Jesus Christ

[journeyman]

How about - Jesus was an apolitical liberal

I thoroughly agree that his were not "political" statements - not only did he say "render unto Ceasar" but he also said if a Roman made you carry his gear one mile, you should carry it for two

a. common practice in society was to (for lack of a better term) leave women in their place . . . not to teach them, not to talk to them, sit on a different side of the temple/synagogue etc etc . . . a real glass ceiling . . . Jesus taught, associated with, allowed himself to be touched by ritually unclean . . . all things that were on any pharisee's list of "no-no"s

while he did say that he did not come to destroy the law, he held it up against a different standard - and holders of different standards are often called "free thinkers" and often viewed as liberal . . . and/or revolutionary

b. further alienating the scribes and pharisees (who might have welcomed Him for his mental agility) was his choice of companions - fisherman from Galillee (which was too close to Samaria for any "devout/orthodox" Jew to be sure if you were "kosher"; tax collectors (gentiles or turncoats); prostitutes; those possessed by demons, etc etc

the parables about finding lost things was probably totally wasted on the pharisees and scribes . . . who made Paul Simon's "50 ways" look like a summary

The "judging" of the woman charged with adultery was an application of mercy, rather than of the law . . . mercy is not always popular . . . and thus also leads to the revolutionary label . . . but is an example of what is a linchpin of American justice today . . . inherited from the Judaic tradition . . . you need evidence (corroborating witnesses) to convict . . . in the story, there were none


So while I think we hold similar views, Jesus could be defined as falling with the class known as "liberal" by the 1700s definition of the term

[ruso]

Jesus was a liberal, mainly in his time, he criticize the acquired badly wealth, hipocresia of the influential groups of its time ( fariseos and saduceos), and it gave to the woman a site when its situation was equal
that in the Afganistan of talibanes.
But communist, tapeworm rich and poor friends, he arrive to save us to all.

[Akalyte]

Jesus Christ is infinitely above Politics. I cant stand the fact that people call him a liberal. Liberalism is on the left (ecclesiastes 10:2) Christ is the Wiseman and the Righteous man, not a fool and a sinner.

Edited January 10, 2006 by Akalyte

[Akalyte]

How dare anyone put our God and Savior on such a level.

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Jan 8 2006, 09:08 PM']yea yea its off topic, but you've got my attention.. and I've already got 4-5 books on my list (along with a new semester coming up)... and I'm pretty interested!  care to educate us in an aside?? especially the satanically evil claim? 
[right][snapback]849954[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Dang - I thought I had the book with me, but I don't. (it had some great quotes - I'll have to get a hold of it again!) I'd recommend ordering and reading it to get all the facts. The book is actually not long at all, and quite readable.

Many thousands of innocent people were killed by the Guillotine during the reign of terror, including many of the original revolutionaries themselves. Many priests, nuns and other Catholics were martyred for their Faith by the vehemently anti-Catholic revolutionaries.

The revolutionaries sought to completely wipe out the Church in France, and replace it with a religion worshipping "Reason."

[Socrates]

[quote name='journeyman' date='Jan 8 2006, 10:06 PM']How about - Jesus was an apolitical liberal

I thoroughly agree that his were not "political" statements - not only did he say "render unto Ceasar" but he also said if a Roman made you carry his gear one mile, you should carry it for two

a.  common practice in society was to (for lack of a better term) leave women in their place . . . not to teach them, not to talk to them, sit on a different side of the temple/synagogue  etc etc . . . a real glass ceiling . . . Jesus taught, associated with, allowed himself to be touched by ritually unclean . . . all things that were on any pharisee's list of "no-no"s[/quote]
I am not aware that women were not allowed to be talked to - would've made communication with the opposite sex somewhat difficult!
Still none of this really provides much evidence that Christ would have given any approval to liberalism (a movement which did not really exist in any form until the late 17th century).

