America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

No. Pilate was a Conservative . . . .

Cudda swore he was a Roman appointed governor.

CAMEL WIDES???

Rick, if you've actually done a little reading (you know...things like "books," "magazines," and "newspapers") you would realize that this "mythology" you talk about has scientific backing.

Some 90%+ of the places mention in the Bible can be verified by looking at a map.

The notion that the like of David was a myth has several notable sources that verify it as existing. One of them is in the tomb of an Egyptian king (who, I might add, was not Jewish).

The existence of a historical Jesus is documented by several sources, a Shroud (which, despite the propaganda, connot be proved to be a forgery) and another matching remnent housed in Spain (which has blood evidence AND matches the features of the Shroud of Turin almost exactly).

The Bible is notable for identifying numerous historical kings in their relative timeframes, including a couple whose existence would not have been discovered if it were not for the Bible texts.

Fragments of the New Testament that line up with the current narrative can be traced back as early as 100 AD. Things like the current incarnation of Leviticus can be traced back to evidence much earlier than that.

For all of your chest-thumping over your Jewish roots, Rick, it'd be nice if you actually knew something about it. I find it a little unfortunate that the average Bible-thumping Christian probably knows more about your supposed heritage than you do (and probably takes it a little more seriously than you). It's a pity, really...

Not at all, my plucky poster – I just point out that his actions and philosophy are socialist. Looks pretty obvious to me . . . .

So how would you classify Jesus ? As a capitalist?

I'm going to go with the "Son of God"...but you continue to believe whatever you want.

I LOVE it when non-believers come in here and spout Bibical stuff.

It gives me hope that perhaps...just maybe...that the words are sinking in.

Till then...

Jesus, being a full representation of God and his perfect nature (love), operated in perfect love. If either a capitalist or a socialist can operate in perfect love (not "almost" or "close enough" love) then I guess that's what I would classify Jesus as. If either classification or political party could operate in perfect love, and do what God instructs (love one another), we wouldn't have a need for different parties or a president. I guess that just goes to show how broken the world is. Of course, your mileage (opinion) may vary.

CAROUSEL IS A LIE!

Dude, you totally missed it. The man came to Jesus, asking what "thing" he had to do to earn eternal life. Jesus told him to keep the commandments. The response Jesus was looking for was for the man to admit that the commandments could not be fully kept by any human. Instead, the man had a false self-righteousness, and said he had kept all the commandments from his youth, i.e., never lied, never coveted, loved God with his entire being at all times, loved his neighbor as himself, etc. Jesus said fine, prove to me that you love your neighbor as yourself. Sell everything you have and give it to the poor. Instead of confessing that he was not able to keep the commandments, he walked away, still thinking that he had no sin.

Jesus then shocked his listeners, by stating that a rich man couldn't obtain heaven by his riches. His listeners where dumfounded, as they replied "who then can possibly be saved?". See, the people thought that rich folk would have an easy time earning heaven, as they could buy the best sacrifices, and give big gifts to the temple, etc. He then said "With man this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible". I.E. salvation can not be purchased or earned, it is wholly of God, and God alone.

Such a shame that you missed the whole point, and tried to turn it into a social and political issue.

Ya know they filmed a lot of the scenes from that movie at a mall and the Water Gardens in Ft Worth..

The Bible passage was cited as an example of how Christ’s teaching could be considered socialistic. I was not attempting to conduct a Bible study class, or explore the deeper meaning of his words – I merely assert that his teachings, when defined in terms of social philosophy, are best characterized as socialistic.

I would not call him a Capitalist. I would not call him a Marxist. In fact I think he fails as a conservative, and weighs in fairly well as a liberal. Interesting points to discuss, but different entirely than you see as ‘the whole point’.

It seems a contradiction to hear the religious right’s disdain for the poor, and yet assert that their values are entirely in line with Christ’s teachings.

But perhaps there is no sanctuary . . . .