What political party would jesus be?

[YumYum]

: "Nothing you describe supports the idea of forced redistribution of wealth, which is the core of the Democrat party."

I disagree. In Acts 4:32 it says: "Moreover, the multitude of those who had believed had one heart and soul, and not even one would say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but the had all things in common." Verse 34 continues: "In fact, there was not one in need among them; for all those who were possessors of fields or houses would sell them and bring the values of the things sold and they would deposit them at the feet of the apostles. In turn, distribution would be made to each one just as he would have the need." This is the beginning of Marxist communism. You don't think there was no use of force? Read what it says at 5:1:"However, a certain man, Ananias by name, together with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession and secretly held back some of the price, his wife also knowing about it, and he brought just a part and deposited it at the feet of the apostles. But Peter said: "Ananias, to what end has Satan emboldened you to play false to the Holy Spirit and hold back secretly some of the price of the field?" As long as it remained with you did it not remain yours, and after it was sold did it not continue in your control? Why was it that you purposed such a deed as this in your heart? You have played false, not to men, but to God. On hearing these words Ananias fell down and died." Sounds like something Stalin would have done.

: "The fact that Jesus instructed his followers to pay taxes does not imply that he supported taxation."

I disagree. He commanded them to pay taxes. Why would he command them to do something that he didn't support?

: "His goal at the time was not to make political change, but to instruct his followers as to how to behave in the current political environment."
You don't think the Jewish system at that time was political? Jesus was a leftist activist, he rebelled against the Jewish leadership; it cost him his life.

: “Where you get green party is beyond me ... apparently I missed the part in the new testament on global warming.”

At Revelation 11:18 it says: “But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, …..and to destroy those destroying the earth.”

The Greek word for “destroy” literally translates as “pollute”.

: “He also certainly did not condemn the rich for being rich, only pointed out that it would be harder for them to give up worldly goods and follow him, because they had more to lose.”

He did condemn the rich. He says at Luke 6:24: “But woe to you rich persons, because you are having your reward in full.” He told the rich man at Matthew 19:21: “If you want to be complete, go sell your belongings and give to the poor (sounds like Obama) and you will have treasure in Heaven, and come be my follower.” The man refused and Jesus became grieved, and said at Matthew 19: 23,24: “Truly I say to that it will be a difficult thing for a rich man to get into the kingdom of the heavens. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to get through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of God.”

 

[Imperial]

Jesus told his disciples to pay taxes. He condemned the Jewish leaders and the rich. He hung out with whores and other condemned sinners. He treated women as equals and cared about the children. He fed the poor for free, and felt pity for them, he told his disciples not to take money for themselves when they performed miracles, and he drank wine; he was accused of being a drunkard. He was annointed with an exspensive oil that had hashish (marijuana) in it. He was truly a "High Priest".

He would have been a Democrat, but would have jumped to the Green Party. He sure as Hell wouldn't have been an Evangelical Republican.

Jesus wasn't a state actor, and he specified that. Church and state were two separate spheres in Jesus' view.

He never mandated what the state should do, only that man should have a limited obedience to the state.

 

[Bucjason]

: "Nothing you describe supports the idea of forced redistribution of wealth, which is the core of the Democrat party."

I disagree. In Acts 4:32 it says: "Moreover, the multitude of those who had believed had one heart and soul, and not even one would say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but the had all things in common." Verse 34 continues: "In fact, there was not one in need among them; for all those who were possessors of fields or houses would sell them and bring the values of the things sold and they would deposit them at the feet of the apostles. In turn, distribution would be made to each one just as he would have the need." This is the beginning of Marxist communism. You don't think there was no use of force? Read what it says at 5:1:"However, a certain man, Ananias by name, together with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession and secretly held back some of the price, his wife also knowing about it, and he brought just a part and deposited it at the feet of the apostles. But Peter said: "Ananias, to what end has Satan emboldened you to play false to the Holy Spirit and hold back secretly some of the price of the field?" As long as it remained with you did it not remain yours, and after it was sold did it not continue in your control? Why was it that you purposed such a deed as this in your heart? You have played false, not to men, but to God. On hearing these words Ananias fell down and died." Sounds like something Stalin would have done.

: "The fact that Jesus instructed his followers to pay taxes does not imply that he supported taxation."

I disagree. He commanded them to pay taxes. Why would he command them to do something that he didn't support?

