- rikthevik 2y ago
  Robert Heinlein really nailed it in the 50s with the Fosterite Church of the New Revelation in Stranger in a Strange Land. Totally prescient vision of what Christianity + America was going to produce. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/01/15/a_triumph_of_science_fiction_prophecy.html https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2013/01/15/a_triu...
- exceptione 2y ago
  Prosperity gospel is one mind-bending example of how you can turn one theme into the opposite. The bad thing is that this has been exported to the African continent too. I vaguely remember that in Asian countries this is big too.
- throw_m239339 2y ago
  They can all converts to Islam. Not much changes since the 7th century. It allows wealth, polygamy and slavery. Now the Jacobin wont dare do some kind of exegesis... it would be deemed blasphemy.
  - StopDisinfo910 2y ago
    “By Allah, it is not poverty that I fear for you, rather what I fear for you is that worldly riches may be given to you as it was given to those who came before you, and you will compete to attain (more of) it with one another as those before competed with one another, and you will be destroyed as they were destroyed.” (Bukhari & Muslim) Feel free to seek out what the sharia has to say about usury (strictly forbidden) and what Islam considers a good way to use wealth (hint: giving to the poor, building orphanages, madrasa and mosques, doing pilgrimages). You will be hard pressed to find a monotheist religion which really likes the rich to be honest. I’m not going to give you about an explanation about all the way Islam has changed and become multiples since the 7th century because that would require a book length essay rather than a paragraph but you get my point.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

selfhoster11 2y ago

As a Bible-believing Christian, I am appalled by the ahistoricity and the lack of respect for the plain interpretation of the text of the Bible, as displayed by the author of this article. It's mind-boggling that one would choose to cherry-pick what amounts to a few chapters of a far larger body of teachings, and re-interpret Christianity as an economic movement. Consider: the core teaching of Christianity is that a certain person, Jesus of Nazareth, was the promised Messiah (the Anointed One, King of Jews, a role written about at length by the Old Testament), that He was the Son of God, that He had both a fully divine and a fully human nature, that He died a painful death on the cross as a price for forgiveness of all human sins and direct access to God for every person, and that He literally rose again from the dead three days after that. That's the core of the faith, that's the most important part that makes Christianity, Christianity. Those are the things you need to agree you believe in so that you can legitimately call yourself a Christian. The rest is secondary. Now tell me, how does this have anything to do with economics or the forgiveness of literal debts? The Bible is very direct and quotes Jesus as saying: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." (John 18:36). This verse outright contradicts any interpretation that Christianity is about political power or concerns on this side of the divide between mortality and the eternity (parenthetically, this is the reason why to me what American Evangelism developed into is so disturbing). It should be something of concern, but not the concern. Christianity is not communism. Christianity is not benevolent philanthropy. Christianity is none of those things that one tries to pin it down, if one adopts a frame free of God as the core consideration. Christianity is about trying to establish a connection with God, while it's not too late to do that. Trying to reduce it to a cause revolving around money in some way is absurd in the magnitude of misunderstanding on display here. I know that many here will be sceptics or non-believers, so many will skip this comment. But if you want to critique Christianity, at least do so in the spirit of not misrepresenting fundamental claims and tenets of the faith you disagree with. I trust that intellectual honesty is the name of the game on HN, and that's all I ask for.

scientator 2y ago
Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman argues that there are many versions of Christianity, and there always have been since its inception. What you are representing as the "core teaching of Christianity" is the version that was primarily articulated by Paul, and that became the orthodox version due to its eventual adoption as the religion of the Roman Empire. But even at the time of Paul there were rival interpretations. There were the Gnostics, the group led by James in Jerusalem, and even those who insisted one had to adopt Judaism to follow Jesus. And significantly, Jesus himself probably wouldn't have recognized the interpretation of Paul. And looking beyond early Christianity, one can pick any period of Christianity's history and find numerous rival doctrines.

johnea 2y ago

As someone who's pretty significantly left (at least in the US political spectrum) I've become pretty fed up with Jacobin. The author of this article is a religious historian, which explains a lot of the "circuitous" language (his word). But to me, the whole article is just "blah blah blah", pointless exposition with no real bearing on current reality. Whatever may, or may not, have been the case in the Levant 2000 years ago (and no one really knows); this is 2025, and according to many US "christians" the most famous quote of the little bebe jesus is "f_ck the poor, let 'em rot in the gutter". Ironically, failing to acknowledge that many of them fit into that very category. If the author would like to differ with the ideals of christianity regarding wealth, maybe he should write to the vatican? You know, that autonomous country inside of Italy, with it's own central bank, and storehouses of looted nazi treasure. The current pope aside, they haven't exactly been a savior of the poor historically. I'm sure many earnest, caring, giving christians will be downvoting my post. But a reality of our world, outside of philosophical sophistry. is that religion has been the source of more murder and mayhem than any other single cause. It may have been originally a practice of the poor, but the only reason it's still a phenomenon in the modern world is because the wealthy and powerful have promoted and used it as a tool to rile the poor into dismembering each other, to see which rich guy gets the goods. Sorry, I'm an evangelical atheist for life...

