:-k
Cudda swore he was a Roman appointed governor.

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Please read/quote a little further...

(verse 26-27)
The disciples were astounded. “Then who in the world can be saved?” they asked. Jesus looked at them intently and said, “Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But not with God. Everything is possible with God.”

Most people like to leave that part out...I guess to make the rich feel bad? Or just a simple oversight?

daveincincy wrote:

I just point out that his actions and philosophy are socialist. Looks pretty obvious to me . . . .

Brewha wrote:

So how would you classify Jesus ? As a capitalist?

Brewha wrote:

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.

jpotts wrote:

So how would you classify Jesus ? As a capitalist?

Brewha wrote:

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.

daveincincy wrote:

:-k

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...

DrMaddVibe wrote:

I had a feeling that seeing Christ’s philosophy in the light of current social ideologies might be a little too high brow. Would Jesus be for or against healthcare reform? Oh, he would be for ‘perfect love’. In other words he is too good, too perfect – too removed – to be applied to today’s social issues. Is that right?

Brewha wrote:

Well, for those who have read the Bible it seems intuitively obvious.

Mark Chapter 10:21-25
21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”
24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!
25 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."

So JC was into wealth re-distribution. Would he deny a miracle of healing due to a pre-existing condition?

:-k

Brewha wrote:

CAROUSEL IS A LIE!

Brewha wrote:

Runner

HockeyDad wrote:

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.

dpnewell wrote:

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.

dpnewell wrote:

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 . . . .

Brewha wrote: