King James only Baptists baffle me

I myself am very sympathetic to the King James Onlists on certain matters, like which source texts to use and which books, chapters and verses are and are not Canon, and the biggest issues I have with the KJV aren’t fixed by newer translations but often made worse.  I even consider the KJV compatible with certain doctrines many assume you have to reject the KJV to support like Universal Salvation.

The most Extreme KJV Onlists tend to be Baptists or younger sects of partially Baptist origin (Like Millerites and Pentecostals).

Baptists are at their core Hyper Congregationalists, yet part of the agenda behind the King James Bible was doubling down on High Church Translation decisions of the Geneva Bible like translating Ekklesia as Church, Episcopas as Bishop and Diakonos as Deacon.

KJV onlyists get around these issues by simply repeatedly saying that “Church in the Bible just means a gathering of believers”, and that is accurate to what the Greek word Ekklesia means, but that’s not what the English word Church means.  In its origin the English word Church refers to a type of building.  Words can change meaning over time, some of my issues with the KJV are words that were correct at the time but not anymore.  You can’t however simply force it to happen, the word Church still first and foremost puts the idea of either a religious building or a hierarchical organized religion in people's minds.

William Tyndale used the word Congregation for Ekklesia which is why our position on Ecclesiastical Polity is called Congregational Polity. But perhaps an even better English translation would be Assembly, that’s how Ekklesia is usually translated when discussing the word’s use in Secular Greek Politics where it means the gathering together of the Citizenry of a Polis to discuss an issue and then Vote.  But nowadays the word Assembly in politics is used by some bodies of Representatives rather than Direct Democracy, but the same has happened to the root of Congregation thanks to Congress.

As a Christian Weeb the word I would suggest if consulting on a Japanese Bible is Shukai.

Episcopas means Overseer and Diakanos means Servant or Minister or Messenger, I think even Secretary could work.

Bishop and Deacon are hard to call absolutely wrong when they are technically just evolutions of the original Greek words.  But it’s precisely their lack of nativeness to the English Language that makes them sound like grander positions of prestige than the Scriptures themselves intended.  Further reinforced by all the High Church baggage attached to them by Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Episcopalian usage where Bishop has come to mean the clerical Monarch of at least an entire City.

KJV Only Baptists don’t usually use the word Bishop outside of directly quoting Scripture because they know the word doesn’t to most people mean what they want it to.

Priest is a uniquely Biblically awkward word since it etymologically derives from the Greek Presbyter but in modern English Bibles isn't used to translate that word instead being used in the Hebrew Bible for Kohen (and the Hurrian loan word Komer) and in the Greek New Testament for Hiereus. All the more reason to just not use it at all anymore.

As someone who does believe in honoring the Hebrew Roots of the faith in certain contexts I would just use Kohen to translate Kohen (and Kehuna for Priesthood) and for Hiereus when it’s referring to the Israelite Priesthood as well as that of Melchizedek and All Believers. 

And to add some Anti-Papist flavor I’d use Pontiff for Komer and the Hiereus of Dios/Zeus/Jupiter in Acts 14:13.  But since a Japanese Bible isn’t likely to want to be so directly Anti-Catholic it should just use words for Shinto Priests and Priesthood for Komer and Acts 14:13.

Translating Presbyter as Elder isn’t really wrong in any way, but I do feel connotatively many readers will first think a Fifty at the youngest type of Elder.  The alternative Senior has a similar problem but at least most people remember it being associated with High School Students.  As I’ve said before I very much like identifying Presbyter with Senpai and Newtron with Kohai for Japanese.  Senpai however is in the English Urban Dictionary now so is not out of the question for an English Translation, and lacks the potential misunderstanding as a word that refers inherently to someone grandfather aged. Presbuterion I would just translate depending on context either Elders or Council.

1 Timothy 4:14 is the only time Presbuterion is used among Believers, the other two times it’s of the Judean Sanhedrin.  So I imagine this verse plays a role in debates between Congregationalists and Presbyterians.  I don’t know how most Baptists explain this but I feel it’s just a reference to the believers doing the laying on of hands being older than the person receiving.  Nothing here to justify a committee meeting of elders who lead different congregations meeting in a Sanhedrin like fashion.

