Would Jesus be a Liberal?

Lethargic Aptitude · Apr 4, 2012

Blackdog said:
All religions fall under the definition of "cult" so what? "Cult" is not a negative term if that's what you are shooting for.

I agree that all religion are cults. In the context of the biblical Jesus living in this modern world, he would be viewed as a wacko. Of course if was able to do the things like what the bible said he did then things might be a bit different. But if Jesus were alive today then he would not have been alive back in whats called biblical times. Which would mean that things would be very different today. IMO we would be much better off without cultists and their kool-aid. Without that mentality we would see the world as it actually is. Which is not cruel or evil but just is reality a mix of everything that is real.

Black Dog · Apr 4, 2012

FreedomFromAll said:
I agree that all religion are cults. In the context of the biblical Jesus living in this modern world, he would be viewed as a wackf course if was able to do the things like what the bible said he did then things might be a bit different.

He was seen by quite a few as a wacko back then as well even though he was reported to have done those things.

FreedomFromAll said:
But if Jesus were alive today then he would not have been alive back in whats called biblical times. Which would mean that things would be very different today.

Christians believe he is just as alive today. If he was God and could do the things he said, why would he not be alive in biblical times? I mean that is a philosophical leap at best.

FreedomFromAll said:
IMO we would be much better off without cultists and their kool-aid.

Like the partisan hacks and their kool-aid? Or the humanists and their kool-aid? The racialists and their kool-aid? If one thing is as true today as it was in biblical times man will always find a way to justify anything.

FreedomFromAll said:
Without that mentality we would see the world as it actually is. Which is not cruel or evil but just is reality a mix of everything that is real.

This is silly.... So all the mass murdering and genocide done in the name of national boarders or race is just a grey area???

Their is good and evil in this world. If God were taken out of the equation, it would make it no less so. Has nothing at all to do with Christians or anyone else seeing the reality of the situation.

Lethargic Aptitude · Apr 4, 2012

Blackdog said:
He was seen by quite a few as a wacko back then as well even though he was reported to have done those things.

Reported and seeing it actually happen are different concepts that have different effects.

Christians believe he is just as alive today. If he was God and could do the things he said, why would he not be alive in biblical times? I mean that is a philosophical leap at best.

Like the partisan hacks and their kool-aid? Or the humanists and their kool-aid? The racialists and their kool-aid? If one thing is as true today as it was in biblical times man will always find a way to justify anything.

No like Reverend James Warren "Jim" Jones and his followers.

This is silly.... So all the mass murdering and genocide done in the name of national boarders or race is just a grey area???

You are right it is silly since I said nothing like that.

Their is good and evil in this world. If God were taken out of the equation, it would make it no less so. Has nothing at all to do with Christians or anyone else seeing the reality of the situation.

Good and evil are perceptions that differ between everyone. Take the ten commandments for example most of them have nothing to do with morals. God has never been in the equation, there have only been humans saying that a god exists and they base the claim on faith. And everything is reality based that is how reality works. One in reality can believe in god or whatever but one has to accept that god is not reality based, it is based on faith. Which is the entire purpose of the bible, to convince you that god exists through faith in his existence. No faith no god.

But back to the subject, Jesus would not be a Liberal. Jesus of the bible was not a politician nor a partisan hack. The character was portrayed as an opponent of the Roman empire who used outlandish claims of being a god to acquire followers. Jesus was a rebel cultist that defied Roman law. When the Romans no longer tolerated Jesus attempt to over throw the government through propaganda they killed him for treason. And Jesus failed miserably at his goal of changing Rome. Rome did use Christianity to control the masses but ultimately that model failed (as it did in Europe later). Rome did not fall for five centuries after Jesus died in the biblical story. In the end Jesus was more like David Koresh than anyone else.

Black Dog · Apr 4, 2012

FreedomFromAll said:
Reported and seeing it actually happen are different concepts that have different effects.

People in the Bible said they saw it. So that is that I guess?

FreedomFromAll said:
No like Reverend James Warren "Jim" Jones and his followers.

Whats the difference? A cult is a cult according to you.

FreedomFromAll said:
You are right it is silly since I said nothing like that.

That was an example. Nice dodge though.

FreedomFromAll said:
Good and evil are perceptions that differ between everyone. Take the ten commandments for example most of them have nothing to do with morals.

What?

Thou shalt not murder, thou shall not steal, thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife etc????? Yea no morals there. :doh

FreedomFromAll said:
God has never been in the equation, there have only been humans saying that a god exists and they base the claim on faith.

I assume you have irrefutable proof to back up this claim?

FreedomFromAll said:
And everything is reality based that is how reality works. One in reality can believe in god or whatever but one has to accept that god is not reality based, it is based on faith. Which is the entire purpose of the bible, to convince you that god exists through faith in his existence. No faith no god.

