Jesus was a Communist
Posted by Daniel Gilland
September 7, 2008

All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. (Acts 2:44-45)

Ok, maybe not a communist, but, you read a scripture like the one above and it'll challenge some of your mindsets. Basically, the Christians here took care of any other Christian in need. You kind of even have a utopian society at work here (to put it in todays terms). Sounds nice, very appealing. I can understand why a communist ideal would be formed. You want everyone to be on the same level, walking together in unity, having the same advantages/disadvantages.

There is quite a difference between communists and Christians though, and His name is Jesus. The center of communism, when it's boiled down, is individualism. The center of true Christianity is Jesus. The reason this works in a Christian society is because people are not focused on themselves. They're focused on Jesus and the life of sacrifice He lived. They then live lives of sacrifice as well for the common good. This only works in a selfless society.

Coincidentally, this is also why I understand, yet disagree with the notion of socialized or universal healthcare. It's a great thought, everyone getting the help they need, I get that. I don't believe that will work here in America, though, because we are not by any means a selfless society and we haven't by and large put Jesus first as a society. Without these key ingredients you're mixing up a recipe not just for failure but disaster.

My reply:

Hello All,

Of course it's communist. There is no difference between communists and Christians. The center of communism is not individualism.

The problem with what you've written here is that it wrongly builds upon Marxist corruption of the full concept (whole truth) of community property or Church property. The Church is all of its members as one, the whole body of Christ. It is intended to be the "real" state rather than the secular abomination that is the current so-called government (coercive). Jesus forced nobody into the faith or into the house of God. The American founders (U.S. Constitution) left no choice. You either join or are punished by human hand.

When we pray for Heaven to come to Earth, which we do in the Lord's Prayer, we pray for God's government for the here and now, which is perfect love, as Jesus showed (nothing contrary to the Golden Rule, as Jesus imparts it).

Marxism was never communism in its fulfilled sense (real sense). Jesus fulfilled. His sense-meanings are the ones we are to apply. Will you help me? You would be benefiting everyone immensely were you to change from using the terms as corrupted and begin using them in the way Jesus's message clearly implies.

We aren't to be putting bitter for sweet. Marxism is bitter and is not real communism. It is not perfect. Only the perfect is real in Christian terms. Everything less than perfect contains falsehood leading to the misdirection of the soul away from God. Jesus is the real bread, as opposed to the manna that fell from the sky and the commonly understood bread we eat primarily for the sake of the flesh.

As for socialized or universal healthcare not working in America because we are not by any means a selfless society, rather than putting it that way, why aren't you calling for all Americans to become completely voluntarily unselfish?

Your language is defeating. It is resigned to not overcoming; however, Jesus calls upon us to shine the light, to lift up with enthusiasm and encouragement. Why resign Americans to some false notion that human nature is immutable? It isn't true. I've changed radically on account of the message. If it can happen to me, then why can't it happen to others as well, even to everyone?

It seems you have underlying selfish reasons not to favor these things. Shouldn't you search your soul for why you withhold? Have you bought into capitalism as preached by those who rejected, and reject, Christ's commandments that we be one sharing all, such as the following?

Friedrich von Hayek
Margaret Thatcher
Milton Friedman (monetarist)
Ludwig von Mises
Murray Rothbard
Ronald Reagan (military Keynesian)
Ayn Rand
Alan Greenspan (monetarist)
Ron Paul (doesn't spread the giving-and-sharing-all message of Jesus)
Robert Nozick
The Cato Institute
Reason Magazine
Capitalism Magazine (
The John Birch Society
Walter Williams
and many others

All of the above put forth coercion as a means of driving others into their ideological beliefs. It is hypocrisy. Jesus does not do it. No one is force to enter the house of Jesus. Once in, each must live up to the ideal or will find the house disappearing around him or her. Jesus and God don't force people, but they rightly set the standard for remaining within.

Jesus is a communist. He lives and still teaches Christianity, that is the real communism, through the Holy Spirit.

God bless all,

Tom Usher



The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.