However I identify as a Congregationalist principally because of my belief in Ecclesiastical Direct Democracy.  In terms of the Localism vs Regionalism aspect of where Congregationalists and Presbyterians differ, I kind of fall between them.  There is no Biblical support for a single City having more then one Ekklesia, remember an Ekklesia means the entire citizenry of a Polis a City.  Fortunately thanks to Galatians 3:28 we know the Ekklesia of Christ does not exclude Women, Slaves or Ethnic Foreigners.  When all Believers regardless of location are referred to as one Ekklesia like 1 Timothy 3:15 that's the Ekklesia of the Heavenly Zion/New Jerusalem of Hebrew 12:22. Revelation 3:12, 20:9, and 21-22.

Calvin and Zwingli were also only ever devising Church Governmental structures for City-States, the Swiss regional Synods came after Calvin died and the formation of the Dutch Reformed Church and Church of Scotland came even later then that.  But I still think even on a city level their models were too organized and hierarchical, there should be no Council with a fixed membership, when the different congregations in a city need to meet they should send representatives chosen for that specific meeting.

Of course we also need to consider how much bigger many modern cities are then even the largest of Ancient Cities.  The Anime Durarara!! Is set in Ikebukuro, Ikebukuro is part of Toshima which is part of Tokyo.  The greater Tokyo Metropolitan Area has a population probably larger even then first century Galatia much less Ephesus.  In this Anime it sure seems like Ikubukuro alone could be an entire Classical Greek Polis.

I am more Congregationalist even then most Baptists because I don’t believe in there being a single Episcopas even for a local congregation of less than 70 people.  I reject the very notion that the primary structure of a gathering of believers is one person giving a speech and everyone else just nodding in agreement, the picture 1 Corinthians paints involves lots of people talking.  The Overseer(s) of a given meeting oversee it, nothing more.  Sermons have a place, but that’s not what the weekly gathering is for.

Going back to the word Church I actually would consider using it to translate a New Testament Greek word, Naos.  There are three Greek words translated Temple in the KJV, one accounts for only one KJV appearance of Temple and is like the Hebrew Beth a word for House so I'd just translate it House.  The main two are Hieron and Naos.  Hieron is the broader term that can refer to indoor Temples and outdoor Temples and complexes that contain both, that’s the word I’d keep translating as Temple.  Naos however very specifically means an enclosed structure containing a god or a representation of one.

It is Naos that is used of the all believers being God’s Temple doctrine in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:19, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 2:20-22 and Revelation 3:12, as well each individual believer's Body, and when John 2 calls Jesus’s Body “this Temple”.   In The Hebrew Bible I’d likewise translate Dybir as Church which is a rarely used word for the building that contains the Holy of Holies in Solomon’s Temple. 

But for a Japanese Bible I’d translate Dybir and Naos as Honden.

The Adopted Son of Joseph Son of David

Another objection to the Genealogy of Jesus as presented in Matthew and Luke is that Jesus couldn't become an Heir to the Throne of David by Adoption.  Now I still stand by my past arguments for Luke's genealogy actually being Mary's, and even without that nothing anywhere says Mary wasn't a descendant of David.  But considering the value I place on Adoption both morally and theologically, it's about time I said "so what".  Because after all there must be a reason we're given Joseph's genealogy in at least Matthew.

But first, before I even get into that argument. I should address what may sometimes be an internal debate among Christians.  Does Jesus qualify as even an adopted son of Joseph?

Because in the story at the end of Luke 2 when Mary finds Jesus she refers to Joseph as His father, but some people like to say what Jesus goes on to say about doing His Father's business as correcting her.  That has it's origin as an over reaction to how some seek to use what Mary said here against The Virgin Birth.

I feel many American Conservative Christians have dug their heels in on that because of their obsession with the modern nuclear family.  They feel an Adopted or Step father is only needed if the physical sire is a deadbeat or just plain dead, because you can't have "two daddies" that would be horrible.  This is also why so many commentaries refuse to acknowledge that Jacob is referring to Leah as Joseph's mother in Genesis 37.

Luke 4:22 and John 1:45 clearly show that Jesus was legally regarded as a Son of Joseph.

In the past I'd focused more on Luke's Genealogy because even though I've always valued Adoption I felt that Jesus had to be a Blood descendant of everyone Prophecy required Him to descend from so that by His shed Blood gentiles can become Abraham's Seed and mortals can become Sons of God.  And I still think He was, but I've come to realize that Jesus is himself an adopted Son for a reason.