So in other words... No facts, no evidence just your own opinion? :lol:

FreedomFromAll said:
But back to the subject, Jesus would not be a Liberal. Jesus of the bible was not a politician nor a partisan hack. The character was portrayed as an opponent of the Roman empire who used outlandish claims of being a god to acquire followers. Jesus was a rebel cultist that defied Roman law. When the Romans no longer tolerated Jesus attempt to over throw the government through propaganda they killed him for treason. And Jesus failed miserably at his goal of changing Rome. Rome did use Christianity to control the masses but ultimately that model failed (as it did in Europe later). Rome did not fall for five centuries after Jesus died in the biblical story. In the end Jesus was more like David Koresh than anyone else.

OK you got way to many facts wrong. Please point out in any historical record or the Bible where Jesus defied Roman law? Oh you can't because he never did. Please point out where Jesus was trying to change Rome? Oh he was not. I am not even going to read the rest as it is pretty much false assumptions based on nothing.

Your assumptions fly in the face of historical records and the Bible.

Total fail here.

Lethargic Aptitude · Apr 4, 2012

Blackdog said:
People in the Bible said they saw it. So that is that I guess?

Did they really? Why would his followers of that time need faith if he did such fantastic things?

Whats the difference? A cult is a cult according to you.

And a horse is a horse of course.

That was an example. Nice dodge though.

An example that was a strawman argument.

What?

Thou shalt not murder, thou shall not steal, thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife etc????? Yea no morals there. :doh

What are the first four commandments about? Are they about morals? Ok 6 morals vs 4 non-morals so I was wrong to say most. But it is interesting that those 4 are first before the actual morals.

I

assume you have irrefutable proof to back up this claim?

Are you claiming that you have proof of gods existence? All I claimed is that the is no evidence and that is why Christians need faith.

So in other words... No facts, no evidence just your own opinion? :lol:

I have the same facts that you have on the existence of a god.

OK you got way to many facts wrong. Please point out in any historical record or the Bible where Jesus defied Roman law? Oh you can't because he never did. Please point out where Jesus was trying to change Rome? Oh he was not. I am not even going to read the rest as it is pretty much false assumptions based on nothing.

Your assumptions fly in the face of historical records and the Bible.

The biblical Jesus defied Roman law by being thought of as the messiah. While there is scant evidence that Jesus claimed to be the messiah his followers did believe him to be the messiah. The fact that Jesus had followers was in itself against Roman law. But Pilate made a mockery of Jesus the "King of the Jews," the crown of thorns and placing him between two villains on the cross all points to a sedition charge.

Have you not read the bible? The biblical Jesus was portrayed as the messiah. Jesus said that there is only one true king and that king was god. In doing so his followers were no longer answering to Caesar but to Jesus and his god. Which in Rome was not allowed. The kingdom of god whether claimed to be spiritual or not could not be accepted by Roman law and obviously was not during the era in which the biblical Jesus would have lived.

Total fail here.

Lol you claim to not read yet claim a failure haha.

Black Dog · Apr 4, 2012

FreedomFromAll said:
Did they really? Why would his followers of that time need faith if he did such fantastic things?

As he always told them....

"Your faith healed you."

Pretty self explanatory.

FreedomFromAll said:
And a horse is a horse of course.

So you are willing to give them a pass? I see.

FreedomFromAll said:
An example that was a strawman argument.

A strawman in that you dodged my question? :lol: OK.

FreedomFromAll said:
What are the first four commandments about? Are they about morals? Ok 6 morals vs 4 non-morals so I was wrong to say most. But it is interesting that those 4 are first before the actual morals.

Now you try to move the goal posts? It does not change my reply or justify your argument either way.

FreedomFromAll said:
I Are you claiming that you have proof of gods existence? All I claimed is that the is no evidence and that is why Christians need faith.

No. You claimed God does not exist as a matter of fact. In reality a lack of evidence is not proof of anything. In the end yes it is about faith.

FreedomFromAll said:
I have the same facts that you have on the existence of a god.

No you don't. The difference is I will not put forth anecdotal evidence as proof of anything.

FreedomFromAll said:
The biblical Jesus defied Roman law by being thought of as the messiah. While there is scant evidence that Jesus claimed to be the messiah his followers did believe him to be the messiah.

Not scant, none. What his followers choose to call him is irreverent to his motivations which he defines clearly.

FreedomFromAll said:
The fact that Jesus had followers was in itself against Roman law. But Pilate made a mockery of Jesus the "King of the Jews," the crown of thorns and placing him between two villains on the cross all points to a sedition charge.

Were do you get your made up history?

