I am asking for all serious opinions and please explain your answer with clarity and you may quote the New Testamant Please, it would be great to see intelligent answers here. One does not need to believe he is the sone of God to be the charactor we know him to be. Thanks.
2006-12-05 14:59:25 · 11 answers · asked by zambranoray 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Mythology & Folklore
arily666 He never said that he was King. I believe you are failing to provide what is obvious. . .Come on. . .I know i't difficult for you to swollow. . .just say it and set your self free. . .
2006-12-05 15:12:42 · update #1
raxivar- I did not state Radical. . .we new his views were radical, but were they to the right or left, as I have never met a radical moderate.
2006-12-05 15:15:45 · update #2
AnnieD - Jesus did not start a relgion. The Christian movement started way after he was put to death. Please answer the question. . .one judges everyone here usung these labels. . .do it now for Jesus
2006-12-05 15:19:25 · update #3
Puffy - A "Compassionate Conservative" due to "values" sounds to me to be an extremely biased statement in itself. That statement could be easily given as a prime example of ignorance. Are you stating that no one but Conservatives have values? (Or Compassionate Conservatives as you put it). Don't you feel that is rather insulting? How can you dismiss a Socialist who is looking for fairness toward the human race as a whole? Don't you believe that is based on "Compassion" instead of "Greed"? And before you strike out on Socialism, look it up, as I am not going to argue as to what you feel it is, or some ones "Opinion" on it. Read it as it is defined in the dictionary, not what a Capitalist feel it is, as that will be just as biased as you are on "Compassion" and "Values".
2006-12-06 10:43:12 · update #4
Adam - I don't think so . . . a "Right Wing Socialist" is pretty far fetched. . .I would not state that it is impossible, but if one exist, I would have to believe that person with have conflicting issues inside his head.
As for being in "Mythology and Folklore", I am not simply looking for religious views about Jesus Christ. What we know about Jesus is what has been written about him in the Bible, read by billions of people, not only by Christians or only by those who believe in some sort of religion. Some of these answers it is easy to tell they are followers and or believers in Christ. I did not want to have an arguement about his existance. I want a truthful answer from each person that replies. , and by no means am I judging his existance
2006-12-06 10:55:40 · update #5
Marko F - Everything you wrote is backed by what has been wriiten about him in the Bible. Now, can you please commit and answer the question asked?
2006-12-06 11:02:46 · update #6
In looking at the supposed teachings of Jesus...how he extolled over and over that the poor, sick, aged, and needy must be included, looked after and helped...then I would say he would be classified as a socialist.
2006-12-05 15:04:01 · answer #1 · answered by Rick B 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He was a rebel Jew. A Radical. The Primordeal Hippie. Not capitalist ( I recall a story of him in a fit of riteous anger at men setting up shop in a temple) a bit moderate, He talked about Adam and Eve, supporting the role of man as the head of the family. Now, see, in a capitalist society like America, man as "the head of the wife" has been downgraded. I am a working woman myself, i own my own home, and i cringe at the though of letting a man take charge, but that's mostly the men of today. if there was a decent, spiritual (not too religious) moral and responsible man out there, sure, I'd let him take charge. I'd stay home and have five or six kids even. But i digress. So, he had some radical ideas for the time, and i don't know my Bible very well, but he was still moderate.
2006-12-06 02:09:46 · answer #2 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was a scholar, and very much a man aware of the intricacies of his community's power structure. He might easily fit into a couple of camps, liberal on social welfare issues, a compassionate conservative on "value issues" and perhaps maneuvered between the two quite easily. He wasn't particularly a revolutionary sort, he never sought the destruction of the empire, but wanted to change things on the individual level.
I think a good comparison might be to the early Che Guevara in Latin America in his compassion for the poor, though I don't see any Marxist or socialist traits in Jesus' works, clearly he was sided with those that had the least.
2006-12-05 23:43:16 · answer #3 · answered by imaginary friend 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jesus recognized that there is only one true political system all others being misdirections.
The natural political state is
"The Haves versus the Havenots."
The Haves are united by Greed regardless of professed politics and lacking any conscience are free to do as they please. Thus they naturally form a group power-base and will stop at nothing to further their own ends.
The Havenots are individually limited by personal moralities and collectively divided by ideologies. So, they will not go the extra mile against the Haves unless severely provoked, but they will squabble amongst themselves over ideological minutae and allow the Haves to send them into battle to commit attrocities against each other.
Jesus tried unconditional Love as a counterpoint to Greed to unite the Havenots and restore balance. He wanted simple universal, non-partisan, non-denominational respect for one's fellow human being to bring unity to mankind without the need for group allegiance.
Unfortunately, the Haves got into the chicken-coup and corrupted the message spewing just more devisive gangs into the fray.
More war, more tyranny - Nice try Jesus, better luck next time!
Buddha tried again with Compassion as his complement to Greed instead of Love - FAILED!
Mohammed thought perhaps appealing to the worst of human prejudices might serve as a rallying cry for the masses - Got to admit, he had a point, but Jihad hasn't exactly been pretty or productive.
Perhaps if people just listened to themselves and stopped following others, they may get an inkling of the political pursuasion that Jesus was about.
2006-12-06 03:05:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was a man of the people, of the common people, a man who rose from humble beginnings and reached far beyond what grasp any man could hope for in his short life. He was a Jewish carpenter who worked with his hands but thought with his heart, who read the scriptures in his spare time and reinterpreted them in such a manner as to make them universal. He was not bound by convention but did not object to it except where it fell short of its potential greatness. He respected tradition and strove to preserve it. It was never his intention to found a new religion but to restore the old one to its former glory and see it evolve into something even more. He would have been comfortable among brigands and thieves and at home with charlatans and whores. His was not a religion of exclusion but one of all-inclusiveness. How could it be other for he knew only unconditional love.
2006-12-06 00:57:31 · answer #5 · answered by Seeker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All the reliable historical records of his own time lacks any mention or even the slightest notation of him whatsoever, so I would say he was none of the above.
In fact all the best evidence would indicate the Jesus myth was totally made up by a group of men who never saw or knew Jesus and who never actually knew anybody else who ever saw or knew Jesus.
2006-12-05 23:37:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
To the Romans he was trouble, to the Jews he was blasphemus and to the apostles he was a teacher. Some time after his death he became known as the son of God.
2006-12-06 11:53:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
a right wing scoialist if such a thing existed. But then again Jesus himself is a miracle
2006-12-06 18:06:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Jesus was the greatest revolutionary of his time. He successfully started a new religion which survives to this day.
2006-12-05 23:15:13 · answer #9 · answered by AnnieD 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes.
He would party with anyone, particularly if their views offended the local status quo.
2006-12-05 23:10:36 · answer #10 · answered by raxivar 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