Now when this comes up as a Jewish objection to Jesus, it's not because Jews oppose Adoption or anything, The Torah clearly says anyone Circumcised who follows The Torah is to be considered an Israelite.  It's a claim that Royal Inheritance specifically has to be biological.

II Samuel 7:12 does specifically say Seed.  But it'd be hypocritical to use that against Jesus since these objectors to Jesus often reject dual fulfillment elsewhere.  The immediate context of that verse was clearly the Seed of David who took the throne right after David died.  What's interesting is verse 14 talks about this Son of David being an adopted Son of God.  So the New Testament brings it full circle, The Son of God becomes an adopted Son of David.  And that is why David calls The Messiah his Lord in Psalm 110.

The last verse of Jeremiah 33 seems to say that Israel won't be ruled by the Seed of David anymore when they return from Captivity.  The Root in Isaiah 11 is of Jesse rather then David.  Some Psalms speak of David's Seed, but there is room for interpretation there too.

I stumbled recently unto an online book by a Jew who argues that The Messiah will not be a Son of David but David himself Resurrected, arguing that the Branch is an idiom for a Resurrected Body and looking specifically at Ezekiel 34&37.  As a Christian I obviously disagree with that overall premise, but I do agree that Ezekiel is describing David himself Resurrected as the future Nasi, not using the name David as a code for Jesus as some Christians prefer to look at it.  

I think David himself would take offense at excluding adopted sons from Royal Inheritance, since he was a Son but not by blood of Saul.  In 1 Samuel 24:9-11 David calls Saul "father" and in 1 Samuel 24:16 and 26:17-21-25 Saul calls David his Son.

Now David's Kingship ultimately came from God choosing his line over Saul's.  But likewise the Son of God incarnate doesn't need descent from any specific mortal to be the rightful ruler of The World.  David became a Son of Saul regardless.

Now you may respond that David was the Son in Law of Saul because he married Michal.  To which I first would say, "like how Christian apologists argue Luke's genealogy sometimes means Son in Law when it says Son".  This is also a good time to bring up The Bride of Christ, who is also the Daughter of Zion The City of David.

But another reason David was a Son of Saul was 1 Samuel 18:1-4 where David's Blood Covenant with Johnathon made him Johnathon's joint heir.

What Moses says of Joseph in Deuteronomy 33 is one of the foundations of the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine that's become popular in Rabbinic Judaism.  It's the basis for saying it's the Son of Joseph not David who will be killed and then Resurrected.  Something I brought up in my Human Sacrifice in The Torah post, which in turn referenced back to my Nazareth post where I suggested that Mary could have been of the Tribe of Manasseh.  For the sacrificial offering alluded to in that blessing it's being a Maternal Firstborn that mattered, the first to Open the Womb.

But the Messiah Ben-Joseph doctrine also needs it to be a Son of Joseph who's pierced in Zechariah 12:10, even though the context of that verse is all about the House of David.  Chapter 12 begins with a new "The Word of YHWH came unto me saying" so no it's not a continuation of the previous three chapters where Joseph and Ephraim came up a lot.  These three chapters seem to be strictly about the Southern Kingdom.  So the only way the one Pierced can be a Son of Joseph, is if he's a Son of Joseph adopted into the House of David.

The Curse on Jeconiah was reversed

 In Jeremiah 22:28-30 Yahuah puts a Curse on Jeconiah, calling him Coniah.

Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?  O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of Yahuah.  Thus saith Yahuah, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

And this gets used to say clearly Jesus (and his half siblings) are not eligible to inherit The Throne of David.

Now it makes some sense to me for Atheists to use this as a criticism of The Biblical record as a whole.  But as I'm about to show using this as a Jewish objection to Jesus doesn't really think things through.

Jeremiah is the only Biblical Author to mention this Curse.  And he's the Prophet who explains that Yahuah reverses His Blessings and Curses based on obedience in places like Chapter 18.  Ezekiel, the other major Prophet of that time, not only doesn't seem to view Jeconiah as Cursed but seems to never regard Zedekiah as a rightful King at all since he dates events of Zedekiah's reign as if Jeconiah was still King.

Earlier in Jeremiah 22 setting the stage for this Curse Yahuah says in verse 24.

As I live, saith Yahuah, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;

Compare this to Haggai 2:23 where Yahuah says of Coniah's grandson Zerubabel.

In that day, saith Yahuah of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith Yahuah, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith Yahuah of hosts.