#1 The Jewish authorities had falsely accused Jesus of proclaiming himself an earthly king, not Jesus.
#2 When brought before pilot the pharisees said " He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king." none of which was true as Jesus had done none of this.
#3 Pilate responded "I find no basis for a charge against this man." What does this tell you?

Their accusation against Jesus consists of two lies:

He is teaching others to resist the payment of taxes to Rome.
He is forming a rebellion to Rome’s authority by declaring himself king.

All of which were not true. Where does this leave your account?

FreedomFromAll said:
Have you not read the bible? The biblical Jesus was portrayed as the messiah. Jesus said that there is only one true king and that king was god. In doing so his followers were no longer answering to Caesar but to Jesus and his god.

Yes I have. Your statement proves you have no real understanding of what Jesus taught at all, none.

He was preaching about the spiritual kingdom, not the kingdoms on earth who he himself said God put into place and you are to submit to. He also said render unto Cesar what is Cesar's and God unto God. Funny how you ignore the truth of what he preached and are trying to warp it into something it was not.

FreedomFromAll said:
Which in Rome was not allowed.

Rome had many God's whom the rulers worshiped as well. So that is not true.

FreedomFromAll said:
The kingdom of god whether claimed to be spiritual or not could not be accepted by Roman law and obviously was not during the era in which the biblical Jesus would have lived.

Again it was not Rome that convicted him, it was the Jewish pharisees. The charges were false as I have shown, and Pilate new this and proclaimed openly as much.

FreedomFromAll said:
Lol you claim to not read yet claim a failure haha.

You obviously missed it, just like most of your inaccurate and made up history.

Paschendale · Apr 4, 2012

I have a question on this subject. A lot of conservatives will hear the "go out and feed the poor" commands from Jesus and talk about it being voluntary, as opposed to done with government. What is the moral difference between writing a check yourself and voting in favor of instituting a program to deal with the problem? You're still making the choice to make it happen. Your voluntariness is tested at the ballot and the voting booth. The point of the command wasn't ensuring that you have the choice whether to help or not. It's telling you to get off your butt and do it. So, isn't this whole voluntariness discussion about fighting for the right not to help people? Do what Jesus would have done. Vote to help the poor, even at some expense to yourself.

Lethargic Aptitude · Apr 4, 2012

Blackdog said:
As he always told them....

"Your faith healed you."

Pretty self explanatory.

So they (according to you) did not need faith.

So you are willing to give them a pass? I see.

Give who a free pass?

A strawman in that you dodged my question? :lol: OK.

You dont seem to know what a strawman argument is.

Now you try to move the goal posts? It does not change my reply or justify your argument either way.

No, I admitted that the word "most" was not entirely accurate. Then I went on about the first four commandments. No goal post was moved.

No. You claimed God does not exist as a matter of fact. In reality a lack of evidence is not proof of anything. In the end yes it is about faith.

So you have proof of gods existence?

No you don't. The difference is I will not put forth anecdotal evidence as proof of anything.

Again you only have faith in gods existence and that is all. If you have more share with the world your evidence.

Not scant, none. What his followers choose to call him is irreverent to his motivations which he defines clearly.

The fact that Jesus was portrayed in the bible as having followers says it all.

Were do you get your made up history?

Nice try.

#1 The Jewish authorities had falsely accused Jesus of proclaiming himself an earthly king, not Jesus.
#2 When brought before pilot the pharisees said " He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king." none of which was true as Jesus had done none of this.
#3 Pilate responded "I find no basis for a charge against this man." What does this tell you?

Their accusation against Jesus consists of two lies:

He is teaching others to resist the payment of taxes to Rome.
He is forming a rebellion to Rome’s authority by declaring himself king.

I did not say that Jesus believed him to be a real king. SO save your argument for someone else.

All of which were not true. Where does this leave your account?

And where is your evidence of this truth?

Yes I have. Your statement proves you have no real understanding of what Jesus taught at all, none.

No I have a different perspective about the writings of the bible.

He was preaching about the spiritual kingdom, not the kingdoms on earth who he himself said God put into place and you are to submit to. He also said render unto Cesar what is Cesar's and God unto God. Funny how you ignore the truth of what he preached and are trying to warp it into something it was not.

No need to argue about something that you cant possibly know. That is unless you believe the bible is factual.

Rome had many God's whom the rulers worshiped as well. So that is not true.

Perhaps you should read more about actual Roman history?

Again it was not Rome that convicted him, it was the Jewish pharisees. The charges were false as I have shown, and Pilate new this and proclaimed openly as much.

So you believe that Jews ruled over the Romans? None the less in the bible (since that is the only place that states so) Jesus was crucified for going against Roman law. That same bible openly portrays Jesus as a leader of Israel. There was no difference to Rome whether that leader was political or spiritual.

Y

ou obviously missed it, just like most of your inaccurate and made up history.

If you believe that I am sharing made up history prove me wrong.

