Dispelling Leftist Myths About Christ

Recently, a Twitter feed was shared with me regarding Richard Spencer encouraging the exploration of Christianity and its presumed, inevitable contribution to a communist conclusion.  The author – whose handle name escapes me at the time of this writing – and Spencer seemed to believe that Christianity was practically a precursor to Marxism.  Nothing can be further from the truth, but their general lack of understanding the faith can be forgiven.  

It is a popular belief in dwindling Alt-Right circles: “Jesus, the Jewish-Socialist, was a radical who helped overthrow the Greatest European (“White”) Empire in world history through corrosive political-economic and social policies…”  Of course, any serious scholar on Jesus Christ, especially one who has read his Bible, knows that statement is false.  But the Left has propagated myths about Jesus Christ and Christianity that many on the political “Right” have come to believe.  They are wrong.

Before I begin, however, it is important to understand “why” these myths about Jesus Christ exist.  The political Left is pure evil – full stop.  It is dripping with demonically inspired disorder. From transgender children to wealth redistribution, everything the Left represents is simply evil.  There is nothing good about a leftist. In a saner world, we would be able to enact the punishments prescribed in Leviticus 20 upon most of their ilk.  But I digress.  The fact is, among the many things related to Satan, the “Father of Lies” (John 8:44) uses the Left to distort and destroy Christianity from within.  Satan has weaponized language in a hyperemotional feminized world and that has led to misrepresentations on the words and the very being of Jesus Christ, as well as the expectations of Christianity and the Christian.

So, let’s begin with four explorations of Christ.

1.  Jesus Christ was not “Jewish”

There is a common misperception among “normie” Christians, leftists, and the Alt-Right that Jesus was “Jewish.”  The facts are simply against a “Jewish Jesus.”  First, “Jewish” is a term that was applicable to a movement within the broader Israeli community of the time – not a people.  We know this because both Jesus Christ and St. Paul call out the movement.  Jews, as we know them today, are not the Jews of antiquity.  

The often misquoted Gospel of John, Chapter 8, specifically references not only Jews as distinct from Israel (John 8:22, 48, 52) but is elaborated upon by Christ Himself: “They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.  But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.  Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.  Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.  Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do… And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?  He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.”  (John 8:39-44, 46-47).  But it is the preceding line that makes a distinction between “Jews” and Israelites, to include Judeans.  

“I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.” (John 8:37).  What is Jesus Christ saying?  Simple:  Not everyone from Abraham’s seed is provided the promises of Israel.  It is important to remember, Abraham had two grandsons – Jacob and Esau.  Jacob becomes Israel, and it is with Israel that God lays His promise.  Esau, meanwhile, is the Patriarch of the Edomites – a related tribe, but not a promised tribe.  At the time of Jesus Christ, the Edomite ascension had been so complete, that the true Israelites were now ruled by Herod, an Edomite King of Judea.  Thus, Jesus is effectively saying, “Yes, you have Abrahamic blood, but those of you who call yourself Jews are not my people, and thus, you cannot hear my words.”

Scripturally and spiritually, what does this mean?  God does not lie. He promises to bless Abraham’s chosen seed (Genesis 12: 1-3), sealing the deal in Genesis 17, and manifesting the fulfilment of that promise in the manner of Jesus Christ: “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” (Galatians 3:16) If you are truly a Christian, there is only one way to approach the Jewish rejection of Jesus Christ: either God is lying – and He offered a false promise to those whom He promised to fulfill– or those calling themselves Jewish are not the true Chosen people as recorded in the Bible.  Since God does not lie, it is obvious that the other party is at fault.  One cannot be Chosen and go to Hell.  Thus, the reason that the Jews of Christ’s time did not accept Him then and reject Him today is simple: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.” (John 10:14)

In other words, Jesus is saying the Jews – a sect of individuals within Israel at the time of his human ministry – reject Him because they are not Abrahamic Israelites to whom He was promised.  To this day, a rejection of Jesus Christ is a manifestation of a people who have no claim to Chosen status.  They are spiritual imposters at best – and Jesus calls them out on this.

Paul, however, is more blunt.  Paul claims to have been a devout Jew himself and persecuted the Christian church:  “For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.” (Galatians 1: 13-14) It is an odd choice of words – “the Jews’ religion.”  In a different letter, Paul defines the distinction.  He calls himself a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Philippians 3:5) and in that same chapter describes his Israelite bona fides before blasting his prior Judaism – literally calling his adherence to that faith “dung”: “Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.” (Philippians 3:8).  Why would Paul seem to distinguish between being Jewish and a Hebrew Israelite?  Read Acts.