So that's clearly a reversal, exactly what Jeconiah lost according to Jeremiah 22 Zerubabel has back according to Haggai.  And other Prophets of this time like Zechariah speak similarly of Zerubabel.

And indeed the line of Exilarchs acknowledged by Rabbinic Judaism as the heirs of David in Exile all descended from Zerubabel.

People making this objection often also claim it has to be strictly Pater-Lineal descent, so that leaves out the lines coming through Hillel The Elder who was a Benjamite, his Davidic descent was though his Mother, and through a son of David even further removed from Solomon then Nathan was.

So without the house of Zerubabel, we have no known descent from the Royal Line.

Possible Hasmonean ancestry of Jesus

I've already explained why Heli is the Father of Mary.  That combined with my hunch that the solution to the Kenen issue is that Kenen was Selah's older brother by some 15 or so years and Selah married Kenen's daughter.  Leads me to conclude that Luke 3's genealogy sometimes records the descent through a woman, but keeps it patriarchally expressed by listing the woman's husband as the son in law of her father.  Joseph is distinct because he is the only one who is NOT a biological ancestor of Jesus, thus he alone lacks the Greek definite article.

This can also explain the issue regarding the father of Shealtiel.  I think a daughter of Neri married Shealtiel son of Jechoniah, then he died without an heir and so she married his brother Pedaiah and had Zerubbabel.  There is also the issue that neither New Testament son of Zerubbabel is named in his Old Testament genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3:19.   

Matthew is definitely skipping generations sometimes, so Abiud could be a grandson or great grandson or further (the possibility that Abiud is a weird Greek form of Akkub of 1 Chronicles 3:24 has entered my mind).  And in the context of what I'm arguing here about Luke's genealogy, 1 Chronicles 3:19 does say Zerubbabel had a daughter, Shelomith, so I think she married Resha.

So my theory is when Heli is called a Son of Matthat it could mean son in law, and so on, but not always of course.

An interesting name in Luke 3:24 is Janna.  Janna is a very rare Hebrew name, and the only recorded example of the name around the time this Janna would have lived is the Hasmonean King Alexander Jannaeus.  Again I suspect the Joseph he's described as the son of could be his wife's father.

The only known wife of Alexander Jannaeus was Queen Salome Alexandra (Shelomtzion or Shlom Tzion).  Josephus tells us nothing about her family, but rabbinic traditions recorded in the Talmud say she was the sister of Simeon bar Shetah, Simeon's father was Shetah bar Yossei.  Since the Talmud is oral traditions written down at least 300 years after Salome's time it could be the nature of her relation to this family had slipped by a generation, making Simeon her nephew and Shetah her brother.  Since Yossei is a different form of Joseph, that would make Alexander Jannaeus a son in law of a Joseph.  Actually I can't help but suspect the Shetah generation is made up entirely since no Shetah was ever Nasi of the Sanhedrin but a Jose ben Joezer was, (however another candidate for the Joseph Luke 3:24 is Jose ben Jochanan).

Epiphanius of Salamis in Panarion Book 1 in the section discussing the Nazarenes seems to identify the marriage of Alexander and Salome as uniting the Aaronic and Davidic lines.

This family was one of the leading families of the Sanhedrin, from what I know about other leading families of the Sanhedrin (like the House of Hilel which came later), they often had Davidic ancestry.  And once the Hasmoneans started ruling as Kings it would make sense they'd want to marry into the House of David.  And the two Husbands of Alexandra were the first two to rule as Kings.  So Yossei being a descendant of Nathan Ben David is reasonably plausible.  But I have a hunch the mother Alexander & Aristobolus and wise of Hyrcanus I was also of Davidic descent.

Actually another good reason for Hasmonean leaders to marry daughters of David was perhaps simply because they were the High Priests.  Aaron's wife was Elisheba, the sister of Nashon who was a prince of Judah and direct ancestor of Boaz and thus David.  Much later Jehosheba was a daughter Jehoram and sister of Ahaziah, king of Judah of the House of David, who married the Priest Jehoiada.

Salome and Jannaeus had two sons, Hyrcanus II and Aristoblus II.  From then on with few exceptions all the Hasmoneans are known only by Greek names, but I suspect most also had Hebrew names that Josephus simply neglected to record.

But Melchi may not even be the main Hebrew name of whoever is meant, it derives from the Hebrew word for King.  Both sons had been Kings, though I feel Aristobulus II was more likely to have used Melek as an alternate name.

