2006-09-21 13:20:59 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
no
2006-09-21 13:22:27 · answer #1 · answered by Ah Ha 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
He was a communist (small 'c' - the good kind).
Acts, Chap. 4:32-35; {All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.}
He stood up for the poor against maldistributed wealth. He turned over the tables of the money changers (an act so revolutionary it would be like attacking the Bank of America today) and he said it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to make it into heaven.
He was persecuted and killed for being a revolutionary communist and a revolutionary theologian.
The persecution of those who believe in liberty and justice for all still continues to this day.
2006-09-21 13:49:29 · answer #2 · answered by ideogenetic 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Zealots. I think. Yes, the Zealots were a political movement in 1st century Judea.
"The Zealots were a Jewish political movement in the 1st century AD which sought to incite the people of Iudaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the country by force of arms during the Great Jewish Revolt (AD 66-70). When the Romans introduced the imperial cult, the Jews had rebelled and been put down. The Zealots continued to oppose the Romans, on the grounds that Israel belonged only to a Jewish king descended from David, see Jewish Messiah."
2006-09-21 13:24:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Him and I both know that there is no real difference between the two parties. It's just made to look that way, to create the illusion that we live in a free society with free elections. In reality, all major elections are controlled by the Satanic Illuminati, who presently run this planet, until Jesus gets back here to defeat them.
2006-09-21 13:33:06 · answer #4 · answered by oceansoflight777 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
you're surely proper. Even jesus stated to furnish to caesar what's caesar's and to God what's God's. obviously, it truly is isolating church and state. xtians do not bypass to a pastime interview sporting a bible and quote verses, and why no longer? because you recognize you'd be considered as a loon and does no longer get the pastime. you keep in mind which could be insane habit yet xtians do not keep in mind that authorities isn't church? Deli's do no longer run a church, regulation places of artwork do no longer run a church, its a separate portion of existence - if each little thing changed into church, we may be in a muslim united states. as well, which denomination ought to it truly is? Who decides that? even born-againers do not agree. before figuring out for human beings a thanks to stay, collect the 1000's of xtian denominations and agree on some thing - it ought to't be achieved. considering xtians are not in contract on a thanks to stay or maybe who's a appropriate xtian, is it proper for one denomination to infringe on different denominations? Muslims interior the mideast do not agree and conflict with one yet another, isn't that an outstanding celebration of what xtian rule ought to do to this united states? combining faith and politics can in reality open a can of worms and create the very aspect that xtians worry. does no longer it truly is the most suitable irony if xtianity is the very pretend faith it fears? It does have all the markers for it.
2016-11-23 14:02:01 · answer #5 · answered by hariwon 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No... Jesus deferred things that should be "rendered unto Cesar" to the government. He was sent by God to redeem mankind, not to play politics
2006-09-21 13:52:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good question.
I would think that He would be against the death penalty though, considering that they let a murderer go free just to crucify Him.
Further comment: Since He is a "King", I would say Aristocracy.
2006-09-22 02:19:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He was the original separation of church and state guy!
A bit out of context but:
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
2006-09-21 13:27:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Independent.
2006-09-21 13:22:40 · answer #9 · answered by atomicfrog81 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Only Republicans (and only some of those, like George W. Bush) claim that Jesus talks to them personally, so that must be your answer.
2006-09-21 13:31:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No. but he had pretty strong words against legalistic pharisees during the time. He spoke against the ruling powers because they were abusive, judgemental and corrupt.
2006-09-21 13:28:05 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