Jesus was a Conservative -- Herman Cain

btw....jesus was not a conservative.
he was an anarchist.
he urged fishermen to leave their nets, spoke about how god feeds and clothes the birds, who do not work, and had many people take the day off work to sit around and listen to him speak on the mount.
heck, he even fed those same people with a socialist miracle.
jesus was an anarchist...no wonder the romans killed him.
 
From the passage: "...whether bonded or free."

If free, then the man is not a slave, if bonded, then that computes with servant as an indentured servant, not a slave.

Ephesians 6:5-9
New International Version (NIV)
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
 
"Servant" equals "Slave"????

Yes, the koine Greek term used is doulos --- While it is possible to understand this to mean a servant that is not working for someone of his/her own free will, 'slave' is probably the better translation.

Reference Paul's letter to Philemon...Onesimus, referred to as a doulos by Paul, is quite clearly a slave under the control of a master and does not have the freedom to leave.

Onesimus is NOT a servant who simply has an employee-employer relationship with Philemon.
 
Last edited:
Jesus was not a 'conservative', or 'liberal', or 'socialist', or 'anarchist' or whatever other modern category we are trying to place him in.

These categories simply did not exist and nobody would have cared about these issues. Nobody was debating the merits of the free market or the role of welfare state. Robert Prey (and others unfortunately) are trying to squeeze 21st century issues and terminology into a 1st century mold.

So...do you think Jesus was a Yankees fan or a Red Sox fan? The Yankees did not exist. The Red Sox did not exist. But, most importantly, baseball did not even exist so the categories do not even make sense.

A lot of silliness on display here...
 
Herman Cain Says Jesus Was ‘a Perfect Conservative’

"He helped the poor without one government program. He healed the sick without a government health care system. He [fed] the hungry without food stamps. And everywhere He went, it turned into a rally, attracting large crowds, and giving them hope, encouragement and inspiration.

For three years He was unemployed, and never collected an unemployment check."



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/her...rvative-who-was-condemned-by-a-liberal-court/

There were no food stamps so he does not get any credit for that one.

There were not unemployment checks so he does not get any credit for that one.

You cannot get credit for not doing something that was actually impossible for you to do anyway...
 
Yes, the koine Greek term used is doulos --- While it is possible to understand this to mean a servant that is not working for someone of his/her own free will, 'slave' is probably the better translation.

Reference Paul's letter to Philemon...Onesimus, referred to as a doulos by Paul, is quite clearly a slave under the control of a master and does not have the freedom to leave.

Onesimus is NOT a servant who simply has an employee-employer relationship with Philemon.

That was exactly the example I was going to use.

The word "duolos" can be translated as slave or servant, but its use in the Bible is (at least primarily) that of slavery. For instance, in Exodus "duolo" is referred to as being his master's "property." And also makes reference to such a person being "owned." So clearly the denotation is slavery, not voluntary servitude. Some Bible translations use the term "servant" as interchangeable with "slave." For instance, depending on the translation, Exodus refers to a man selling his daughter as a "slave" in some verions, "maidservant" or "servant" in others. But obviously if a woman is being sold by her father, she is enslaved, she is not a free servant acting of her own will.

Why is it that the most ardent Christians who come on this forum all know so little about the Bible?

Also, in regards to "either free or bonded"; the passage wasn't talking about "free or bonded" servants, it was talking about all mankind. It even states it, right there, "any man." The statment is that the Lord will judge goodness from free man or slave alike.

Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

Furthermore, the idea that bondage only = voluntary indentured servitude is untrue. Here is the definition of bondage.


1.The state of being a slave.
2.A state of being greatly constrained by circumstances or obligations.

You need to get yourself a dictionary, a Bible, and learn reading comprehension.
 
Last edited:
Jesus was not a 'conservative', or 'liberal', or 'socialist', or 'anarchist' or whatever other modern category we are trying to place him in.

These categories simply did not exist and nobody would have cared about these issues. Nobody was debating the merits of the free market or the role of welfare state. Robert Prey (and others unfortunately) are trying to squeeze 21st century issues and terminology into a 1st century mold.

So...do you think Jesus was a Yankees fan or a Red Sox fan? The Yankees did not exist. The Red Sox did not exist. But, most importantly, baseball did not even exist so the categories do not even make sense.

A lot of silliness on display here...

Yes, agree 100%. To try and affix a modern concept of political leanings to Jesus or anyone from that time is impossible and pointless. Our labels wouldn't apply because the systems which these labels depend on were not in existence.
 
Last edited:
Remind me - how did he treat dodgy money lenders?

<nitpick> They weren't money lenders, they were money changers. He didn't smash up banks, he smashed up bureaux de change.

Jesus objected to the requirement for ordinary people entering the temple to use their grubby everyday money to buy specially pure money, with which they could buy specially pure animals to be sacrificed by specially pure priests.
 
Yes, agree 100%. To try and affix a modern concept of political leanings to Jesus or anyone from that time is impossible and pointless. Our labels wouldn't apply because the systems which these labels depend on were not in existence.


But its so fun....party pooper
 
Herman Cain Says Jesus Was ‘a Perfect Conservative’

"He helped the poor without one government program. He healed the sick without a government health care system. He [fed] the hungry without food stamps. And everywhere He went, it turned into a rally, attracting large crowds, and giving them hope, encouragement and inspiration.

For three years He was unemployed, and never collected an unemployment check."



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/her...rvative-who-was-condemned-by-a-liberal-court/

YUP and his a figment of peoples imagination JUST like every other republican idea about social or economical beliefs - ala trickle down.
 
If Cain believes that, then he must recognize that the people that passed the teachings of Jesus on (eventually to Cain himself) had gotten it all wrong. The earliest Christian Church was explicitly communist:

Acts 4: 33-37;5:1-10 said:
33And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

36And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

37Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

1But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

2And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

3But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

4Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

5And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

6And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

7And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

8And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

9Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

10Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
 
If Cain believes that, then he must recognize that the people that passed the teachings of Jesus on (eventually to Cain himself) had gotten it all wrong. The earliest Christian Church was explicitly communist:

No no NO, Joe! You're just not getting it. It's only communist if the government makes people share their wealth. Private gods striking people dead if they don't share their wealth is simple separation of church and state. Killing people for not donating to charity or a wealth sharing plan is just plain old capitalism in action.

Some people are so slow!
 

Back
Top Bottom