Aristobulus II had two sons and two daughters one of whom was named Alexandra (not to be confused with the Alexandra who married her brother Alexander).  Himself, his son Matthias Antigonus II, and his daughters are recorded as being taken to Rome by Pompey after he captured Jerusalem in 63 BC according to Josephus (Antiquities of The Jews Book 14 Chapter 4, at the end of the chapter).  They later returned to Judea, after the death of Aristobulus II in 48 BC they were protected by Ptolemy Bar Mennaeus according to (Antiquities Book 14 Chapter 7, at the very end).  Phillipon the son of Ptolemy married Alexandra, but later Ptolemy killed him and married Alexandra himself.  The unnamed daughter after Antigonus died held the Hyrcania Fortress till just before Actium in 31 BC.

I suspect the unnamed sister is more likely to have possibly been married to a Levi, (or perhaps that name just signified marrying a Levite or a Levitical priest).

Robert Graves started a fringe theory that involved Matthias Antigonus II as the Matthat of Luke 3:24 (a theory defended in a book called Herodian Messiah).  His scheme however did not match a strict literal interpretation of Scripture and so I do not intend to support it specifically at all.

Janna was a rare name which is why I think it could be significant.  Matthat/Matthias/Matthew was very common however, so that's not as significant.  Still hypothetically if this Matthat was Antigonus II, we know pater-lineally only one generation comes between him and Jannaeus, so it would mean he married either his niece or a first cousin once removed.  Neither of which are included in The Bible's incest restrictions, so it would be perfectly legal.

Matthias Antigonus is known to have had at least one daughter.

The Herodian Messiah theory alluded to above is dependent on confusing the two wives of Antipater.  Mariamne III who was a daughter of Aristobulus IV, and an unnamed wife who was a daughter of Matthias Antigonus.  The Herodian Messiah theory makes Antipater the husband of Mary and father of Jesus.  My theory makes a daughter of Antigonus possibly Mary's mother, not Mary herself.

Antipater is a Greek name, so Antipater son of Herod could have had an additional Hebrew or Aramaic name that history hasn't recorded.  Herod was not an Idumean.

It's possible this woman wasn't the only daughter of Antigonus II.  And it's also possible she was already a widow when she was married to Antipater, if Antigonus himself had ever arranged a marriage for her it wouldn't be likely to have been to a Herodian.

I think one factor in why Luke laid out this genealogy how he did was because of the potential significance in the numbers.  Luke's genealogy has Jesus as the 77th from Adam and 70th from Enoch.

Solomon was the youngest son of Bathsheba

People keep referring to Solomon as the oldest surviving son of Bathsheba, and Nathan as the second.

All three verses that list the sons of David and Bathsheba list Solomon as the last of the four and Nathan third.  2 Samuel 5:14, 1 Chronicles 3:5 and 1 Chronicles 14:4.

"And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel:"

Also I don't believe the four listed here are only the "surviving" ones, I think even the one that died at birth was given a name, and that name was Shimea.

Among the things said by critics to attack the idea that Jesus had any claim to the Throne of David from Luke's genealogy is that the Throne could only be inherited through Solomon.  Solomon is relevant to II Samuel 7 because he is the near fulfillment, but nothing in Scripture says the Messiah must be descended from Solomon. On top of that go back to the account of the division of The Kingdom in I Kings 11.  It says Solomon's sons will never rule a United Kingdom, only Judah.  The Messiah will rule all of Israel.  Meanwhile Zachariah 12:12 makes a reference to the House of Nathan that is interesting.  And 2 Kings 23:11 has a mysterious reference to a "Chamber of Nathan-Melech" Melech meaning King.

Heli of Luke's genealogy is the father of Mary

I hold that common view, but I don't argue it in the more common way that view is presented.  It's not about Heli being Joseph's father in law, at least it's not only that.

In the Greek of Luke 3:23, first of all the order of words are different.  Secondly the entire genealogy in Greek only says "son of" once, and that's before the "as was supposed" which is put in parentheses.

In the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article with one exception: the name of Joseph. Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph's name that he was not really part of the genealogy.  I actually believe the parentheses in English should be expanded to include his name.

So I would render it.

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli,

Thomas Aquinus also said that Luke says Jesus was the Son of Eli (Heli is a Hellenization of Eli) though he didn't explain why.  Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, p. IIIa, q.31, a.3, Reply to Objection 2.

