Obama Cites the Bible, Says Jesus Wants Higher Taxes

[LAGC]

President Obama offered a new line of reasoning for hiking taxes on the rich on Thursday, saying at the National Prayer Breakfast that his policy proposals are shaped by his religious beliefs.

Obama said that as a person who has been "extraordinarily blessed," he is willing to give up some of the tax breaks he enjoys because doing so makes economic, and religious sense.

"For me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required," Obama said, quoting the Gospel of Luke.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news...ax_rich_jesus/

Who knew? Jesus was a socialist...

[Kadmos]

Who knew? Jesus was a socialist...

Common knowledge.

Mark 10:21

Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Matthew 25

:35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

James 2

:1 My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. 2 Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. 3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” 4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

5 Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?

8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,”[a] you are doing right.

[LAGC]

Didn't he also kick the money-changers out of the temple?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple

[Kadmos]

Didn't he also kick the money-changers out of the temple?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple

Well, yeah...but that was rude.

That was a valuable service, Jewish coins weren't so common and of course you couldn't give roman coins as a tribute to the temple, so you needed to be able to exchange for Jewish ones. Or if you'd rather donate some bread or doves you could buy them right there...in case you forgot to bring something.

I always figure that's why most of the Jews didn't pick him when the Romans offered to let one guy go free, they were all like "Hey, isn't that the obnoxious guy who threw a hissy at the temple?"

No offense.

[was_peacemaker]

Jesus also told them in Matthew 9:13 "Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

The keyword here is "mercy". In reference to Hosea 6:6.

To be honest with you LAGC if Jesus was in America today he probably wouldn't be to concerned about Washington D.C and its politics. he would probably be down at the local shelter healing, preaching and feeding those in need.

[was_peacemaker]

Well, yeah...but that was rude.

That was a valuable service, Jewish coins weren't so common and of course you couldn't give roman coins as a tribute to the temple, so you needed to be able to exchange for Jewish ones. Or if you'd rather donate some bread or doves you could buy them right there...in case you forgot to bring something.

I always figure that's why most of the Jews didn't pick him when the Romans offered to let one guy go free, they were all like "Hey, isn't that the obnoxious guy who threw a hissy at the temple?"

No offense.

I thought some of that had to do with the fact that the Sadducees had politically sold out to the Romans and were making it harder for the average Jew or the poor Jew to participate at the Temple. Even the Jerusalem Talmud mention Rabbi John the pure, and Rabbi Jesus the Son of the Mercy of God. These two Rabbi's lived around the same time and John the pure seemed to duke it out with the Sadducees. I think the story is that he found Rabbi Jesus the Son of the Mercy of God in Galilee along with his peer Rabbi haKana, and he became a mentor to them.

Sounds like first century Jews in the rural areas were not all that fond of the Sadducees.

[Kadmos]

I thought some of that had to do with the fact that the Sadducees had politically sold out to the Romans and were making it harder for the average Jew or the poor Jew to participate at the Temple.

It was a bit of a fragmented society, just like any other, so naturally they accused each other of all kinds of stuff.

Even the Jerusalem Talmud mention Rabbi John the pure, and Rabbi Jesus the Son of the Mercy of God. These two Rabbi's lived around the same time and John the pure seemed to duke it out with the Sadducees. I think the story is that he found Rabbi Jesus the Son of the Mercy of God in Galilee along with his peer Rabbi haKana, and he became a mentor to them.

Never seen any mention of "Rabbi Jesus" in the Talmud. There are some people in there that Christians seem to think refer to Jesus, most of those are frought with major inconsistencies with the NT.

Sounds like first century Jews in the rural areas were not all that fond of the Sadducees.

Unsurprising, they were the power elite in Jerusalem at the time.

[l921428x]

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Communist dogma.

[was_peacemaker]

It was a bit of a fragmented society, just like any other, so naturally they accused each other of all kinds of stuff.




Never seen any mention of "Rabbi Jesus" in the Talmud. There are some people in there that Christians seem to think refer to Jesus, most of those are frought with major inconsistencies with the NT.



