My conclusions are as I wrote in the post. Jesus’ ministry on Earth dealt very little with government (which job, by the way is not to “provide help to the suffering” but to provide essential services the people are unable to provide for themselves). He did encourage his followers to take care of those who could not care for themselves and to help those they had the opportunity to help. But, as I wrote, he preached that we should do that ourselves. I have no doubt that he would strongly disapprove of the use of forcible coercion.

Going back to that original article picture; what do you think of its message? The plackard alleges that Jesus demonstrated a number of stereotypically liberal attitudes – the ones which conservatives often disagree with. Do you think He would support free health care, or be against death sentences, or wars? He doesn’t explicitly discuss these issues, so what conclusion might you come to?

The Matthew 19:21-24 quote I provided shows that this is untrue. “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” He said that to an otherwise good person who specifically mentions that he obeyed all of the 10 commandments. Jesus unambiguously states that it is very unlikely for wealthy people to get into heaven (“eye of the needle”) at all. If you want a chance of salvation, you MUST give your wealth to the poor. I can’t think of a stronger denouncement of individual wealth, or as strong a promotion of sharing and giving.

“…if Jesus had real problems with profit, he wouldn’t have used a parable in which the character who represented God — the rich businessman — judged his servants based on how profitable they were for him.”

I’m not saying he is against profit. He is just against people who, as you say yourself, prize profit above god (I would also add “other people” too). It doesn’t matter if the avarice comes from corrupt government tax officials or successful business men; if they are keeping their wealth to themselves, they are (literally) bad in His book.

As for Jesus not endorsing government welfare programs: well this was 2000 years ago, and I doubt “government welfare” as we know it existed beyond the Roman “bread and circuses”. But more importantly, I don’t really understand the argument your making. Just because He didn’t explicitly endorse government welfare or charity doesn’t mean He would necessarily be against it. I argue that, from his emphasis on giving money to the poor, he would almost certainly prefer welfare programs and such charities.

Ironically, Zaccheus was a corrupt government official who had been abusing his power to take more tax money than he should from the people.

But, like I said, Jesus never obliged his followers to have any duty to society beyond the ones specifically given by the commandments of the Old Testament. At no point does he ever endorse government welfare programs nor did he require his followers to form charitable organizations. never happened.

The parable of the Talents was supposed to demonstrate the importance of making the most of what one is given (not hoarding/hiding your wealth) – it is not specifically a promotion of money lending, money just served as a specific example. The parable comes again in the form of the “Parable of the Ten Virgins”, only this time, lamp oil is used to represent the importance of taking proper preperation (it isn’t a promotion of the benefits of modern lighting).

Throughout Jesus’ life, he regularly discouraged wealth and financial exploitation. You attribute his scourging of the money lenders to his anger over their disrespect of the temple (not the act of usury); that might be a fine inference in that situation, but he repeatedly criticises other such figures. He convinces Zacchaeus, a greedy, self-serving tax collector, to hand over all his wealth (Luke 19:1-10). It was Jesus who proclaimed
(in Matthew 19:21) “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” and later (19:24) “…it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”.

Clearly Jesus feels that the wealthy have a duty to society, in that they should hand over their material wealth to those who need it. Though, yes, Jesus does not hold an “Occupy Jerusalem” movement, he repeatedly demonstrates through his parables and individual interactions that he is opposed to the idea of money hoarders, exploitative bankers/taxmen, and excess wealth. I don’t necessarily believe that Jesus, if he were here in the flesh, were to take part in the occupy movements. Jesus did not exactly endorse that many organisations outside of the Church, except on a small scale, symbolic level. But would he think it is acceptable for the wealthy to lack accountability or recompense? I certainly doubt it.