In both Greek and Hebrew the word for Son can mean Grandson or any descendant.

Tribal identity in Israel was usually determined strictly pater-lineally.  But in the case of bastards where the father was unknown, or a proselyte marrying an Israelite woman and fathering children by her, the pater-lineal tribal identity of the mother would determine the tribal identity of that offspring.

Another example of a bad argument to use on this issue is the Talmudic reference sometimes cited as saying Heli was the father of Mary (Chag. 77,4).  This reference only seems to say this when a Christian is quoting it, so independent verification is wanting, and it has been cited by adversaries of this view as saying something different.  

We should not build doctrine on Apocrypha, but the Infancy Gospel of James is interesting.  At first glance it would seem to contradict this view by clearly naming the father of Mary as Joachim.... But....

Joachim is a variant form of the name Jehoiakim.  There is only one Jehoiakim in The Bible, he was a King of Judah of the House of David.  The Infancy Gospel doesn't specify Joachim's ancestry, but it does call Mary a Virgin of the daughters of David.  

King Jehoiakim was also known by the name Eliakim.  Those names not only look similar in how they end, but they have effectively the same meaning, just using a different name of God to communicate the meaning.  "He whom God has kept".  So it's probable any Jehoiakim could have also been called Eliakim, especially if a later one was named after the King.

Eli could very easily serve as a shortening of Eliakim.  And as I already said Heli was a Hellenization of Eli.

Yet the Infancy Gospel wouldn't have done it this way if it was seeking out to say the Biblical Heli is Mary's father.  While plenty in the Infancy Gospel is clearly false, being the prototype of Catholic Marian doctrines.  It may have been influenced by some real history that was passed on.

Leftists should stop talking about Taxing The Rich

The YouTube Channel Tribunate has a good video on the Grain Dole of Ancient Rome.  There is a lot that’s misunderstood about it including over stating just how progressive it actually was.  But regardless it was upon introduction a massive relief to the Poor and Working Class.

And the Rich did not in any way pay for it, it was paid for unfortunately by the exploitation of the conquered people of the Colonies.  Not a single Grain of it was paid for by Taxing the wealthy.  Yet Rome’s Aristocratic Patricians hated it anyway, they despised it and never stopped trying to undermine and destroy it.  Because the more Desperate the poorest in a society are, the easier they are to exploit.

And that fact is even more true under modern Capitalism than it was in ancient economies.  

There are now a number of good YouTube videos on Modern Monetary Theory or MMT.  The fact is States with Currency Sovereignty like the United States create the money they spend and do not need a source of income to have enough money.  One of 1dime's videos on the subject is about how wrong it is to claim social programs are funded by Taxing the Rich.

However 1dime said one thing in that video I do disagree with, he said we should still Tax the Rich for “moral reasons”, well in my opinion as a theologically conservative Christian doing things for “moral reasons” is the height of immorality actually, it’s founded upon an Idealist rather then materialist framework.  Morality should be based on reducing harm and benefiting society.

These videos do explain why some Taxation is still needed for the Government Backed to have it’s objective value.  But once we understand that the Rich will oppose social programs like UBI and Free Healthcare and so on regardless and that how much money the Government doesn't actually matter, I say we should stop giving them the excuse of perceived victimization, because however hallow to use online Leftist America’s ruling ideology has made most even working class Americans very sympathetic to the idea of wanting what you think you’ve earned.

And another added benefit is that if CasualHistorian is right about Lowering Taxes being the only truly unifying principle of the Republican Party, then once self proclaimed Communists stop pretending we need to tax the rich to achieve even our short term goals we can start trying to run in primaries even when only the Republican Party is having one.  Their Primaries are easier for a GrassRoots candidate to win, and the right kind of Communist can build a coalition based on being pro Gun Rights and Libertarian on Social Issues and the non interventionist Anti-War wing of the Party.

I wish I understood this MMT stuff 4 years ago when I tried to argue something similar for after the 2020 Election.

A lot of Leftists like to use Austerity as a scare word, as a core embodiment of the Capitalist Economics they oppose.  Well the actual way to be the exact opposite of Austerity is to propose increased spending and lowering taxes at the same time.

We need to start making it more clear that our objective is for the masses to have more, not inherently for anyone to have less.  

But if the existence of the Ultra Wealthy bothers you that much, I believe what they have will naturally start to diminish once the masses are less exploitable, we don’t need to attack them directly.