[quote]while he did say that he did not come to destroy the law, he held it up against a different standard - and holders of different standards are often called "free thinkers" and often viewed as liberal . . . and/or revolutionary[/quote]
Christ held the law against the standard of the Divine Law, which, being the Son of God, He had authority to speak on.
This is a HUGE difference from liberalism, which seeks to take God out of law entirely, and base it entirely upon the whims of man.
"Free thinker" is a term usually used to describe atheists/agnostics or those who reject the tenents of organized religion (particularly Christianity) entirely. Obviously, this is not what Christ was about. To compare Christ to those who are opposed to Christian Faith is bizarre to say the least.

[quote]b.  further alienating the scribes and pharisees (who might have welcomed Him for his mental agility) was his choice of companions - fisherman from Galillee (which was too close to Samaria for any "devout/orthodox" Jew to be sure if you were "kosher"; tax collectors (gentiles or turncoats); prostitutes; those possessed by demons, etc etc[/quote]
Again, this is a far cry from the "tolerance" preached by liberals. Christ called sinners so that they would repent and change their ways to follow Him, and expelled Demons (He didn't engage in "meaningful dialogue" with the fallen angels.)
When Christians today call sinners to turn from their sin and follow Christ, they are called intolerant bigots by the liberals.


[quote]the parables about finding lost things was probably totally wasted on the pharisees and scribes . . . who made Paul Simon's "50 ways" look like a summary

The "judging" of the woman charged with adultery was an application of mercy, rather than of the law . . . mercy is not always popular . . . and thus also leads to the revolutionary label . . . but is an example of what is a linchpin of American justice today . . . inherited from the Judaic tradition . . . you need evidence (corroborating witnesses) to convict . . . in the story, there were none
So while I think we hold similar views, Jesus could be defined as falling with the class known as "liberal" by the 1700s definition of the term
[right][snapback]850036[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Again, Christ told the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more." He did not give approval or blessing to her sin, but forgave her on condition of her repentence, showing His divine authority.

I would disagree that Jesus would be liberal even by 1700s definitions. Liberals of the 18th century were notorious for their "Enlightenment" rejection of all religious authority.

The mere fact that Jesus acted contrary to some of the established ways of His age does not at all mean He would be a supporter of the liberal agenda.

If merely being contrary to the customs and spirit of an age is enough to qualify one as "liberal," then true conservatives today must also be called "liberal."

[Socrates]

[quote name='ruso' date='Jan 9 2006, 03:45 PM']Jesus was a liberal, mainly in his time, he criticize the acquired badly wealth, hipocresia of the influential groups of its time ( fariseos and saduceos), and it gave to the woman a site when its situation was equal
that in the Afganistan of talibanes.
But communist, tapeworm rich and poor friends, he arrive to save us to all.
[right][snapback]850872[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Jesus said nothing about how people aquired wealth.

Christ did speak about the spiritual dangers of wealth and attachment to material things. He recommended voluntary giving up of one's wealth to follow Christ. He was speaking of voluntary actions for spiritual reasons here.
He said nothing calling for socialistic government-enforced redistribution of wealth.
[b]Voluntary[/b] poverty is one of the evangelical counsels. Government-enforced poverty has no merit in itself.

And speaking against hypocrisy of influencial people does not automatically qualify one as a liberal. I've read plenty of conservatives doing the same thing.

I've still seen zippo evidence given on this thread that Christ supported anything on the liberal agenda.

[Jaime]

[quote]I would disagree with that particular statement. Jesus was most certainly not a political revolutionary. A someone else noted here, he said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," and while He did not deny He was the Messiah, his Kingdom was not of this world. Note that in the Gospels, Christ nowhere calls for a political uprising against the Romans. This idea is based in liberal revisionist myth, rather than in the Truth of the Gospels.[/quote]

That's exactly what made Christ a revolutionary. The Jews were expecting a Christ that would be political. To set them free from oppression. His fullfillment of the OT was radically different from what the Jews were expecting.

[quote] lib·er·al  Audio pronunciation of "liberal" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

  1.
        1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.[/quote]

Was Christ's teaching that all could be saved against the orthodox belief of the Jews?

Did Christ fulfill the law in a completely different sense than what tradition had taught>

Did he stand up to and challenge authoritarian attitudes?


Did he liberate mankind from original sin?