Black Dog · Apr 4, 2012

Paschendale said:
I have a question on this subject. A lot of conservatives will hear the "go out and feed the poor" commands from Jesus and talk about it being voluntary, as opposed to done with government. What is the moral difference between writing a check yourself and voting in favor of instituting a program to deal with the problem? You're still making the choice to make it happen. Your voluntariness is tested at the ballot and the voting booth. The point of the command wasn't ensuring that you have the choice whether to help or not. It's telling you to get off your butt and do it. So, isn't this whole voluntariness discussion about fighting for the right not to help people? Do what Jesus would have done. Vote to help the poor, even at some expense to yourself.

He did not teach to extort money from others to give to the poor. He wanted us to give freely from our hearts.

In 2006, independently-registered researcher and author Arthur Brooks tackled the issue of political ideology as it pertains to giving. According to a 2006 ABC News piece by John Stossel and Kristina Kendall, Brooks’ research has shown that conservatives donate about 30 percent more than do liberals. Interestingly, on average, conservatives earn less than liberals.

Brooks also claims that financial donations aren’t the only difference at hand. When it comes to an issue as random as blood donations, conservatives are about 17 percent more likely than their liberal counterparts to donate blood! But, that’s not all. In 2008, George Will covered some of Brooks’ other findings. As it turns out, in 2004, George W. Bush carried 24 out of 25 of the states in which charitable giving exceeded the national average. According to Will,

“In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.”

Read more: Surprise! Conservatives are more generous than liberals | The Daily Caller

It looks like conservatives get it.

Black Dog · Apr 4, 2012

FreedomFromAll said:
So they (according to you) did not need faith.

Ummmm... Please point out where I said this, or even implied it? I know you can't, but I am giving you the opportunity.

FreedomFromAll said:
Give who a free pass?

Non-religious cults.

FreedomFromAll said:
You dont seem to know what a strawman argument is.

Please, I know exactly what it is. This does not change the fact you are dodging my question.

FreedomFromAll said:
No, I admitted that the word "most" was not entirely accurate. Then I went on about the first four commandments. No goal post was moved.

OK your intilectual dishonesty is getting really bad at this point.

FreedomFromAll said:
So you have proof of gods existence?

Absolutely, like many others but it's anecdotal, so it means nothing to anyone else as it cannot be tested or reviewed etc.

FreedomFromAll said:
Again you only have faith in gods existence and that is all.

Say's you, lol.

FreedomFromAll said:
If you have more share with the world your evidence.

Why it would mean nothing to anyone else. Fact: I have evidence you don't, and may never have. Well unless God chooses to reveal himself to you.

FreedomFromAll said:
The fact that Jesus was portrayed in the bible as having followers says it all.

Yea, it says he was a teacher and people wanted to hear what he taught. :roll:

FreedomFromAll said:
Nice try.I did not say that Jesus believed him to be a real king. SO save your argument for someone else.

So let me some up your argument. Because he had followers Rome, who historically and according to biblical text did not see him as any kind of threat or law breaker, and no evidence exist to support this he was one anyway because he had followers? :doh So in other words you got.... nothing.

FreedomFromAll said:
And where is your evidence of this truth?

You mean all the stuff taken from the Bible that you choose to ignore?#1 The Jewish authorities had falsely accused Jesus of proclaiming himself an earthly king, not Jesus.#2 When brought before pilot the pharisees said " He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king." none of which was true as Jesus had done none of this.#3 Pilate responded "I find no basis for a charge against this man." What does this tell you?Their accusation against Jesus consists of two lies:He is teaching others to resist the payment of taxes to Rome.He is forming a rebellion to Rome’s authority by declaring himself king.Again this is pretty cut and dry. You are basically making things up that do not apply to support your bigoted world view, period.

FreedomFromAll said:
No need to argue about something that you cant possibly know. That is unless you believe the bible is factual.

A different perspective that is in no way connected to what it actually says.

FreedomFromAll said:
Perhaps you should read more about actual Roman history?

Well please post some evidence that proves me wrong?

Here is some that proves you wrong...
The Romans believed in many different gods and goddesses. For everything imaginable they had a god or goddess in charge. - Roman Gods
Major Gods of the Roman Pantheon - List of Major Roman Gods
The people of ancient Rome had many gods and goddesses. The Romans believed that if they appeased their gods and goddesses, the divinities would help them by blessing the crops to make them fertile or by watching over the family to keep them safe. - http://www.richeast.org/htwm/Greeks/Romans/Bass/index.htmlPerhaps

you should actually post evidence and not speculation based on hot air.

FreedomFromAll said:
you believe that Jews ruled over the Romans? None the less in the bible (since that is the only place that states so) Jesus was crucified for going against Roman law.

The Bible does not state this at all.