: "His goal at the time was not to make political change, but to instruct his followers as to how to behave in the current political environment."
You don't think the Jewish system at that time was political? Jesus was a leftist activist, he rebelled against the Jewish leadership; it cost him his life.

: “Where you get green party is beyond me ... apparently I missed the part in the new testament on global warming.”

At Revelation 11:18 it says: “But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, …..and to destroy those destroying the earth.”

The Greek word for “destroy” literally translates as “pollute”.

: “He also certainly did not condemn the rich for being rich, only pointed out that it would be harder for them to give up worldly goods and follow him, because they had more to lose.”

He did condemn the rich. He says at Luke 6:24: “But woe to you rich persons, because you are having your reward in full.” He told the rich man at Matthew 19:21: “If you want to be complete, go sell your belongings and give to the poor (sounds like Obama) and you will have treasure in Heaven, and come be my follower.” The man refused and Jesus became grieved, and said at Matthew 19: 23,24: “Truly I say to that it will be a difficult thing for a rich man to get into the kingdom of the heavens. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to get through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of God.”

Ummm, Jesus was an evangelical ...I hardly think that makes him a "leftist activist" , lol.

Jesus would tell us to stay the hell away from ALL politics, and put our trust in god, not a government....

 

[jsu718]

I would say more of a non-political voluntarist communist... as in shared community property among believers with no state run system of wealth redistribution.

 

[erowe1]

: "Nothing you describe supports the idea of forced redistribution of wealth, which is the core of the Democrat party."

I disagree. In Acts 4:32 it says: "Moreover, the multitude of those who had believed had one heart and soul, and not even one would say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but the had all things in common." Verse 34 continues: "In fact, there was not one in need among them; for all those who were possessors of fields or houses would sell them and bring the values of the things sold and they would deposit them at the feet of the apostles. In turn, distribution would be made to each one just as he would have the need." This is the beginning of Marxist communism. You don't think there was no use of force? Read what it says at 5:1:"However, a certain man, Ananias by name, together with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession and secretly held back some of the price, his wife also knowing about it, and he brought just a part and deposited it at the feet of the apostles. But Peter said: "Ananias, to what end has Satan emboldened you to play false to the Holy Spirit and hold back secretly some of the price of the field?" As long as it remained with you did it not remain yours, and after it was sold did it not continue in your control? Why was it that you purposed such a deed as this in your heart? You have played false, not to men, but to God. On hearing these words Ananias fell down and died." Sounds like something Stalin would have done.

: "The fact that Jesus instructed his followers to pay taxes does not imply that he supported taxation."

I disagree. He commanded them to pay taxes. Why would he command them to do something that he didn't support?

Again, nothing you point to in any way resembles the average Democrat or Green. In the passage you quote from Acts, those Christians voluntarily shared with one another, not under government coercion. This has been conclusively proven to match up much better with the beliefs and practices of the typical evangelical Republican than it does the typical Democrat or Green.

On your question about taxes. I never said he didn't support his disciples paying taxes. He clearly did (which, again, is not that remarkable, since most Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and anarchists do think it right to choose paying taxes over going to jail). But he says nothing in support of Caesar demanding them in the first place. When Jesus commands to turn the other cheek, you surely don't take that as a license to the guy doing the slapping do you? Then, by the same reasoning, there is no need to interpret his command to pay taxes as a license to the guy collecting them. In both passages, Jesus' instruction is given to the people who are suffering as victims of an injustice and encouraging them to endure it. In neither passage are we given Jesus' instruction to the one committing the injustice. However, we do know from Mark 2:15-17 and other passages that he regarded the occupation of the tax collector as a sinful one.

 

[erowe1]

At Revelation 11:18 it says: “But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, …..and to destroy those destroying the earth.”

The Greek word for “destroy” literally translates as “pollute”.

That's not true. The word means to destroy and has nothing at all to do with what we moderns call "pollution," such as emitting smog or leaving litter on the ground. But even if it did, it would still have nothing at all to do with questions about what the role of government should be.

However, the Bible does tell us to be good stewards of what God has given us. In the case of the planet, this means that we should drill and burn all the oil we can. Jesus taught in Matt 25:14-30 that leaving what God has entrusted you hidden in the ground instead of using it to make a profit is bad stewardship. So we shouldn't be doing that with our oil.