While pleading his case to the Roman governor over Judea, Agrippa, Paul makes a plea in Acts 26 that first lays out differing characteristics of the Jewish community within the region (Acts 26:2-3) before making an interesting distinction between Israel and the Jews:  “And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.” (Acts 26:6-7).  In other words, Paul is stating, Jesus Christ is the manifestation of God’s promise to His people – Israel – and the Jews are trying to punish Paul for spreading that word to his fellow Israelites.  

But even if all of this were a moot point, there is another critical component upon which all Christians should subscribe that eliminates the idea that Jesus was Jewish: Jesus was a manifestation of a Triune God.  Jesus was the promise made in the flesh to not only become the sacrificial lamb in accordance with covenant, but to be a fair Judge of His creation. He is not a specific flesh, because Jesus transcends earthly distinctions.  He is God incarnate.

2.  The Historical Jesus was not “Black”

An extension of the Jesus is Jewish myth is an oft told belief, again held by a broad spectrum of normie conservatives and Leftists, that Jesus Christ was a dark skinned, dark haired Palestinian – much like those found in Palestine today.  Historically, that belief is inaccurate.  The genetic construct of ancient Levantines is different than the post-Muslim invasions of the region, which brought a mixture of Asian and African DNA to the region en masse.  

Scripturally, we know that the ancient Hebrews were lighter skinned because several passages point to this fact.  In the Song of Solomon, for example, the Shulamite princess describes herself as “Black,” but not because she is of African lineage or naturally dark skinned.  As she describes her darker complexion, “…I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me…” (Song of Solomon 1:6); her deep tan was not genetic, it was the result of angry siblings who made her work in the sun beaten vineyards before discovery.  In the preceding passage, the Shulamite states that she is “Black, but comely….” (Song of Solomon 1:5).  In other words, despite being an odd color (“Black”), she is still attractive.  That would be a strange distinction if she were surrounded by fellow dark brown peoples.  Obviously, she was not, and as such, felt a need to explain her dark skin tone.

Archeological and historical artifacts point to a fairer skinned people in the region, too.  Artwork from Israel’s neighbor and business partner, the Phoenicians, depict a light skinned people with brown hair.  Carthaginian coinage depicts Hannibal Barca, the Carthaginian general who nearly defeated Rome, as a White guy.  The Carthaginians, like many societies in the Mediterranean, hailed from Phoenician origins.  Josephus, the ancient Romano-Judean scholar, had fair skin, hazel eyes, and brown hair.  In other words, the people of the area looked more like Byzantine reliefs than modern Arabs, let alone, Africans.  

So what did Jesus look like?  A clue can be found in John 8 – the same Gospel chapter describing the Jews as antagonistic toward Christ and His response.  Oddly, the Jews call Jesus a “Samaritan” (John 8:48) – an interesting allegation for two key reasons.  First, unlike other tribal Israelites, the Samaritans were spared the Assyrian captivity – remaining in Israel when other Israelites were taken in bondage.  This allegation would therefore denote some kind of Israelite “purity” within Jesus Christ (a problem for an Edomite).  Secondly, the Samaritan region – from which Jesus the Galilean hailed – was the epicenter of Hellenistic culture.  It was the region within which the Decapolis (“ten Greek cities”) was established during the Seleucid Occupation in the post-Alexandrian break-up of the late emperor’s demise.  Consequently, those who settled in the region from which Jesus hailed looked much more like Mediterranean Europeans and Northern Greeks of the era (fairer skin, brown to blonde hair, lighter colored eyes) than their Southern Palestinian counterparts hailing from the sons of Esau or those who returned from bondage after generations of Assyrian and Persian subservience.  

It is highly unlikely that Jesus would have chosen to look like someone who seemed out of place among His people.  The historical Jesus was far more likely to have looked like the Emperor Justinian than Black Jesus.  Leftists want to believe in a Black Jesus because they seek to weaponize race.  Normie conservatives ignore their own historical and Biblical evidence because they fear the racism label.  The Alt-Right wants to believe Jesus was a Black guy because they lack Christian faith and meaningful understanding. Jesus would have looked like any other Mediterranean European of the era.

3.  Jesus was not a Socialist

Jesus Christ was certainly not a socialist.  Of all the myths peddled by leftists, this is the easiest to dismiss.  Christ was compassionate, but he clearly believed in a stratified socioeconomic structure predicated on hard work and rewards.

Socialism is the economic choice of inferior people.  When someone tells me they are a socialist, I know they are weak by nature.  Socialism boils down to a desire to redistribute the output and means of production among people who cannot achieve economic success on their own because they are less capable.  This can involve anything from manufacturing to wealth redistribution – and it is achieved through the tyranny of the masses and the expansion of democracy until the “have nots” outnumber and overwhelm the “haves” and take from them that which is not theirs.  Socialism is compelled economics.  Jesus Christ clearly advocates for none of that nonsense.

First, throughout the Gospels, Jesus Christ uses parables that extoll the virtues of hard work or good financial governance.  Socialists will point to the parable of the vineyard laborers (Matthew 20) and claim that the decision to give everyone the same wage regardless of work output as evidence of Jesus’ socialist tendencies.  Ignoring the spiritual connotations of the passage, it is clear that the householder made a contract (work for a penny) and paid that wage unto all the workers who agreed to get paid a penny – a contract was made and kept.  That is a capitalist perspective on management-labor relations, not a socialist one.

In the parable of the wealthy man and three servants (Matthew 25:14 – 28), Jesus explains a spiritual manner in basic financial acumen.  A wealthy man gives money to three servants who are expected to increase the value of the talents (money) provided.  Two servants increase the value of the coins given, one does not.  The one who does not increase the value of the initial “investment” is treated harshly for failing.  But in the beginning of this parable is a clue toward the anti-socialist mindset of Christ:  “And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.” (Matthew 25:15; emphasis my own).  Socialism is an economic system based upon equal outcomes – devaluing individual talent for the sake of the “collective good.”  Jesus is flat out rejecting that concept by acknowledging differing abilities and expecting differing outcomes.

In the parable of the bridegroom of virgins within the same chapter (Matthew 25: 1-13), Jesus takes a pretty hardline against redistribution for its own sake.  Again, reading these passages for their practical value to the listeners of the era, Jesus is describing spiritual consequences in business terms.  When ten virgins were set to meet their bridegroom on the evening of their marriage, five were wise and brought oil for their lamps and five were foolish, choosing not to bring oil (ostensibly, because the price of oil was higher than they wished to spend).  What comes next is a decidedly free market consequence:  “And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.  But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.  And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.  Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.  But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.” (Matthew 25:8-12).

Jesus also accepted the fact that socioeconomic distinctions were a fact – not one to necessarily celebrate, but one in which there was no temporal solution.  “For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.” (Matthew 26:11) Jesus knows that poverty will not be cured on earth.

This is about the point that the leftist and the ignorant Alt-Right adherent will clamor about the rich man through the eye of the needle – which they likely heard regurgitated by some other ignorant leftist.  Let’s break that story up to better understand the context of that which Christ is saying.  Without context, the passage would lead someone to believe Jesus is a socialist hippy.  He is not.

The setting portrayed in Matthew is one in which Jesus is approached by a young man who wants to enjoy eternal life.  Jesus proceeds to give the young man advise regarding his actions, whereby the young man replies that he has done these things and continues to press the issue:  “The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, 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.”  (Matthew 19: 20-24) So, what is Jesus saying?  

Yes, rich men can enter the Kingdom of God because all things are possible in Him, but this is not about material means vs selective poverty.  Rather, Jesus is saying that individuals who choose to value wealth over Christ will have a hard time getting to heaven.  Most wealthy people choose temporal comforts over spiritual promises.  The pathway to Salvation is a narrow one – as narrow as the “eye of a needle” – a tight passage within the walls of Jerusalem.  Camels of the era were typically burdened with traveling goods and as such, the passage was made more difficult based on the amount of possessions carried on the back of a camel.  In other words, if you choose to value material possessions more than spiritual ascendancy, you will likely not pass through the eye at all (like a camel burdened by possessions that cannot fit) or you can choose to drop said goods that are weighing you down and follow your guide through the passage.  

The young man in this scenario was being tested by Christ and he failed.  He valued “stuff” more than Jesus Christ.  That is not the same thing as an endorsement of socialism.  Rather, it is an advocacy of priorities.  Which is more important to you – wealth here or in Heaven?  One can have both, but they should be ready to choose the latter over the former.  If you choose the latter, be prepared to suffer here on earth.  To put this story in modern context: are you willing to be a true Christian and speak the truth about the disgusting transgender deviant at the risk of being doxed?  Keeping your mouth shut and accepting vile degeneracy as normal will enable you to keep your job, but not the preservation of your soul.

