Jesus was a Liberal Hippie

Just learned of this site. Sorry the response is a little late.Anyway, a great deal of ignorance and resulting straw men here. Faith did a pretty good job but there is more to the story.Jesus was not a liberal hippie but a neo-con. He and the apostles were correcting the corrupt teachings and perversions of the Old Testament by the pharisees and sadducees. They were restoring the peoples understanding back to the original intent which is returning to the original status quo...the definition of conservatism.1) Taxes: Taxes are regarded as bad consequence of deviating from the Mosaic law which included civic and religious law. The Jews wanted a king like the rest of the nations and God warned that a king would result in taxes. The jews persisted to God gave them a king...and taxes. We are supposed to take care of the poor with tithing and offerings. Taxes on top of that are a burden. The Jews had violated God's law and had their sovereignty taken away by Rome before they were scattered throughout the world according to God's Law (Deut 28). This was ordained by God hence Romans 13, even evil rulers are put their by God for his reasons like this one and therefore we render unto Caesar his taxes.2) Government. Faith had it right. We are supposed to do things like provide for the poor w/o an inefficient bureaucracy that takes 75% of the money for the administration; but rather, do it through other avenues that even with corruption yield 75% to 90% to the people who need it with only 25%-10% for administration.
a) Efficiency: Government is always the least efficient means to accomplish something. Unless it is in the national interest like defense then it is to be done privately which is always more efficient because of competition. When the Government has a monopoly there is no reason to be efficient. Plus the Government only consumes, it is not a producer making it even more of a drain on productivity. One only needs to learn econ 101 the national income equation to see this. When a producer buys things it needs to produce it employs more people who spend money purchasing things they need to survive employing more people who work for another producer and so on. That's why growth is possible and productivity is important. The government stifles growth and productivity. If government took over health-care in america it would be socializing 1/7th of the economy which would stifle growth and productivity. Those who always talk of 'greed' and the 'rich' seem to think that growth, productivity and prosperity are limited...the 'zero-sum theory' that has been shown to be false. They believe there is only a limited amount to go around and if one has more then they do so at the expense of another who therefore can only have less. False. Growth and productivity has no limit neither does prosperity. Anyone can work hard, invent something and be prosperous and by doing so they employ others and increase the prosperity overall. It is socialism that prevents this and always lowers productivity, prosperity and growth to the lowest common denominator...poverty. How many real-world examples do you need to see this?3)Prosperity is not inherently wicked: Because of growth and productivity the standard of living for everyone is increased. The history of American, The most productive, prosperous nation on earth is an example. Anyone can work hard and become prosperous. It is when one lives for wealth accumulation that it becomes evil. That is the story of the Rich man Jesus told to sell all...the passage in Matthew 19 "Now behold, one came and said to Him, Good Teacher, what good things shall I do that I may have eternal life?...Jesus said...keep the commandments...The young man said, "All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?" Jesus said, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come and follow Me. But when the young man heard that saying he went away sorrowful for he had great posessions." you guys who ignorantly want to try to make Jesus into a socialist always quote one part but leave out the important parts that refute you. In the verses immediately preceding the man claimed to be righteous by obeying the ten commmandments. Jesus is refuting his claim by exposing his heart...and commanding him to follow Him. Another part you guys leave out. If he was really righteous in his heart the man would have followed Jesus including his admonition to sell all. It is not a cookie cutter formula advocating socialism and it did not involve government but private property and charity. It applies only to greedy selfish individuals who think they are righteous w/o God by following rituals and formulas. It is not an admonition by Jesus against wealth. In fact in Matthew 25, the parable of the talents, investing for growth is a parable commending investing and increasing wealth.
Those of you who really want to help the poor will disavow socialism and Jesus was clearly in favor of work and prosperity.

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

I ran out of room. But I wanted to address more fallacy advocated here.Thomas Jefferson: When he wrote the Declaration of Independence understood quite clearly the need for private property and a severly limited government. He originally wrote that we are endowed by our creator with life libery and the pursuit of PRIVATE PROPERTY. He changed it the night before delivering it. All the founding fathers involved in the Consitution (Jefferson wasnt he was in France) understood the importance of private property hence the Bill of Rights which was unilateral protection of private property and citizens from the government.Socialism: Again anyone who does any study at all will know that socialism is the roadmap to turn a capitalist society into a communist one. Just read the communist manifesto by Marx and one finds 10 planks for doing so including 1)No private property 2)The state controls the means of production and 3)A state controlled bank. The goal is communism which is unattainable. Israel is not communist nor are the private communes there. In socialism/communism private property is outlawed and the state takes control of all property including the means of production. That means no private businesses. In the Bible and the teachings of Jesus private property is never outlawed nor is letting the state take over any property. In fact when the state does take over it is a punishment of God (Deut 38) and taxes are the result of monarchy which is a system of rule not sanctioned by God.Again Jesus and the Apostles were correcting the corrupt teachings of the establishment of their day...to return to original intent. Ignorance leads one to conclude that makes Jesus a liberal who was changing the status quo but in reality he was returning to original intent, the original status quo which makes Him and the Apostles neo-cons of their day.