 

[YumYum]

Again, nothing you point to in any way resembles the average Democrat or Green."

That is your opinion.

: "In the passage you quote from Acts, those Christians voluntarily shared with one another,.."

A Christian and his wife were struck dead by a loving God because the Christian kept part of the money that was rightfully his. This scared the shit out of the other Christians watching this whole scenario. Who wouldn't give after watching God kill somebody.


: "This has been conclusively proven to match up much better with the beliefs and practices of the typical evangelical Republican than it does the typical Democrat or Green.

I disagree. All Evangelicals talk about is money. Evangelical preachers harp about tithing. Have you ever heard of Benny Hinn, Oral Roberts, Kenneth Copeland, Cliofis Dollar and all the other con artist preachers that rip people off? Jesus gave, while those preachers do nothing but take. They are also all republicans.

: "On your question about taxes. I never said he didn't support them paying taxes. He clearly did. But he says nothing in support of Caesar demanding them in the first place. I addressed this clearly and specifically in my post to which you reply but do not answer."

I did answer. The Jews were totally against paying the tax, much like Libertarians. By Jesus telling his disciples to pay the tax, Jesus was rebelling against the Jewish leaders. He commanded them to pay the tax. He didn't say, "if you want to pay the tax, you can, but I will leave it up to you." No, he told them to pay the tax! Period.


: "When Jesus commands to turn the other cheek, you surely don't take that as a license to the guy doing the slapping do you? Then, by the same reasoning, there is no need to interpret his command to pay taxes as a license to the guy collecting them."

Your reasoning here doesn't make sense. Who said anything about collecting taxes? Jesus commanded his disciples to pay the tax; not collect them.

: "In both passages, Jesus instruction is given to the people who are suffering as victims of an injustice and encouraging them to endure it."

Right! And also pay the tax!

: "In neither passage are we given Jesus' instruction to the one committing the injustice."


You lost me here.

: "However, we do know from Mark 2:15-17 and other passages that he regarded the occupation of the tax collector as a sinful one.

"

Right, but we are talking about paying the tax, not collecting the tax. Isn't it interesting that he partied with tax collectors and forgave them? The only reason tax collectors were viewed as sinners by the Jewish leaders is because they didn't want to pay the tax. Jesus did: Jesus would have been a Democrat.

 

[YumYum]

: "

That's not true. The word means to destroy and has nothing at all to do with what we moderns call "pollution," such as emitting smog or leaving litter on the ground. But even if it did, it would still have nothing at all to do with questions about what the role of government should be."

You are wrong. I talked personally to a member of a translation committee who speaks Konie Greek and he told me that the word literally translates as "pollution". Some translations have it as "ruin".



: "However, the Bible does tell us to be good stewards of what God has given us. In the case of the planet, this means that we should drill and burn all the oil we can. Jesus taught in Matt 25:14-30 that leaving what God has entrusted you hidden in the ground instead of using it to make a profit is bad stewardship. So we shouldn't be doing that with our oil.

You sound like Sarah Palin on crack. I'm not even going to go there on this one.

 

[erowe1]

"

Right, but we are talking about paying the tax, not collecting the tax. Isn't it interesting that he partied with tax collectors and forgave them? The only reason tax collectors were viewed as sinners by the Jewish leaders is because they didn't want to pay the tax. Jesus did: Jesus would have been a Democrat.

He forgave them for....
being tax collectors! And that's the point. When Jesus said that the sick need a doctor in reference to the tax collectors and sinners (both groups being placed together in apposition), he means that they are sick (i.e. something is wrong with what they do) and he's the doctor. Yes. Jesus did pay taxes, and Jesus also willingly went to the cross to be unjustly murdered. He forgave the parties that were guilty of both of those injustices. But he didn't deny that they were truly injustices.

Jesus paying taxes doesn't make him like a Democrat any more than it makes him like people of every other political persuasion, all of whom do pay taxes, even most anarchists.

And once again (though this really shouldn't need to be repeated so often), voluntarily giving to the poor apart from the government forcing you to do it, which is what every passage you have quoted speaks of (including the one in Acts where Ananaias and Saphira are not struck dead for failing to give, but for lying when they claimed to give what they did not--the giving itself was voluntary, and the entire story is within the Church and has nothing to do with the state), is something that evangelical Republicans do more than Democrats. That's not my opinion. It's proven fact.
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Ca...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253379063&sr=8-1

So, you're basing your conclusion that Jesus would be a Democrat on characteristics about him that are more like Republicans than they are like Democrats.