Christ also appears to be a proponent of social order.  “For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.” (Luke 22:27) Jesus recognizes the supremacy of the master, but chooses to serve.  Still, Jesus is not about servants supplanting their master – quite the opposite: “But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?  And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?  Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.  So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.”  (Luke 17: 7-10) Let me interpret: masters do not invite servants to their dining table; servants should not expect additional rewards for doing that which is expected of them.

The New Testament is replete with social stratification: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5) “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.” (1 Peter 2:18) “Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative.” (Titus 2:9) “Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.” (Colossians 3:22)

Christianity is not a socialist faith.

4.  Jesus was a Nationalist

One passage that seems to drive so called White-Supremacists nuts, while exciting leftists, is the following: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28). No single passage has ever been more misinterpreted by the Left than this particular passage by Paul.  It is completely taken out of context.

Let me begin by that which Jesus says about the Nations:  “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.” (Matthew 25:31-33) Jesus the Nationalist admits there are good nations and bad nations.  There are some groups that will be rewarded and some who will be punished.

If there is any indication that Jesus Christ was a Nationalist – promoting distinct peoples, some of whom will be rewarded and some of whom will not – it is Matthew 28.  “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” Jesus Christ literally closes the Book of Matthew with a distinct acknowledgment of independent nations.

But we also know Jesus is a Nationalist because he is not only selective in His ministry, Christ frequently references distinct peoples.  When a Canaanite woman implores Jesus for assistance, He states that he was only on earth to serve Israel (Matthew 15:21-28).  Ultimately, her faith transcends His Nationalist proclivities in this incident. But, Jesus sees Romans, Greeks, Samaritans, Israelites, and Jews as distinct peoples.  

The fact that Paul still makes distinctions in his letter to the Galatians, is not an admission that we are destined to blend together without distinctions.  Rather, it simply refers to the promise of Salvation as inclusive to the faithful.  In other words, Jews are Jews… Greeks are Greeks… Women are Women… Slaves are Slaves… but you can still be saved through Jesus Christ.  

How do we know that Paul is not eliminating distinctions?  That is evidenced in his many letters instructing slaves, women, Jews, and Gentiles how to behave.  Why take the trouble of explaining a woman’s subordinate role in the church, for instance, if we are to be one blended, indistinguishable gender mass? “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” (1 Corinthians 14:34) Paul makes distinctions because they exist and those distinctions are sanctioned by Jesus Christ Himself.  

In sum, Christianity offers compassion, but also consequences.  Christianity supports distinctions along national and socioeconomic terms.  Christianity is not a Jewish faith – it is a repudiation of that faith.  

Christianity is a rejection of egalitarianism in every facet because in the eyes of God, no one is equal.  

We are different.  The Left cannot supersede the authority of God by means of fiat or Facebook censorship.  Each person is made differently, with different skills and abilities.  Some are meant to be leaders (masters); some are meant to be followers (servants).  Women submit to their husbands; husbands love their wives.  We will be judged by God and He will throw many into eternal damnation because they revel in sin.  Wealth redistribution, globalist-driven ethnic deconstruction, and sexual degeneracy are antithetical to the Biblical Jesus Christ.  

If Christianity was compatible with leftism, the gravitation toward an increasingly secular and unholy world would not lead to suffering of the Christian, himself.  Biblical Christians would not lose their jobs for questioning ungodly LGBTQ+ perspectives.  Biblical Christians would not be at risk of assault by leftist mobs when leading open prayer rallies.  Biblical Christians would not have their congregants killed by leftwing gunmen while in worship on a Sunday in Texas.  As the world becomes more “leftist,” the true Christian is increasingly targeted for being Christian.  Why? Because leftists know Christianity is incompatible with their worldviews.  It does not lead to a Marxist conclusion.  It leads to Salvation.

“And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.” (Matthew 10:22, KJV)

And, what is it that leftists hate about the true message of Jesus Christ?  Everything.  No exploration of the Bible can come away with a conclusion that Economic and/or Cultural Marxism and Christianity are compatible.  One is predicated on a compelled collective driven by economics or redefined social constructs; one is predicated on an individual relationship with God that transcends temporal considerations.  The totality of the leftist assault on God is a manifestation of their evil core.  

To be a Godly Christian, you cannot embrace leftism in any form – and therefore, any genuine discussion on Christian society cannot result in communism.  Leftists should be viewed as the demonic filth they truly are.  Repudiation is the only conclusion the true Christian can determine as it pertains to all manifestations of Marxism.