Unsurprising, they were the power elite in Jerusalem at the time.

Do you mean the folks in Rural areas were the power elite or the Sadducees?

About Rabbi Jesus Son of the Mercy of God. In the Jerusalem (not the BT) Talmud he is referred to as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya a disciple of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai.

Now please correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Yehoshua ben Chananya translate to Jesus Son of the Mercy of God?

Yehoshua ben Chananya's peer seems to be Rabbi haKana who is credited by the Kabbalist with writing of dictating the Sefer Bahir. From what I understand haKana was a mentor to Gamaliel. The same Gamaliel that defended the Apostles in the Book of Acts. Is it possible that he knew that his mentor and teacher and theirs were peers?

The dating of the New Testament and these men are in the same era. With the JT putting them maybe 10-30 years ahead of the NT.

[Kadmos]

Do you mean the folks in Rural areas were the power elite or the Sadducees?

The Sadducees, they were part of the wealthy elite, they were tasked with maintaining the temple.

About Rabbi Jesus Son of the Mercy of God. In the Jerusalem (not the BT) Talmud he is referred to as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya a disciple of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai.

Now please correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Yehoshua ben Chananya translate to Jesus Son of the Mercy of God?

Yehoshua ben Chananya is reffered to as Rabbi Joshua, not rabbi Jesus. Yehoshua usually translates as "a Gift of god" and Chananya (or Hanani) would be "god is gracious". So technically the translation would be "Gift of god, son of god is gracious"

Or more commonly, Hanani's son Josh.

Joshua was a pretty common name, but Rabbi Joshua was fairly well known, born at least a century before the time of Jesus, and died at a ripe of age.

Doesn't really jive with the Jesus story.

[mriddick]

Jesus was a religious teacher, simply it is wrong what obama has done unless he is willing to follow all his teaching.

You should not use Jesus to promote a social program of your choice if the end result is not to follow his teachings in their entirety.

[ATAK, Inc.]

According to what 0bama said, welfare recipients need to be giving their time as volunteers for all they get! No?

And his quote is about spirituality, not material things like he is babbling about. Or am I wrong?

[jojo]

Jesus was a religious teacher, simply it is wrong what obama has done unless he is willing to follow all his teaching.

You should not use Jesus to promote a social program of your choice if the end result is not to follow his teachings in their entirety.

Amen to that

[btcave]

Jesus teachings were for the individual to mold his life to. It has nothing to do with what kind of government or "x-ism" he would support.

It's about making the individual choices that will reward your soul and enhance the lives of those around you.

[Charliebravo]

btcave beat me to it. These passages refer to individuals and their individual salvation. Obama's "collective salvation" meme is absolute bullshit. In the final judgement, simply having paid taxes will be insufficient.

[5.56NATO]

They (marxists) misappropriate Yashuah like they do Abe Lincoln, and try to make us see them as they want us to. Yashuah wanted people to give out of loving kindness and free will, not out of some insectlike collectivist law system that tries to disguise theft as social justice.

[Warthogg]

Quote Originally Posted by LAGC
Didn't he also kick the money-changers out of the temple?

Well, yeah...but that was rude.

That was a valuable service, Jewish coins weren't so common and of course you couldn't give roman coins as a tribute to the temple, so you needed to be able to exchange for Jewish ones. Or if you'd rather donate some bread or doves you could buy them right there...in case you forgot to bring something.

I always figure that's why most of the Jews didn't pick him when the Romans offered to let one guy go free, they were all like "Hey, isn't that the obnoxious guy who threw a hissy at the temple?"

No offense.

I always figure that's why most of the Jews didn't pick him when the Romans offered to let one guy go free.

I just don't think this is historically accurate. I can't see the Romans allowing the Jews to choose.

Well, yeah...but that was rude.

That was a valuable service

The Jews were running a theocracy much like Iran today (Like Iran today, think the Jews only had a couple of nukes back then.).

Maybe the Jewish theocracy let the money changing bidness go cause that was 'small change'. However, Jews had to come to the Temple (and light some candles ??) and they had to be CLEAN. The Priests kept the big money bidness going which was the BATH HOUSES.

The historical Jesus would have been a pain to both Romans and Jews and both would wanted to be rid of him. Probably the Romans feared him because of his tie back to the House of David. Also Jesus' mother.......had friends at Herod's court. Not exactly peasant stock huh.

The Jewish theocracy wanted Jesus gone for much the same reasons. The top Jewish priest of that time served longer than almost any other....maybe longer than any. That meant he got along well with the Romans. Not difficult to imagine the Romans and Jews agreeing to rid themselves of this meddlesome guy.

Jesus seems to have been a Rabbi looking for a more perfect form of Judaism. That would have not set well with the Jewish theocracy.


Wart

I do NOT comment on the religious Jesus only the historical Jesus.

[was_peacemaker]

The Sadducees, they were part of the wealthy elite, they were tasked with maintaining the temple.



Yehoshua ben Chananya is reffered to as Rabbi Joshua, not rabbi Jesus. Yehoshua usually translates as "a Gift of god" and Chananya (or Hanani) would be "god is gracious". So technically the translation would be "Gift of god, son of god is gracious"

Or more commonly, Hanani's son Josh.

Joshua was a pretty common name, but Rabbi Joshua was fairly well known, born at least a century before the time of Jesus, and died at a ripe of age.

Doesn't really jive with the Jesus story.

Ok...we are saying the same things about the Sadduccees then.

About Rabbi Joshua. From what I understand he is dated some where between the late 1 century BC to mid 1 century AD. I kn ow that name was common but Joshua/Yeshoshua/Jesus are all the same name. Jesus is literally Greek for Joshua.

I am just saying there seems to be some similarities. And written records were not well dated at that time.

[Kadmos]

I just don't think this is historically accurate. I can't see the Romans allowing the Jews to choose.



The Jews were running a theocracy much like Iran today (Like Iran today, think the Jews only had a couple of nukes back then.).

Maybe the Jewish theocracy let the money changing bidness go cause that was 'small change'. However, Jews had to come to the Temple (and light some candles ??) and they had to be CLEAN. The Priests kept the big money bidness going which was the BATH HOUSES.

The historical Jesus would have been a pain to both Romans and Jews and both would wanted to be rid of him. Probably the Romans feared him because of his tie back to the House of David. Also Jesus' mother.......had friends at Herod's court. Not exactly peasant stock huh.

The Jewish theocracy wanted Jesus gone for much the same reasons. The top Jewish priest of that time served longer than almost any other....maybe longer than any. That meant he got along well with the Romans. Not difficult to imagine the Romans and Jews agreeing to rid themselves of this meddlesome guy.

Jesus seems to have been a Rabbi looking for a more perfect form of Judaism. That would have not set well with the Jewish theocracy.


Wart

I do NOT comment on the religious Jesus only the historical Jesus.

The priests let the money changing business, as well as the business of selling livestock at part of the temple happen because it was good for them. By law they could not accept Roman coins, they had the face of the emperor on one side and usually a depiction of a Roman god on the other.

To let that money be offered at the Temple was a desecration, similar for the livestock. Livestock that was given to the temple had to be kosher, not just in the type of animal but also it's health and in some cases the color of the animal.

Like a lot of ancient temples, the great temple was also a community space, a place where people met, talked, did some business, played games, etc. It was an area central to daily life. But of course there were places that was fine, and places it wasn't. It had a courtyard for such activities, and to most those activities were not a desecration so long as they didn't enter the inner parts of the temple.

As to the Romans, personally I think letting one go is exactly their style, they ruled not just by fear but also with mercy, knowing a small deed like freeing one criminal at the request of the locals could buy a lot of allegiance.

While this thought will never by popular with Christians, my opinion is that the historical Jesus simply was not well known at the time, I doubt he was considered a threat because he simply wasn't that well known. His work was mostly at the fringes of society, and his time as an activist was pretty short. The only "crime" that would have gotten him punished was his action at the temple, probably the one action that would really get the attention of the government.