 

[Liberty Star]

Jesus would be an independent.

He cannot agree with ideology of Republican or Democratic parties of today, and would probably be attacked by both major parties just for being Jesus.

 

[erowe1]

: "
You are wrong. I talked personally to a member of a translation committee who speaks Konie Greek and he told me that the word literally translates as "pollution". Some translations have it as "ruin"

I'm not wrong. I don't know what translation committee you're friend is on. But they don't speak Koine Greek. Nobody does. They also are out to lunch. Assuming you're correct about their credentials, I would guess that they have merely done what Bible interpreters often love to do, which is to look for innovative ways to add some twist to some passage based on something in the Greek that they know their audience won't be prepared to check. I know Koine Greek fairly well (well enough to engage this particular question with competence, at least) and have taught it at the graduate level.

Here's the entry from one major lexicon on the word in question, the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament:

διαφθείρω diaphtheirœ destroy, demolish*

διαφθορά, ᾶς, ἡ diaphthora destruction

Bibliography
Lit.: M. DIBELIUS, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (1956) 138-85. — J. W. DOEVE, Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (1953) 168-76. — G. HARDER, TDNT IX, 102-6. — T. HOLTZ, Untersuchungen über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas (TU 104, 1968) 48-51. — E. KRÄNKL, Jesus der Knecht Gottes (BU 7, 1972) 131-43.

1. a) This compound of φθείρω, strengthened with διά, has a literal meaning in Luke 12:33: destroy, demolish (D has fut.; ἀφανίζω, which appears in Matt 6:19, may be original; cf. Schulz, Q 142). The image is of the heavenly treasure, for which the disciples must be concerned and which will not be destroyed by moths. This meaning is present also in Rev 8:9; after the second vision of the trumpets (vv. 8f.) one-third of the ships in the sea are destroyed by a cosmic event: economics and trade are harmed, causing the people to fall into great affliction. In 11:18 the announcement of judgment (including "destroying the destroyers of the earth," v. 18c) is contrasted with the preceding promise of reward by the adversative καί in v. 18b. The destroyers of the earth are opposed to the servants of God, who are characterized more precisely as prophets, saints, and those who fear the name of God. The former will themselves be destroyed. The literal meaning of the twofold διαφθείρω remains determinative, even though moral destruction, which the enemies of God inflict on the Church, can also be intended; cf. 19:2.

b) Διαφθείρω has a fig. meaning in 2 Cor 4:16. Paul describes the contrast between the outer and the inner nature and emphasizes that the outer nature is destroyed (pass.). In the context of vv. 16-18 this is interpreted to mean that the momentary suffering burdens the earthly existence (v. 17) and that this existence is temporary (v. 18). The vb. does not refer to "the continual decrease of physical vitality" (H. Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief [KEK] 153) but instead expresses the fact that the earthly and human form of existence and life is destroyed, i.e., vanquished.

A fig. significance is also present in 1 Tim 6:5. In a five-part vice list, bickering by the people, which has led to their mind (ΰ νοῦς) being destroyed, is mentioned last (cf. 2 Tim 2:8). Διαφθείρω is used for the wrong attitude of mind and the ethically corrupt position of the heretics mentioned in 1 Tim 6:3-10 (N. Brox, Pastoralbriefe [RNT] 208-11).

2. In Acts (and only there) διαφθορά destruction appears 6 times: twice in Peter's speech at Pentecost (2:27, 31), and 4 times in Paul's speech at Antioch (13:34-37). In both texts it is used in statements about the resurrection of Jesus; in both cases Ps 15:10 LXX is the basis (see A. Schmitt, "Ps 16, 8-11 als Zeugnis der Auferstehung in der Apg," BZ 17 [1973] 229-48) for the statement. Although šaµa¾ ("pit, grave") appears in the MT, the rendering in the LXX with διαφθορά expresses the destruction of the person in death. The rendering of διαφθορά with "decay" (see E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles [1971] 182, 412; Harder 104, etc.) can scarcely be justified on linguistic or technical grounds; the anthropological terms in Ps 15:8-11 LXX are not to be understood in the sense of a dichotomy.

The statement from the Psalms is used as a basis for the statement that God did not abandon Jesus to the irrevocable fate of death. The statement is even strengthened in Acts 13:34: God does not allow Jesus to return to destruction. BAGD s.v. renders the phrase ὑποστρέφειν εἰς διαφθοράν as "return to decay (i.e., prob. the realm of the dead)." Even if the text in Psalms does not totally exclude this meaning and one observes that in 2:24 of the D text θάνατος is replaced by ᾅδης, it is still better to understand the noun in both Acts 2:27-31 and 13:34-37 in a comprehensive sense: Jesus' resurrection was a liberation from the destruction that is brought about by death; this liberation is final. There is no return to the destructive power of death (cf. ὠδῖνες τοῦ θανάτου in 2:24).

Please show me where in there (or anywhere else) you find evidence of this word being used for litter or smog or anything else of the sort. You may need to adjust your font settings in your browser for the Greek unicode. But I'm sure, given your obvious expertise in the subject, that won't be a problem.

 

[YumYum]

I'm not wrong. I don't know what translation committee you're friend is on. But they don't speak Koine Greek. Nobody does. They also are out to lunch. Assuming you're correct about their credentials, I would guess that they have merely done what Bible interpreters often love to do, which is to look for innovative ways to add some twist to some passage based on something in the Greek that they know their audience won't be prepared to check. I know Koine Greek fairly well (well enough to engage this particular question with competence, at least) and have taught it at the graduate level.

Here's the entry from one major lexicon on the word in question, the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament:



Please show me where in there (or anywhere else) you find evidence of this word being used for litter or smog or anything else of the sort. You may need to adjust your font settings in your browser for the Greek unicode. But I'm sure, given your obvious expertise in the subject, that won't be a problem.

Please read the text in the middle.

 

[erowe1]

Please read the text in the middle.

I've read it. You would be advised to do the same before offering the opinion that the word in question refers to anything remotely similar to what we moderns call "pollution." It clearly doesn't in any occurrence.

 

[Ozwest]

Why is it necessary to define one's self by affiiliation with a set pattern of beliefs based upon subjective teachings?

The great mystery of Universal Intelligence is beyond my comprehension.

Guess some of you have got it figured...

 

[CzargwaR]

Jesus would not belong to any party and at the same time belong to all parties.

Yes, it's a thinker...

 

[Objectivist]

Not a Libertarian .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...

 

[erowe1]

Not a Libertarian .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...

I see you ignored the discussion up to this point. There's nothing about telling people that they should pay their taxes that is inconsistent with being against those taxes in principle. For the most, even the staunchest anti-tax libertarians still advise their own children to pay their taxes, rather than go to jail, just as Jesus taught his disciples to. In fact, the only political views that comport with Christian moral principles in general, and the teachings of Jesus in particular, would be views that, relative to the prevailing political spectrum in America today, are extremely libertarian. He may not have been a libertarian in the absolute sense, to the point that he would be considered an anarchist. But even that is debatable. And his ethics certain point toward something more libertarian than, say, the Ayn Rand Institute (though, granted, that's setting the bar awfully low).

 

[Objectivist]

I see you ignored the discussion up to this point. There's nothing about telling people that they should pay their taxes that is inconsistent with being against those taxes in principle. For the most, even the staunchest anti-tax libertarians still advise their own children to pay their taxes, rather than go to jail, just as Jesus taught his disciples to. In fact, the only political views that comport with Christian moral principles in general, and the teachings of Jesus in particular, would be views that, relative to the prevailing political spectrum in America today, are extremely libertarian. He may not have been a libertarian in the absolute sense, to the point that he would be considered an anarchist. But even that is debatable. And his ethics certain point toward something more libertarian than, say, the Ayn Rand Institute (though, granted, that's setting the bar awfully low).

Actually I always address the OP first then read thru the rest after answering the question.
Oddly enough an earlier poster made the same comments about render unto Ceasar that I did.

 

[Objectivist]

Jesus wasn't concerned with the material world. He told people to render unto Caesar what was Caesar's. So he wouldn't have cared what political party is in power whether it be Republican, Democrat, Communist, or Nazi. All he was concerned about was that people lived a good Christian life and secured their place in the afterlife, which was all he viewed as important. Remember, the after life is forever. In comparison, your time on earth is merely a nanosecond in time.

Did Jesus call himself a "Christian"?

 

[LibertyEagle]

People, go do something constructive and stop posting this divisive shit.