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 9 2006, 08:17 PM']That's exactly what made Christ a revolutionary.  The Jews were expecting a Christ that would be political.  To set them free from oppression.  His fullfillment of the OT was radically different from what the Jews were expecting.[/quote]
And likewise radically different from the modern Leftist "liberation theology" version of Jesus, which tries to portray Him as a kind of proto-Marxist socialist political revolutionary.

[quote]Was Christ's teaching that all could be saved against the orthodox belief of the Jews? 

Did Christ fulfill the law in a completely different sense than what tradition had taught>

Did he stand up to and challenge authoritarian attitudes?
Did he liberate mankind from original sin?
[right][snapback]851126[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Christ did not completely contradict tradition, but fulfilled it. The traditions had become corrupted by men. Christ is the Divine Lawgiver.
Liberals try to teach the law in a completely different sense than what Christ taught, and seek to deny the Tradition He established.

Christ did not try to change "authoritarian attitudes, " but taught with His own authority. He taught that He alone was the Way, the Truth and the Life.
He wasn't some hippy flower child who taught His followers to simply defy authority and do their own thing!

Christ liberated mankind from original sin, and to bear the gentle yoke of Christ, not to be "free" to engage in licentiousness.

Sure, if you play around with words enough, you can always find some sense in which Christ was "liberal."

However, usually when liberals make this assertion, it is meant to imply that Christ would support the modern liberal agenda. The evidence is all against this. Why would Christ support something opposed to Himself?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 9 2006, 09:17 PM']That's exactly what made Christ a revolutionary.  The Jews were expecting a Christ that would be political.  To set them free from oppression.  His fullfillment of the OT was radically different from what the Jews were expecting. 
Was Christ's teaching that all could be saved against the orthodox belief of the Jews? 

Did Christ fulfill the law in a completely different sense than what tradition had taught>

Did he stand up to and challenge authoritarian attitudes?
Did he liberate mankind from original sin?
[right][snapback]851126[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Are you defending the ancient definition or arguing against the modern one (of "liberal") implied in this thread?

[Era Might]

Warren Carroll is a great historian. I have his Christendom series. Excellent resource.

[Jaime]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 9 2006, 09:38 PM']Are you defending the ancient definition or arguing against the modern one (of "liberal") implied in this thread?
[right][snapback]851141[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well if you're going to say that the official definition of liberal is "slimebag" then no Jesus wasn't a liberal.

But that's not the official definition

[qfnol31]

Right, but today liberal now means "equalizing" and "non-intervening" and actually other things that "liberal" never meant before.

Aristotles' definition and the modern conception are total opposites.

[Jaime]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 9 2006, 09:45 PM']Right, but today liberal now means "equalizing" and "non-intervening" and actually other things that "liberal" never meant before.

Aristotles' definition and the modern conception are total opposites. 
[right][snapback]851152[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes when conservatives are allowed to define things, they lose their meaning.

[qfnol31]

Aristotle's a conservative?

What conservative defined "liberal"?

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 9 2006, 08:50 PM']Yes when conservatives are allowed to define things, they lose their meaning.
[right][snapback]851159[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Oh yes. We should let liberals define the meaning of words instead!


. . . If they can ever figure out what the meaning of the word "is" is.

[Jaime]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 9 2006, 09:51 PM']Aristotle's a conservative?

What conservative defined "liberal"?
[right][snapback]851160[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I was referring to the modern definition and you know that

[qfnol31]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 9 2006, 09:53 PM']I was referring to the modern definition and you know that
[right][snapback]851164[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I was just going by the so-called "liberals" themselves and what they've given. That's why I was confused.

[Socrates]

And it really seems that liberals are the ones forever trying to change the meaning of words to mean whatever they want. The libs on here keep insisting on using their modern, trendy, p.c. defs of words such as "marriage." (as opposed to those old, dusty outdated definitions of ten years ago).

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 9 2006, 09:56 PM']And it really seems that liberals are the ones forever trying to change the meaning of words to mean whatever they want.  The libs on here keep insisting on using their modern, trendy, p.c. defs of words such as "marriage."  (as opposed to those old, dusty outdated definitions of ten years ago).
[right][snapback]851168[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You wanted some points that would show Christ as a liberal


Why are you changing the subject?

Edited January 10, 2006 by jaime