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

Silly Ringo? Why?1) It's right out of the Communist Manifesto which is exactly that, A plan to turn capitalist nations into socialist ones. Read the end of Chapter 2 which has a 10 plank plan to change captilist countries to communism.2) "Silly" is a ad hoc/ad hominem conclusion not a proper argument

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

I already dispensed with the ignorant misuse of those two quotes in my post immediately before the one you responded to titled "Study a little will ya?" I ran out of room and continued in "A little more" Hence the title.I recommend you read it before you respond.Ignorant liberals always quote those two verses out of context to support their ingorant conclusions that "Jesus was a liberal hippie""I await your next syllable with great Eeeeagerness" (Name the movie!)

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

Read post #77 where I deal with your two quotes more in depth. But in shortThe jews in rebellion against God's system of rule wanted a king like the gentile nations. God warned them that they would have to pay taxes to a King. God promised in Deut 38 that one of the punishments for failure to follow Him would be a foreign nation taking over which was the case with the Romans. The Jews were rebellios and taken over and must submit to rendering taxes unto Caesar. Taxes are/were a punishment or negative consequence of actions. Doesnt make taxes good.Socialism outlaws private property which is not outlawed in Christianity. The Rich man selling all he had and giving to the poor is not socialism it is charity. When the govt takes your money to give to the poor it is socialism. The rich man in Matthew claimed he was righteous and Jesus was pointing out he wasnt because he wouldnt follow him and that his claim to righteousness that he followed the Mosiac law was false. So sell all you have and give to the poor is not a formula for government but a condmenation of a greedy man's false righteousness.

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

Read my post #77 like I said. It clears all this up.The conversation with the Rich man was specific to him and his false righteousness which he claimed by keeping the commandments. Jesus was pointing out he wasnt righteous read the last part...the man went away sad because he had many posessions. Read the entire conversation. It is not a formula for everyone to follow but again exposing the mans false righteousness because he valued money more than Jesus because he wouldnt follow him. Rich people who value their posessions more than God will have a hard time getting into heaven unless they repent which is the point of the conversation. That's why it says it is easier for a camel to get through the eye of the needle than a rich man to get into heave...the 'the eye of the needle' was a gate into the temple which if a camel was unburdened of anything on it coud get through. It is a parable of repentence of greed.The entire New Testament is a correction of the false understanding of the Old Testament taught by the Pharisees and Sadducess to the people in order to return to the original teachings which makes Jesus a Neo-con not a Liberal Hippie. The topic of this thread.Again read my original post "Study a little will ya!" which details why Jesus was a conservative and the proper function of economics and govt which was a general response to many previous posts about socialism & Jesus.

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

You keep leaving out the main point of the passage about the rich young man, jesus said to follow him which he wouldnt do because his riches were more important. Jesus didnt just say sell all you have and give to the poor and you will be saved..he said sell and follow me. The most important part obviously is to follow Jesus which the young rich man wouldnt do which means Jesus exposed his false righteousness using his love of his riches and not his love of God to do so.And it isnt a formula for all the rich because when Nicodemus, the rich man in the Sanhedrin, asked Jesus the same question...what must I do to be saved Jesus did not tell him to give all he had to the poor...instead he told him that he must be born again.

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

The fact of Nicodemus being a rich man is common knowledge. You are just arguing to argue. Jewish history records Nicodemus as being rich and the Bible says 1) He was a ruler of the Jews, John 3:1) and that he was a member of the Sanhedrin who were all rich.Saying that born again can be interpreted as going back to a time when he had no riches is just foolishness, in fact the rest of the passage on Nicodemus refutes exactly that, saying being born again is being "born of the spirit". It is spiritual regeneration. Duh!I am done arguing the obvious while you argue against the obvious with ridiculous assertions to reinforce your apriori presuppostions. Good nite and God Bless

I did quote scripture which you ignored.I cited John 3:1 which directly says Nicodemus was a ruler of the Jews, John 9 makes Nicodemus a member of the Sanhedrin and a bible study includes resources outside the bible to understand it better such as Jewish history.You're not thinking outside the box you are aruing non-sequiter assertions such as the born again can mean returning to a non-rich state which the rest of the passage contradicts. Read the entire John 3 passage which I quoted the end of..."being born of the spirit". It is self-defining as spiritual regeneration. I suggest you actually read the passage instead of arguing anything you can think of. Earthly things spoken of in other passages have no pertinence here. You're just being silly and annoying which is probably on purpose because your arguments make no sense. Going to bed. Maybe we'll go on another day.Good nite and God Bless and I suggest you read my signature bible quote, it applies to you.

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

The facts are we have two examples of rich men in scripture who both asked how to be saved. One was told to sell all he had and follow Jesus and the other was told to be born again. If it were formulaic for the rich to divest themselves of their wealth Nicodemus would have been instructed to do so but he wasnt so it isnt formulaic. I have repeatedly explained the difference, the young rich man's wealth was a source of sin for him and Nicodemus' wealth was not. Making wealth not inherently sinful.

Socialism is when the state has control of private property. Nowhere is the govt involved in this example. When a private individual gives what they have to the poor that is not socialism. Nowhere did Jesus advocate that the state have control of private property. And the example with Nidodemus was formulaic, everyone must be born again to enter heaven as copious other versus attest. The problem is you take one example such as the rich young man who was told to sell his posessions and make it apply to everyone when there are no other passages in the bible to back you up.Thus, you make a hasty generalization claiming the passage in John 3 is a representative example of Jesus being a liberal hippie advocating socialism. When in fact Matthew 25, a parable by Jesus of the talents, refutes socialism.The quote for my signature is II Timothy 3.

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

For NWR Ringo and others Read my orignal Post #77:1) The original post suggesting the render under caesar quote means Jesus was in favor of universal healthcare. Just because a couple of you decide that liberalism and socialism are not the same thing doesnt mean I shouldnt clarify other posts that Jesus was a socialist.2) Jesus was the 'neo-con' OF HIS DAY as I stated in a previous post correcting the corrupt teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees and teaching the people the original intent of the old testament. I shortened it and left out of his day in a repetitious summary to Ringo.3) Words have meaning and socialism is a political term with and established definition where private property is outlawed or reduced and the state owns the means of production there is a state controlled central/national bank etc...from Chapt 2 of the Communist Manifesto. Helping your fellow man is not 'socialism' as you try to redefine it Ringo; in fact socialism reduces the standard of living for everyone to the lowest common denominator hurting more people relatively than capitalism with corruption.4) This is under the Bible Study forum so yes I expect people to read Matthew 25 for themselves Ringo.5) Liberalism and Socialism are for practical conversations like this thread synonomous as in the orignal post; there are slight differences but significant overlap. If one is to be technical socialism is a subset of Liberalism.6) This all arose because the strip quotes of render unto caesar and John 3 Jesus telling the rich man to sell all he had and give to the poor made jesus a socialist and/or liberal but the quotes do not support that.7) so the conclusion is that Jesus was not a liberal hippie advocating dissolution of wealth but a neo-con of his day correcting the misunderstandings and returning the understanding of the people to the original status quo and conservation of the original status quo is the root of the political term 'conservative'.Blast away I can take it!And hey how you you guys isolate a line from a post to respond and get the smiles to work?

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

How many times do I have to answer it for you? this will be like the 4th time but I'll repeat it again. Patience is a virtue but you are taxing my virtue! His riches were the source of his particular sin that prevented him from following Jesus. The man thought he was righteous and had observed the law. His greed was his particular sin. In Mark chapt 10 it clarifies an interesting detail...Jesus said: 'sell all you have...take up the cross and follow me.' The man's sin was his riches were more important than following Christ. That's why Jesus told him to get rid of the source of his sin which is the point here not riches.Nicodemus, the other rich man who asked Jesus did not have the same sin, he believed Jesus was from God but needed to be reborn spiritually John chapter 3.Is it sinking through the layers yet Ringo? And how do I cite lines from your posts like you guys do? I could ream you good on several smaller points if I could do that!Edited by ReformedRob, : left out a word and quote marks

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

thanks admin!

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

That's why I said neo-con OF HIS DAY. By the definition of what he was doing, returning the teachings to the original intent he was a neo-con again OF HIS DAY!He did not advocate the rich paying taxes...you're strip quoting the render unto caesar what is caesars quote without understanding it.As well: Ok then Jesus said in Matthew 10:34: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth, I did not come to bring peace but a sword"And later to the Apostles he told them that when he was not with them to carry a sword and in Romans 13:4 the govt is given the power of the sword.your turn

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"