Pilate announced, "Behold, the man." The priests replied, "Crucify him!" Pilate then said, "You take him and crucify him. I find no fault in him." Here is a judge of the law saying, "This man is innocent, but you may put him to death if you wish." Of course this didn't satisfy the priests. They did not dare crucify Jesus without absolute, unequivocal sanction of the Roman authority, for to do so would subject them to reprisal, possibly even death at the hands of the Romans. "We have a law," they insisted, "and by our law he ought to die because he made himself the Son of God." In saying this they revealed to Pilate that their true complaint against Jesus was actually the charge of blasphemy. Pilate, who'd not yet heard this charge, took Jesus aside once more and asked, "Whence art thou?" This is equivalent to our modern-day question, "Where are you coming from?" Jesus made no response at all. Pilate then thundered, "Dare you refuse to answer me? Do you not know I have power to crucify you and also power to set you free?" Jesus answered only, "You have no power but what you have received from above." Pilate again sought to release Jesus, but the enraged priests exclaimed, "If you release this man you are no friend of Caesar!" They threatened Pilate. There could be grave consequences if the highest court in Israel reported Pilate to Caesar. Pilate feared a wrong interpretation of his judgment might reach Caesar. He might be seen protecting one considered by the most influential of his own countrymen to be guilty of treason. Pilate lacked the courage to stand up for justice against these angry priests. It was then Pilate's wife sent him a message. "Have nothing to do with this just man." Her appeal led Pilate to make one more effort to save Jesus without jeopardizing his job. It was the custom during Passover to liberate a prisoner selected by the people. By popular vote the people could, in effect, grant amnesty to anyone sentenced to die. I think this to be one of the most dramatic moments in all history, yet much of the drama has been overlooked by the authors and playwrights. The name Barabbas in Hebrew means son of Abbas. Peter is referred to by St. Matthew as "Peter bar Jonah", Peter son of Jonah. Bar Mitzvah literally translated Son of the Commandments. Barrabas' name was also Jesus. Jesus Barabbas. Pilate's question to the crowd was, "Whom shall I release? Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ?" They called, of course, for release of Barrabas, the notorious robber and murderer. "What shall I do then with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked. They shouted, "Crucify him!" - http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/jesustrial.htmYou

You mite want to read that and learn something.

FreedomFromAll said:
That same bible openly portrays Jesus as a leader of Israel. There was no difference to Rome whether that leader was political or spiritual.

Obviously the history and text say different. As I have shown your understanding is completely wrong.

FreedomFromAll said:
YIf you believe that I am sharing made up history prove me wrong.

I already have... over and over.

Lethargic Aptitude · Apr 4, 2012

Blackdog said:
Ummmm... Please point out where I said this, or even implied it? I know you can't, but I am giving you the opportunity.

Yes I read the thing about their faith healed them. But why did they need faith for something that has been proven to them as you previously claimed?

Non-religious cults.

What does that have to do with anything?

Please, I know exactly what it is. This does not change the fact you are dodging my question.

I do not need to pursue a strawman argument.

OK your intilectual dishonesty is getting really bad at this point.

lol dishonesty I admitted a mistake on my behalf.

Absolutely, like many others but it's anecdotal, so it means nothing to anyone else as it cannot be tested or reviewed etc.

Yea sure. But my point is correct that you have no proof.

Say's you, lol.

lol You just said that you had nothing that could prove gods existence now you claim that you do?

Why it would mean nothing to anyone else. Fact: I have evidence you don't, and may never have. Well unless God chooses to reveal himself to you

Well show us this evidence.

Yea, it says he was a teacher and people wanted to hear what he taught. :roll:

Sigh

So let me some up your argument. Because he had followers Rome, who historically and according to biblical text did not see him as any kind of threat or law breaker, and no evidence exist to support this he was one anyway because he had followers? :doh So in other words you got.... nothing.

You mean all the stuff taken from the Bible that you choose to ignore?#1 The Jewish authorities had falsely accused Jesus of proclaiming himself an earthly king, not Jesus.#2 When brought before pilot the pharisees said " He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king." none of which was true as Jesus had done none of this.#3 Pilate responded "I find no basis for a charge against this man." What does this tell you?Their accusation against Jesus consists of two lies:He is teaching others to resist the payment of taxes to Rome.He is forming a rebellion to Rome’s authority by declaring himself king.Again this is pretty cut and dry. You are basically making things up that do not apply to support your bigoted world view, period.

A different perspective that is in no way connected to what it actually says.

So which version of the bible do you believe to be factual history?

Well please post some evidence that proves me wrong?

Here is some that proves you wrong...
The Romans believed in many different gods and goddesses. For everything imaginable they had a god or goddess in charge. - Roman Gods
Major Gods of the Roman Pantheon - List of Major Roman Gods
The people of ancient Rome had many gods and goddesses. The Romans believed that if they appeased their gods and goddesses, the divinities would help them by blessing the crops to make them fertile or by watching over the family to keep them safe. - http://www.richeast.org/htwm/Greeks/Romans/Bass/index.htmlPerhaps

you should actually post evidence and not speculation based on hot air.

I never disputed that Romans worshiped gods. Another strawman argument.

The Bible does not state this at all.

Pilate announced, "Behold, the man." The priests replied, "Crucify him!" Pilate then said, "You take him and crucify him. I find no fault in him." Here is a judge of the law saying, "This man is innocent, but you may put him to death if you wish." Of course this didn't satisfy the priests. They did not dare crucify Jesus without absolute, unequivocal sanction of the Roman authority, for to do so would subject them to reprisal, possibly even death at the hands of the Romans. "We have a law," they insisted, "and by our law he ought to die because he made himself the Son of God." In saying this they revealed to Pilate that their true complaint against Jesus was actually the charge of blasphemy. Pilate, who'd not yet heard this charge, took Jesus aside once more and asked, "Whence art thou?" This is equivalent to our modern-day question, "Where are you coming from?" Jesus made no response at all. Pilate then thundered, "Dare you refuse to answer me? Do you not know I have power to crucify you and also power to set you free?" Jesus answered only, "You have no power but what you have received from above." Pilate again sought to release Jesus, but the enraged priests exclaimed, "If you release this man you are no friend of Caesar!" They threatened Pilate. There could be grave consequences if the highest court in Israel reported Pilate to Caesar. Pilate feared a wrong interpretation of his judgment might reach Caesar. He might be seen protecting one considered by the most influential of his own countrymen to be guilty of treason. Pilate lacked the courage to stand up for justice against these angry priests. It was then Pilate's wife sent him a message. "Have nothing to do with this just man." Her appeal led Pilate to make one more effort to save Jesus without jeopardizing his job. It was the custom during Passover to liberate a prisoner selected by the people. By popular vote the people could, in effect, grant amnesty to anyone sentenced to die. I think this to be one of the most dramatic moments in all history, yet much of the drama has been overlooked by the authors and playwrights. The name Barabbas in Hebrew means son of Abbas. Peter is referred to by St. Matthew as "Peter bar Jonah", Peter son of Jonah. Bar Mitzvah literally translated Son of the Commandments. Barrabas' name was also Jesus. Jesus Barabbas. Pilate's question to the crowd was, "Whom shall I release? Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ?" They called, of course, for release of Barrabas, the notorious robber and murderer. "What shall I do then with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked. They shouted, "Crucify him!" - http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/jesustrial.htmYou

You mite want to read that and learn something.

Concerns regarding biblical consistency have a long history. Should we go there?

Obviously the history and text say different. As I have shown your understanding is completely wrong.

I already have... over and over.

Bible Errors in Genesis - Errors & Mistakes in Genesis, First Book of the Bible

Black Dog · Apr 4, 2012

FreedomFromAll said:
Yes I read the thing about their faith healed them. But why did they need faith for something that has been proven to them as you previously claimed?

We have already been over this and again you were shown to be wrong. No need to go over it yet again.

FreedomFromAll said:
What does that have to do with anything?

What? Do you even remember what you are saying?

IMO we would be much better off without cultists and their kool-aid. Without that mentality we would see the world as it actually is. Which is not cruel or evil but just is reality a mix of everything that is real. - FreedomFromAll

To which I replied Like the partisan hacks and their kool-aid? Or the humanists and their kool-aid? The racialists and their kool-aid? - Blackdog

You then said No like Reverend James Warren "Jim" Jones and his followers. - FreedomFromAll

I then asked So all the mass murdering and genocide done in the name of national boarders or race is just a grey area??? As in "everything real."

You avoided the question and called it a strawman. You see to be a strawman I would have had to ignore your original position. I not only did not do that, the relevance of my question was point out the hypocrisy in your argument.

So I will say again, nice dodge.

FreedomFromAll said:
I do not need to pursue a strawman argument.

I would agree if one existed.

FreedomFromAll said:
lol dishonesty I admitted a mistake on my behalf.

It had nothing to do with you admitting your wrong accusation. It was you trying to move the goal posts.

FreedomFromAll said:
Yea sure. But my point is correct that you have no proof.

I never said this? I said my evidence was anecdotal, not that I did not have any. Never said anything of the sort.

FreedomFromAll said:
lol You just said that you had nothing that could prove gods existence now you claim that you do?

Again I never said anything of the sort.

FreedomFromAll said:
Well show us this evidence.

No need to. You have so far shown no evidence to back up anything you have said at all. You are getting trounced badly and are now trying to discredit the Bible because everything you have pointed out so far was dead wrong. You lost a long time ago.

