Jesus was the first Republican:

And your point is?? Do you know?

 

Jesus was a Jew and attended Jewish temples. If he opposed them he would have closed them down.

 

Born Jewish, Jesus Was the First Christian – Franciscan Media
https://www.franciscanmedia.org/born-jewish-jesus-was-the-first-christian/
‎
One of my Jewish friends asked me, “When did Jesus become a Christian? ... before theliving God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God,” Jesus said, ... Not all Jesus'Jewish contemporaries considered him guilty of blasphemy—his .

 

^ not sure what you're driving at but Jesus was a Jew and the New Testament even shows his familiar ancestry to prove it

 

Jesus founded what we call the Christian religion. He was the first Republican because he created the individual liberty in challenging the Roman state. This led to Thomas Jefferson and America.

 

Jesus was ALWAYS a jew during his lifetime.

I find it hilarious that some consider him the 'first republican" since he was a PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST.

 

Jesus founded what we call the Christian religion in opposition the Jewish religion and it became the basis for individual liberty and eventually America .

 

liberalism is anti intellectual, anti science, and opposed to learning history so how could you possible have knowledge of this? Obviously if Jesus was a progressive socialist you would be able to identify one progressive socialist govt program he advocated or created. In fact, Jesus was about how the individual should act and about his relationship with God and about challenging the authority of evil govt.

 

No actually he didn't. Seems you don't know much about the historical development of the christian church.

He never left the jewish faith and was ALWAYS considered a rabbi.

 

Seems you haven't got a clue what liberalism is all about but you sure are up on your bumperstickers.

AS to Jesus teachings qualifying him for the descriptors PROGRESSIVE and SOCIALIST:

 

you said Jesus was a progressive socialist. I asked for evidence; you changed the subject and posted children's cartoons rather than admit you were dead wrong. See why we say liberalism is anti intellectual and anti science? Is any other conclusion possible?

 

if not Jesus can you tell us who founded the Christian religion. See why we must be positive that liberalism is based in ignorance? Is any other conclusion logical?

 

I'd like to think Jesus was sensible enough to avoid party politics.

 

why???? I'm sure he would have opposed Hitler's National Socialist Party and loved Jefferson's Republican Party.

 

Opposing parties doesn't mean you have to be in a party, and I'm not sure about your second claim.

 

It was Peter with assist from James et.al. Are you familiar at all with the history of your religion? the development of its scriptures? the various HUMAN decisions regarding its dogma?

As to logical conclusions, get back to me when you have gotten over your ignorance of how your religion began in the first place.

 

We were not talking about being in a party but rather about avoiding a party. Re read to see for yourself. Its always important to know the subject

 

your original post very much put Jesus in a party.

 

So you are saying Christ had no role in the formation of Christianity?

 

do you mean figuratively or literally?

 

well here's what Jefferson said about Jesus:

When Christianity appeared on the scene, it proclaimed the radical equality of all persons: as St. Paul put it, "there is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor freeman; there is neither male or female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." [11] A quiet but most powerful and unprecedented revolution was thus set in motion on the deepest level of human consciousness and life the moral and religious level, wherein man perceives his fundamental relationship to transcendent divinity and to his fellow-men, spelled out in the biblical "love God with your whole heart and your neighbor as yourself."

However, for a proper understanding of this whole question, it is worth noting that this liberalism, articulated mainly by Locke, Montesquie and Rousseau, and further elaborated by Mill, had its origins in the English Puritan Revolution of 1640 culminating in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, which in its turn inspired the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789. Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau, influenced by Calvinism, were reacting against the absolutism ("divine right of kings") of the Tudors and Stuarts in England, and the Valois and Bourbons in France. This absolutism, inimical to individual liberty and freedom of enterprise, was carrying on the ancient imperial tradition of Persia, Hellas and Rome, Byzantium and the revived Roman-Germanic empire, then vested in the Habsburgs.

Thus, democracy, understood as the life of the political community, in which are admitted both (a) a fundamental equality of human rights, and (b) a diversity of functions in the pursuit of the common good, is the final political flowering of the trans-political Gospel values, as Jacques Maritain endeavored to show, even though, also according to the Gospel, there are many systems of implementing this democracy, depending on the local culture, and the Church is not bound to any particular concrete form. As John XXIII put it in Pacem in Terris:

The concept of democracy was indeed born in Greece, but did not come to maturity in that culture, mainly because of their poor concept of equality. The impact of Christianity was necessary in order to achieve a full awareness of the fundamental equality of all men, which was generally absent outside the Biblical tradition.


Thomas Jefferson: "notwithstanding these advantages a system of morals is presented to us[by Jesus] which if filled up in the true style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man." "His moral doctrines relating to kindred and friends were more pure &perfect thatn those of the most correct of the philosophers, and gbrestly more so than those of the Jews and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not onlyh to kindred and friend, to neighbors and countryman, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evinve th epeculiar superiotiy of the sustem of JEsus over all others." THe precepts of philosophy and of hebrew code laid hold of actions only.He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters of the fountain head. He taught the doctrines of a future state which was either doubted or disbelieved by the Jew and wielded it with efficacy as an important incentive supplementary to the other motives to moral conduct."

 

figuratively, based on your description of Jesus and then your description of Jefferson's party parried Jesus's beliefs, thus you placed him in Jefferson's party.

 

yes, figuratively, so???????????????

 

Jefferson also owned slaves, a practice I don't think Jesus would have supported

 

Lesseee, he proposed RADICAL changes to improve the social order and change existing jewish religious dogma. I believe that is fits very nicely into the definition of progressivism.

As to being a socialist, the cartoon describes it rather aptly. But since you can't grasp such simple stuff. Lets start with how he viewed the rich man. Move on to him admonishing his followers to protect and feed the poor, help the stranger, house the homeless. IOW, share the wealth which according to conservatives is a principle goal of socialism. Are you at all familiar with christian scriptures?

I find it interesting that you don't seem inclined to honestly examine your own religion's dogma yet attempt to fit your political partisanship into that dogma.


I see why you project that liberalism anti-intellectual, because its obvious that you display a profound intellectual dishonesty and a seemingly superficial understanding of political ideology. Bumperstickers are so convenient, aren't they?

As for anti science, I agree that scientific ignorance is not a partisan issue, but one of education, intelligence and interest.