Colbert nails it. What else is new.

[John Galt?]

If anything Jesus was an Essene. This was a third faction that was fed up with the other 2 and believed the others had corrupted the city and the Temple. An Essene would have supported "overturning the moneychangers tables at the temple" and criticizing the Pharisees hypocritical lifestyle. The lived a monastic life and were committed to celibacy nad self sacrifice.

I'd say he leaned more Essene, but was really an independent.

[OneTruth]

you are basing this off of...?

[John Galt?]

you are basing this off of...?

not youtube

The Essenes believed that Judaism had become "too worldly". They believed the Messiah was coming "very soon" and were "preparing the way for him". They thought Jerusalem had been corrupted. They believed in self sacrifice and spiritual devotion over perfunctory acts and lip service. They believed wealth and collecting physical things was corruptible and lived an ascetic life based on spiritual pursuits. They also believed in a resurrection for the faithful. And the Essenes believed in the institution of a New Covenant/

Now I'm not saying Jesus WAS an Essene, I am saying his philosophy was closer to Essene than Pharisee or Sadducee. Jesus was an independent-completely unique, but was closer to Essene than the others.
 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/essenes.html
http://www.essenespirit.com/who.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/sadducees_pharisees_essenes.html
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0180JesusEssene.php


and just for OneTruth

[OneTruth]

Interesting take - duly noted.
I find this interesting as well...while his name appears on the link you provided.

John the Baptist taught baptism...and he was the first to do so. Certainly he was the first in recorded history to be documented teaching this particular method ...I wonder how many Jews and Nazarenes (the first Christians) thought he was mad? He went around in a coat of camel hairs telling people to be dunked under water...what does that mean? Why to do that? Where is the inteligenmce to this teaching? I find it odd but also extremely revealing how God works...certain things remain hidden...in plain sight.

[John Galt?]

Interesting take - duly noted.
I find this interesting as well...while his name appears on the link you provided.

John the Baptist taught baptism...and he was the first to do so. Certainly he was the first in recorded history to be documented teaching this particular method ...I wonder how many Jews and Nazarenes (the first Christians) thought he was mad?

Don't think any Nazarenes thought he was mad AFTER Jesus was Baptized. He did have a sizable following, big enough to get the attention of the wrong people who didn't think he was mad, but dangerous (politically speaking).

He went around in a coat of camel hairs telling people to be dunked under water...what does that mean? Why to do that? Where is the inteligenmce to this teaching? I find it odd but also extremely revealing how God works...certain things remain hidden...in plain sight.

I don't see what's "odd" about it. It is pretty clear symbolism to me. Being immersed in water is symbolic for being immersed in God. The water washes away dirt as God washes away sin. Emerging from the water is symbolic for birth or rebirth. And remember his audience was desert dwelling nomads that herded livestock from oasis to oasis, a metaphor based on water would have great meaning to them because for them, because to them water=life so his message of God=life is more powerful with the symbolic use of water

[OneTruth]

hindsight is 20/20.  Lets say that hypothetically John taught ..... ....smushing your face into the dirt and biting the grass for salvation...and I said wow - thats different nobody taught this before, its wierd. then you say ~ no its not that wierd...it makes complete sense...u see the dirt is symbolic for where we go when we die and biting it says we must fight the dirt...blah blah blah.
Amazing how its so crystal clear for u someone who hasnt even read all the scriptures.

[dbucfan]

Hindsight isn't 20/20 for everyone Thomas.  Some never find the correct answers. 

[OneTruth]

dude youre an idiot. completely and thoroughly.

[dbucfan]

There you go with that contraction confusion again.  Might be something serious - you should see a teacher.  Stay tough.

[Biggs3535]

Hindsight isn't 20/20 for everyone Thomas.  Some never find the correct answers.

I lol'ed.

[OneTruth]

another idiot^^^

[spartan]

No.

Jesus Christ was apolitical for the most part where he believed the rich should distribute their wealth to their poor.  Sounds familiar?

Jesus believed the rich should VOLUNTARILY distribute their wealth to the poor, not have it confiscated and distributed to a whole bunch of causes that they did not agree with.

As for being apolitical you could not be further from the truth. Jesus never missed an opportunity to rail against the political figures of the day and to teach the people not to use them as examples. That is not to say he encouraged a specific political viewpoint, but to say he was not interested in matters political is wrong.

[CBWx2]

No.

Jesus Christ was apolitical for the most part where he believed the rich should distribute their wealth to their poor.  Sounds familiar?

Jesus believed the rich should VOLUNTARILY distribute their wealth to the poor, not have it confiscated and distributed to a whole bunch of causes that they did not agree with.

Actually, Jesus said that the rich should redistribute their wealth, or else. Jesus basically viewed the accumulation of wealth as a sin, and that the wealthy would get their comeuppance if they did not choose to redistribute their wealth. There's a bit of a spiritual ultimatum to the wealthy that permeates throughout the Bible. And I believe based on scripture, Jesus would be more in favor of a social safety net than he would be opposed to it.

Luke 12:15 — “Then he said to them, ‘Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.’ ”

Luke 6:24 — “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.”

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.’ ”

Matthew 6:19-21 — “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

Luke 14:33 — “In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.”

[jbear]

how could he be a Saducee when they do not believe in angels, spirits, or heaven?
On the other hand...Pharasee believe them all
Of course SINCE Jesus came from heaven AND was around long before this world was created...He would favor the Pharsees ideological concepts.

I find this really interesting.  Do you have any basis for any of the bolded text?  Suppose I believe Jesus was the metaphorical son of god.  Even granting his devinity after the fact is there anything in the bible about Jesus being around in the begining?  You seem to take it as a given which could point out your lack of any logical reason when it comes to these things.  Bias?  I admit I'm not an expert on the bible although I have read most of it.... So I defer to you, Can you point out where in the bible it says Jesus was around in the begining?

I'm actually interested, not just being a **CENSORED**....

[Col. Klink]

No.

Jesus Christ was apolitical for the most part where he believed the rich should distribute their wealth to their poor.  Sounds familiar?

Jesus believed the rich should VOLUNTARILY distribute their wealth to the poor, not have it confiscated and distributed to a whole bunch of causes that they did not agree with.

Actually, Jesus said that the rich should redistribute their wealth, or else. Jesus basically viewed the accumulation of wealth as a sin, and that the wealthy would get their comeuppance if they did not choose to redistribute their wealth. There's a bit of a spiritual ultimatum to the wealthy that permeates throughout the Bible. And I believe based on scripture, Jesus would be more in favor of a social safety net than he would be opposed to it.

Luke 12:15 — “Then he said to them, ‘Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.’ ”

Luke 6:24 — “But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.”

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.’ ”

Matthew 6:19-21 — “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

Luke 14:33 — “In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.”

You don't understand .... Jesus didn't specifically say that it was okay for somebody else to help the rich redistribute their wealth to the poor, so in their mind what the government is doing is not something Jesus would approve of.... It's called rationalization.