Think about it, if you go out and make a few speeches to a few people, tend some wounds, feed some people, the cops are going to basically ignore you. But if you go to the market (or mall) and start knocking crap over and whipping the merchants then you are going to have the cops after you.

It really wasn't until about 30 years after his death that the gospels started to get written, and likely 70 years or so until the movement gained any real popularity.

was_peacemaker, some of the records are rather good.

We know Rabbi Joshua taught at a college in Peki'in, we know his grave is there. We know he knew both Vespasian and Hadrian (we also know I totally flipped the dates last night..oops). That he lived and worked after the destruction of the temple, that he tried to get it rebuilt, that he opposed Christianity as a being sect of Judaism

[Warthogg]

The priests let the money changing business, as well as the business of selling livestock at part of the temple happen because it was good for them. By law they could not accept Roman coins, they had the face of the emperor on one side and usually a depiction of a Roman god on the other.

To let that money be offered at the Temple was a desecration, similar for the livestock. Livestock that was given to the temple had to be kosher, not just in the type of animal but also it's health and in some cases the color of the animal.

Like a lot of ancient temples, the great temple was also a community space, a place where people met, talked, did some business, played games, etc. It was an area central to daily life. But of course there were places that was fine, and places it wasn't. It had a courtyard for such activities, and to most those activities were not a desecration so long as they didn't enter the inner parts of the temple.

As to the Romans, personally I think letting one go is exactly their style, they ruled not just by fear but also with mercy, knowing a small deed like freeing one criminal at the request of the locals could buy a lot of allegiance.

While this thought will never by popular with Christians, my opinion is that the historical Jesus simply was not well known at the time, I doubt he was considered a threat because he simply wasn't that well known. His work was mostly at the fringes of society, and his time as an activist was pretty short. The only "crime" that would have gotten him punished was his action at the temple, probably the one action that would really get the attention of the government.

Think about it, if you go out and make a few speeches to a few people, tend some wounds, feed some people, the cops are going to basically ignore you. But if you go to the market (or mall) and start knocking crap over and whipping the merchants then you are going to have the cops after you.

It really wasn't until about 30 years after his death that the gospels started to get written, and likely 70 years or so until the movement gained any real popularity.

was_peacemaker, some of the records are rather good.

We know Rabbi Joshua taught at a college in Peki'in, we know his grave is there. We know he knew both Vespasian and Hadrian (we also know I totally flipped the dates last night..oops). That he lived and worked after the destruction of the temple, that he tried to get it rebuilt, that he opposed Christianity as a being sect of Judaism

As to the Romans, personally I think letting one go is exactly their style, they ruled not just by fear but also with mercy.....

We will disagree here.

While this thought will never by popular with Christians, my opinion is that the historical Jesus simply was not well known at the time, I doubt he was considered a threat because he simply wasn't that well known. His work was mostly at the fringes of society, and his time as an activist was pretty short. The only "crime" that would have gotten him punished was his action at the temple, probably the one action that would really get the attention of the government.

Again I disagree. I think Jesus was known well enough to be recognized as an enemy of the status quo.

One problem we have is not really understanding Jesus and family's social standing. My personal GUESS is his was a family with standing and, if so, might have been more readily recognized as a threat. If Jesus was seen to have a right to the throne of David, even more a threat.

It really wasn't until about 30 years after his death that the gospels started to get written, and likely 70 years or so until the movement gained any real popularity.

I had thought longer after his death.

Jesus taught the common people 5:1 4:25, 7:28 9:11 18:20
He spent time with social outcasts 9:10, 21:31 2:15, 16 5:29, 7:29 8:3
He argued with the religious elite 15:7 7:6 12:56 8:1-58
The religious elite plotted to kill him 12:14 3:6 19:47 11:45-57
They handed Jesus over to the Romans 27:1, 2 15:1 23:1 18:28

http://www.everystudent.com/features/bible.html

Not all the gospels agree but on the above points the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are basically in agreement.


Wart