FreedomFromAll said:
So which version of the bible do you believe to be factual history?

Any version will do. Some have minor translation errors but the road all leads to the same place in the end. Of course this has nothing to do with your being completely wrong on scripture.

FreedomFromAll said:
I never disputed that Romans worshiped gods. Another strawman argument.

This is the problem with your constant yelling of strawman, you have no idea what the context of the statements are.

The fact that Jesus had followers was in itself against Roman law. - FreedomFromAll

I said the Romans worshiped lots of god's and this was not against any law at the time. You then said I need to study Roman history. So I posted proof they worshiped other god's so it was not in fact illegal.

FreedomFromAll said:
Concerns regarding biblical consistency have a long history. Should we go there?

Hehehehe! Please do, I would love to take you to task. In fact there are whole threads about it already.

It's funny you have no argument so now after screaming strawman, you do exactly that, classic!

FreedomFromAll said:
Bible Errors in Genesis - Errors & Mistakes in Genesis, First Book of the Bible

Hehehehe! You still got nothing eh?

Lethargic Aptitude · Apr 5, 2012

Blackdog said:
We have already been over this and again you were shown to be wrong. No need to go over it yet again.

What? Do you even remember what you are saying?

IMO we would be much better off without cultists and their kool-aid. Without that mentality we would see the world as it actually is. Which is not cruel or evil but just is reality a mix of everything that is real. - FreedomFromAll

To which I replied Like the partisan hacks and their kool-aid? Or the humanists and their kool-aid? The racialists and their kool-aid? - Blackdog

You then said No like Reverend James Warren "Jim" Jones and his followers. - FreedomFromAll

I then asked So all the mass murdering and genocide done in the name of national boarders or race is just a grey area??? As in "everything real."

You avoided the question and called it a strawman. You see to be a strawman I would have had to ignore your original position. I not only did not do that, the relevance of my question was point out the hypocrisy in your argument.

So I will say again, nice dodge.

I would agree if one existed.

It had nothing to do with you admitting your wrong accusation. It was you trying to move the goal posts.

I never said this? I said my evidence was anecdotal, not that I did not have any. Never said anything of the sort.

Again I never said anything of the sort.

No need to. You have so far shown no evidence to back up anything you have said at all. You are getting trounced badly and are now trying to discredit the Bible because everything you have pointed out so far was dead wrong. You lost a long time ago.

Any version will do. Some have minor translation errors but the road all leads to the same place in the end. Of course this has nothing to do with your being completely wrong on scripture.

This is the problem with your constant yelling of strawman, you have no idea what the context of the statements are.

The fact that Jesus had followers was in itself against Roman law. - FreedomFromAll

I said the Romans worshiped lots of god's and this was not against any law at the time. You then said I need to study Roman history. So I posted proof they worshiped other god's so it was not in fact illegal.

Hehehehe! Please do, I would love to take you to task. In fact there are whole threads about it already.

It's funny you have no argument so now after screaming strawman, you do exactly that, classic!

Hehehehe! You still got nothing eh?

You are missing my point completely. I did not imply by "followers" that Rome was concerned about an growing religion. Noticed that I said concerned and not scared.

The Trial of Jesus: A Criminal Law Perspective | Minneapolis Criminal Law News The Second Trial, to the Roman Governor.

Pilate had the legal authority to execute the Sanhedrin’s death sentence alone (to review the first trial), but chose to conduct another Trial, on a different criminal accusation, instead. Jesus was accused at this trial of a political (not religious, as before) crime – that of claiming to be The King of the Jews, a rebel against Roman authority. The Romans already had a King of the Jews – theirs. Any challenge to the authority of the Jewish government in Judea was effectively a challenge to Roman authority, since the Jewish King was subjugated to Rome.

You do realize that you look like an ass patting yourself on the back all the time? Your only evidence is a book that comes in many versions. I simply to do not believe your source to be valid and accurate. And I grow tired of this sidetracked conversation that has nothing to do with whether Jesus could be viewed as a Liberal. If you feel the need to take me to task start a new thread.

obvious Child · Apr 5, 2012

Liberal?

He'd be a full on Socialist.

Part of the reason I abandoned Christianity years ago.

Canell · Apr 5, 2012

obvious Child said:
Liberal?

He'd be a full on Socialist.

May be you just don't understand Him?

Black Dog · Apr 5, 2012

FreedomFromAll said:
You are missing my point completely. I did not imply by "followers" that Rome was concerned about an growing religion. Noticed that I said concerned and not scared.

Rome was not concerned, worried, upset or any other dodge you can come up with. the pharisees were and set him up. No translation mistake, not inconsistency.

FreedomFromAll said:
You do realize that you look like an ass patting yourself on the back all the time?

