I take it you are being funny. That's good, I like you when you are in good humor. Not at all. If I accumulate worldy wealth to aid the sick and the poor, if I use it to protect my family and encourage freedom, I'm pretty sure Jesus would be quite pleased by that. I found some of the phrases word for word in searches. My apologies if this was a coincidence. I didn't believe you had that developed an argument for minimum wages. Apparently I was wrong.
Jews still are monothistic and always have been im pretty sure, but yeah Jesus never said he was the 'saviour' or Son of God, this is things which were said by people other than Jesus, dis info as you call it, and suddenly people as time went on believed it to be true, jesus prayed to God and talked about him, so it is impossible that he could be the son of God, also it is logically impossible for God to have a son or even be in human form...as that would put limits on him. But yes I agree with you on economics
That's funny. If I search Copyscape for that post, I get : Apart from obvious phrases like "minimum wage," what other matches can you report? I'm very interested, as the entire post was composed without so much as a source from my head. Or do you just say things like this to replace genuine debate?
If I said it to replace genuine debate, why am I genuinely debating you on it? You called my statement that minimum wage was a price control, NONSENSE, then proceeded to write rhetoric that didn't address what you were labeling nonsense, and called minimum wages price controls yourself. Again, you're picking and choosing what you think is right. There is no consistent principle, it's completely arbitrary. If you understand how markets work, and you understand the basic principles of individual liberty, you can't be for the minimum wage rationally. Because you are going to have to tax (by force) workers, to subsidize the people who cannot get a job, due to the requirement that businesses have to pay them a fixed minimum wage, that is determined.... ??? No one knows how they determine it. In the end, you're really no further ahead, as the $X minimum wage, is really $X minus the tax that subsidizes the unemployed. Or, less than the minimum wage. But these are economic arguments, and I'd rather we keep this thread on Jesus and libertarianism. I'm already participating in numerous other economic threads and welcome you to join me, or to start a new thread which we can talk about minimum wage and socialism vs. capitalism.
This entire thing is ridiculous, in my opinion. The historical Jesus's life cannot be wrought into the framework of a material, social construct, so to call him a "Libertarian" is a non-starter. He was simply advocating placement of one's life in service to God, and forgetting everything else. Forget material need, forget oneself, forget life itself, as all that matters comes after. Like asking if "Nirvana" is in actuality a bull market. Nonsense, in my opinion.
How could Jesus be Jewish, if Jews did not believe he is the Messiah? You're basically refuting Judaism, by claiming Jesus was a Jew. Racially, ethnically, maybe. But not philosophically. That's like claiming that the New Testament is Jewish.
I understand that many people might not understand libertarianism, and the article is long, but basically libertarianism conforms to the non-aggression axiom. Which means that, no one should initiate violence. In this regard, I believe Jesus was a libertarian.
Jesus still could of been Jew and the Jews still could of not believed in the Messiah Those two issue have nothing in common, also Mary was a Jew. Also Christianity didn't start and prosper until after the Death of Christ.
All kinds of half-definitions and fuzzy logic going on. Precisely so - he was an ethnic Jew. Therefore, a Jew. Much like atheist socialists, who are ethnic Jews. These are Jews, as well. And though religious Jews do not consider the historical Jesus to be the Moshiach, the Messiah, they do consider he was a Jew, born of a Jewish mother. They also don't believe a lot of other Jews are the Messiah, but consider them Jewish. This is nonsense, in my opinion. In other words, all peaceful people are Libertarians. Also nonsense, in my opinion.
I have a question , if christians =who believe Jesus is a God( or Son of God), and believing in Jesus and was Jesus a christian ? If he was a christian , then did he believe that Jesus (himself) was a God ( or son of God) and was he believing in Jesus (himself ) from point of view modern Christianity? Sorry if it is of topic
If you haven't read the article in the OP, you aren't understanding the context I am speaking in. Please keep this thread on topic. Thanks.
I have read it, and I am responding to statements made. Unless those statements were also off-topic, my response to them was entirely on-topic.
That's fine to ask because apparently there is a dispute about whether Jesus was a Jew or Christian. That in fact is my point. How can Jesus believe he is the messiah, and not be Christian? His ethnicity or genetics do not determine his religious perspectives. As Jews are a race/ethnicity/religion, in some aspects he was clearly a Jew, but on the matter of religion, I cannot see how anyone would dispute that he was the first Christian. He is the one who introduced the concept of salvation through acceptance of his sacrifice. Without his dying on the cross, and subsequent resurrection, there is no Christianity. And he knew these things would come to be, long before they did.
Well, then you are continuing to display gross ignorance as to the non-aggression axiom. I suggest you read the article again and please stay on topic.
I repeat: The article falls on the knife with its first paragraph: Since there is zero in Jesus's life which suggests he was concerned with organizing civil society in any way. His preachings concerned themselves entirely with another world, and the tortured construction of the article is, well, "Like asking if "Nirvana" is in actuality a bull market." Two different realms. Regarding your misstatements here that I am off-topic, I won't repeat that I am indeed on topic, unless you weren't, as I replied to comments you made. With my first contribution, I have posted my thoughts in answer to the thread topic, and since, to posts made. If you feel I am breaking forum rules by being off-topic, report it. Merely repeating the misstatement, "off-topic" means nothing. I understand that the contributions of others beyond those in complete agreement with you apparently rocks your world. I suggest you get over it.
If you read the opening article, then how did you come to the conclusion that the non-aggression axiom only applies to people displaying a peaceful demeanor? After all of your criticisms of libertarianism, I though you actually had some knowledge of that which you criticized.
I didn't. I said your logic was flawed. This is your syllogism: libertarianism = non-aggression; non-aggression = no initiation of violence; therefore, Jesus was a Libertarian. Therefore, by your logic, all peaceful people are libertarians. It doesn't work that way, and your logic was flawed. As I said.
Jesus spread the message of monotheism, that is probally where he connection to Judaism comes from. You are right that without his dying on the cross, there is no Christianity. But it is extremely debatable that he did die on the cross, this is probally the only thing that is seperating all 3 major religions. I highly suggest you take a look at this if you are genuinley interested, i am pretty sure you can find an internet version somewhere as i think ive stumbled across one before - http://www.amazon.com/Was-Jesus-Crucified-Ahmed-Deedat/dp/093351123X/ref=pd_sim_b_title_1
Have you read Professor Wilson’s book “How Jesus Became Christian†? He says that Jesus was a prophet Jesus peace be upon him is a wonderful, humble, generous messenger of God who came down and revealed God's words to his people, the people of Israel.