palmotea 2y ago
> this is 2025, and according to many US "christians" the most famous quote of the little bebe jesus is "f_ck the poor, let 'em rot in the gutter". Cite that's not to your imagination?
- johnea 2y ago
  Just one article as a reference: https://newrepublic.com/article/176117/prosperity-gospel-christian-war-poor https://newrepublic.com/article/176117/prosperity-gospel-chr... and one citing the "optimal economic output" theory of the real lib-tards: https://thereformedconservative.org/christians-engaging-in-social-welfare-programs/ https://thereformedconservative.org/christians-engaging-in-s... For any large heterogeneous groups, one can only speak statistically. Many "christians" do still seek to help the poor, but there is a significant emerging trend, especially in the "prosperity gospel" that says god blesses the rich. or, to quote another fictional character: "Greed is good" Cooperation is a more productive strategy than competition. The primary reason to practice it, is because we'll all be better off. However with competition, a few players are able to reap even greater rewards individually, in spite of overall productivity being less. Therefore, competition favors the victors. As for the "losers", see the hyperbolic quote in my original post...

louison11 2y ago

Early Christian teachings were deeply anti-wealth — but context matters. Back then, wealth mostly came from land grabs, tax farming, and debt slavery. The rich were rich because the poor were poor. Christianity started as a movement of the oppressed under empire, and its ethic of radical sharing was a way to survive a brutal, zero-sum system. Fast-forward to today: most people aren’t living under that kind of direct economic violence. In fact, doing what early Christians did — selling everything and giving it away — would often create more suffering. Try paying for healthcare or your kid’s college without savings. In a modern context, investing, and wealth-building can be acts of love and protection — not greed. I don't think it'd make me a better man and father to just subject my entire family to poverty. So maybe the point isn’t “money = evil,” but “systems that enrich some by grinding down others = evil.” The ethical challenge is still valid — just adapted for a world where your 401(k) isn’t funded by enslaving your neighbor. It's not that we should interpret the Bible differently and make it say whatever we want; but that like any story, we need to look at the context within which it took place.

cherryteastain 2y ago
> Try paying for healthcare or your kid’s college without savings. In a modern context, investing, and wealth-building can be acts of love and protection — not greed. Only because the present (American) system is set up as such.
- louison11 2y ago
  Exactly. But we're talking about the present, aren't we? And with all its flaws, the present isn't all that bad. Capitalism has been a powerful instrument for economic growth and financial liberation. Declining global poverty rates, more opportunities, etc.
  - grafmax 2y ago
    China’s economy has been responsible for approximately 75% of the global poverty reduction since the late 1970s [1]. It seems like we should credit socialism not capitalism with the reduction in poverty. Today we enjoy countless benefits due to workers’ movements of the past. These benefits were fought every step of the way by the business class. It’s highly ironic to attribute all this to capitalism. [1] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/l...

teleforce 2y ago

Fun facts, before muslim migration to Yathrib (now Madinah), one of the popular and richest Christian Byzantine Roman Emperors namely Heraclius was questioning the Meccan leader Abu Sufyan at the time (who later in his life become muslim) regarding Muhammad [1]. One of the question was “Do the nobles follow him or the weak?". It's reported that Abu Sufyan answered: “The weak and poor among us follow him. As for the high born and noble, none follow him.” The Emperor after that replied “I then asked you if the noble or the weak followed him. You answered that the weak followed him. Even so has it been with all the prophets, such having followed them.” [2] [1] Heraclius: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclius [2] The Hadith of Heraclius | Part 2 | Heraclius Interrogates Abu Sufyan on the Prophet: https://www.aljumuah.com/the-hadith-of-heraclius-part-2-heraclius-interrogates-abu-sufyan-on-the-prophet/ https://www.aljumuah.com/the-hadith-of-heraclius-part-2-hera...

Woodi 2y ago

No, christianity is not only for poor. Jacobins do jacobins propaganda. In article "rich young man is mentioned" - uh, oh, hi should give everything! Let's see: - first Jesus answered: obey commandments in your life - that rich man duty too. - then when he answered he do that since his young years Jesus proposed him to leave everything behind - it was explanation what this man was looking for: heart tied to earthy things. And invitation. Not everyone should be monk but definitely we need more peoples devoting lives for others good: nurses, teachers. And that story shows bright like sunlight that riches make your life miserable - and this article tries to state exactly reverse thing :> Who you trust? I recommend Jesus over Lucis.

mrozbarry 2y ago

I'm going to comment with the preface that I gave up reading the article. It feels like a word-salad, and I'm getting lost trying to find the point a lot of the time. Christianity is Jesus Christ substitutes the sin of a faithful man or woman with His righteousness. You cannot buy faithfulness, and you cannot obtain righteousness through good works on your own. The target has never been against wealth, but the love of money, or trusting in the things of this lifetime. For instance, Proverbs 11:28 says not to trust in wealth. Mark 8:36, Jesus states that if you seek wealth over everything else, what good is it when you die? In 1 Timothy 6:17-19, Paul encourages Timothy in his leadership to instruct wealthy people to not put their hope in their wealthy, but to do good with what God has given them.