Comes with the territory when debating someone that can barely remember the last post they made, let alone present evidence for any kind of valid argument.

FreedomFromAll said:
Your only evidence is a book that comes in many versions.

Well lets look at your statements....

FreedomFromAll said:
I agree that all religion are cults. In the context of the biblical Jesus living in this modern world, he would be viewed as a wacko. Of course if was able to do the things like what the bible said he did then things might be a bit different. But if Jesus were alive today then he would not have been alive back in whats called biblical times. Which would mean that things would be very different today. IMO we would be much better off without cultists and their kool-aid. Without that mentality we would see the world as it actually is. Which is not cruel or evil but just is reality a mix of everything that is real.

FreedomFromAll said:
Good and evil are perceptions that differ between everyone. Take the ten commandments for example most of them have nothing to do with morals. God has never been in the equation, there have only been humans saying that a god exists and they base the claim on faith. And everything is reality based that is how reality works. One in reality can believe in god or whatever but one has to accept that god is not reality based, it is based on faith. Which is the entire purpose of the bible, to convince you that god exists through faith in his existence. No faith no god.

But back to the subject, Jesus would not be a Liberal. Jesus of the bible was not a politician nor a partisan hack. The character was portrayed as an opponent of the Roman empire who used outlandish claims of being a god to acquire followers. Jesus was a rebel cultist that defied Roman law. When the Romans no longer tolerated Jesus attempt to over throw the government through propaganda they killed him for treason. And Jesus failed miserably at his goal of changing Rome. Rome did use Christianity to control the masses but ultimately that model failed (as it did in Europe later). Rome did not fall for five centuries after Jesus died in the biblical story[/color=red]. In the end Jesus was more like David Koresh than anyone else.

Looks like you not only don't know squat about the Bible, you tried really hard to use it as evidence.

FreedomFromAll said:
I simply to do not believe your source to be valid and accurate when I get it wrong and have no idea what I am talking about.

I changed the comment above to reflect the "reality" of the situation.

FreedomFromAll said:
And I grow tired of this sidetracked conversation that has nothing to do with whether Jesus could be viewed as a Liberal.

Good.

FreedomFromAll said:
If you feel the need to take me to task start a new thread.

Why? Your argument in this thread was so inconsistent and plain old moronic, I think it would be pointless.

d0gbreath · Apr 5, 2012

Jesus was a radical. He took on the wealthy high Jewish Priests at a time when blasphemy was punishable by death. In doing so, he also took on the government as they were inseparable from the religious hierarchy. He was tried for treason and crucified.

He had leftist nonconformist traits, but he was too far left to be called a Liberal.

Lethargic Aptitude · Apr 5, 2012

Blackdog said:
Rome was not concerned, worried, upset or any other dodge you can come up with. the pharisees were and set him up. No translation mistake, not inconsistency.

Comes with the territory when debating someone that can barely remember the last post they made, let alone present evidence for any kind of valid argument.

Well lets look at your statements....

Looks like you not only don't know squat about the Bible, you tried really hard to use it as evidence.

I changed the comment above to reflect the "reality" of the situation.

Good.

Why? Your argument in this thread was so inconsistent and plain old moronic, I think it would be pointless.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Black Dog · Apr 5, 2012

FreedomFromAll said:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Still got nothing eh? :lol:

earthworm · Apr 5, 2012

FreedomFromAll said:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

This happens when two fools argue.

Arbo · Apr 5, 2012

If Jesus was a real person, based on the bible, he clearly would be unaffiliated.

Black Dog · Apr 5, 2012

earthworm said:
This happens when two fools argue.

Well at least we were debating and not just trolling or leveling personal attacks at people.

Lethargic Aptitude · Apr 5, 2012

Blackdog said:
Still got nothing eh? :lol:

No I have plenty but this is not the time or place for the direction we took this debate.

Black Dog · Apr 5, 2012

FreedomFromAll said:
No I have plenty but this is not the time or place for the direction we took this debate.

Nor was your original response, it didn't stop you then?

Yes you are correct that this has gone way over the scope of the thread.

CaptainCourtesy · Apr 5, 2012

Moderator's Warning:

Cease the personal attacks.

Would Jesus be a Liberal?

Which of these political leans would Jesus be?

Liberal

Conservative

Moderate

Potato

Political Parties = Corruption

King Of The Dog Pound

Political Parties = Corruption

King Of The Dog Pound

Political Parties = Corruption

King Of The Dog Pound

Uncanny

Political Parties = Corruption

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

Political Parties = Corruption

King Of The Dog Pound

Political Parties = Corruption

Equal Opportunity Hater

King Of The Dog Pound

Yellow Dog Democrat

Political Parties = Corruption

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

Political Parties = Corruption

King Of The Dog Pound

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo