Conservative or Liberal Jesus?

[Sand Dancer]

So, being compassionate towards and helping the poor is "Satan's" plan? You've gotta be kidding!

"You're just enabling moochers by helping them," said no Jesus ever.

 

[sun rise]

Neither.

We found something we agree on.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

This depends on which version of Jesus you read, as there's more than one. In Matthew, Jesus is portrayed as a stalwart defender of tradition and status quo:

Not quite, his example is put forward as the fulfilment of the law, not what the pharisees say. He still went against tradition, rather than upholding it, while pointing out that the held traditions were wrong.

 

[Left Coast]

Not quite, his example is put forward as the fulfilment of the law, not what the pharisees say.

See my quote from Matthew 23. Matthew's Jesus literally says that his followers should do what the Pharisees say, just not follow their example.

He still went against tradition, rather than upholding it, while pointing out that the held traditions were wrong.

In the other Gospels, this is true to some degree. In Matthew, not so much.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Matthew's Jesus literally says that his followers should do what the Pharisees say, just not follow their example.

Does he though? In Matt 5 he tells his followers to uphold the law, the law that he is there to fulfill as the embodiment of the law. He advises them to be careful to do what the Pharisees tell them to, but that's not quite obeying the Pharisees, especially as it's followed by telling them to not do what the Pharisees do. It's essentially malicious compliance until the law is fulfilled with Jesus' sacrifice; that for now the Pharisees represent the law and it's important to not face punitive action, but what they stand for will not last very much longer. In the same vein as the whole "turn the other cheek" thing.

 

[Vouthon]

Going by the Gospels? I'd say we have a mix between anarcho-communist Jesus and crypto-fascist Jesus.

On the one hand, he argues for the elimination of property and class, but on the other hand, he doesn't propose actually enabling and empowering the proletariat; he argues for centralized autocracy and a militaristic future where opposition is suppressed with violence and only those who are ideologically "pure" (in the eyes of the leader) are allowed to remain in society.

This is a perceptive and succinct answer. It aligns with the interpretation of the historical Jesus proposed by the scholar James Crossley, which is increasingly gaining ground.

He thinks the earliest tradition suggests the Jesus movement was both 'revolutionary' and 'imperialist' in worldview, centered around an eschatological economic 'role reversal' which hoped to install "a theocratic empire to overthrow the Roman empire". In a world where wealth was concentrated among a tiny aristocratic elite, Jesus was remembered for preaching that the rich would burn or be excluded from the coming kingdom, at least if they did not give up their extreme wealth to those in need, while the poor and social outcasts would inherit:

Depending primarily on Mark 10:17-31 and Luke 16:19-31, Crossley argues that Jesus damned the wealthy (regardless of their individual characters) for their part in the systemic oppression of the poor, but also called the wealthy to repent – that is, to observe Torah and social justice – in advance of the eschatological judgment. Jesus’ teaching climaxed in the Temple action (cf. E. P. Sanders), portending the Temple’s destruction for corruption, oppression, and possibly even idolatry. That wealth virtually equals idolatry and that it indicates a status outside the Torah covenant are repeated themes. ​

Whilst I do think there's a good deal of truth in what you say, I'd nuance the conclusion a little.

To your credit, I'm not going to deny that there's something in the character of Jesus - so far as we can deduce from available evidence - which might lead a psychiatrist to conclude that the man is a charismatic personality type, not unlike a Robespierre or Lenin.

He comes across relative to his time and place as radically egalitarian, subversive, witty, exuding a kind of mystique or personal magnetism and a prestige leadership style based on a proto-anarcho-communitarian social model, with inclusive values and solidarity for the outcasts of his society (i.e. the rural poor, women condemned for adultery or other sexual sins, prostitiutes, lepers, disabled people, eunuchs, tax-collectors, Samaritans etc.).

However, he's also presented as having an authoritarian streak. He can appear tolerant but also jarringly partisan with his enemies, who are typically defined as a 'group' (not unlike in later Marcist dialectic!) rather than as individuals - so we find scathing, even blanket denunciations of 'the rich', 'the Pharisees', 'the chief priests and scribes' and the 'ethnon (rulers) of the Gentiles', whom Jesus impliedly wants his listeners to associate with the "the children of the evil one" (Matthew 13:38). Like weeds gathered up by reapers at harvest time, he imagines these people being tossed into a metaphoric flaming furnace at the end of the present 'aeon' and "thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 8:12).

Set against these enemies of the Kingdom, we have the good people - those outside the conventional 'covenant' or society of Israel and its ritual purity laws: the rural Galilean poor, the disabled, menstruating women and prostitutes, lepers, Samaritans etc. described by Jesus as "the children of light" (Luke 16:8), whom he presents as the chosen recipients of the Kingdom and casts himself as the advocate, or voice, thereof as is delightfully expressed by an agraphon (extra-canon saying) in the Didascalia Apostolorum: "I am the hope of them that despair, the helper of them that have no saviour, the wealth of the poor, the health of the sick."

If Jesus had created a 'temporal' kingdom of God, he may well have been remembered more as an ancient Judean precursor to the modern Jacobins, Soviets and fascists than the founder of a world religion, as he is today. This is very 'arguable' based on the logia and pericopes attributed to him, as well as the literal cult of worship attested as early as Paul's epistles in late CE 40s-50s, which takes the identification of Jesus as YHWH's pre-existent agent of creation - indeed as YHWH himself in some sense - for granted, meaning that it must have been the received wisdom amongst the apostles in Jerusalem that had actually known and liased with Jesus personally prior to his death.

But I do question the hypothesis that a non-crucified Jesus would've turned into some Jewish, theocratic Stalin - as Crossley et al. basically argue.

Firstly, on theological grounds. His 'non-violence' extends not only to interpersonal relations between humans but also to his understanding of the nature of God. We have the scene in Luke, for instance, where the disciples enter a Samaritan village and they refuse hospitality to Jesus on xenophobic grounds, because he's Jewish:

And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. 53 But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. 54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?”

55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village. (Luke 9:52-55)
​

The saying in 55 may be an addition but regardless, Jesus rebukes them and their appeal to a violent, vengeful divine action (not human-on-human action!) as being irreconcilable with the movement's principles. This is not surprising if you consider Jesus's 'theology' in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain.

But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:44-45)​

His disciples are to show human beings impartiality or nondifferentiated love, because their God sends rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous and causes the sun to rise on both the wicked and the good. In other words, non-violence and love for enemies is rooted in the alleged character and providence of God evident in the natural order, which we are to imitate since we are created in His image and likeness.

In addition, Jesus qualifies his vitriolic "class-defamation" rhetoric in practice. While in public he cries, "woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry" (Luke 6:24), in practice every gospel informs us that some of his closest friends and patrons are of the landowning class. Thus, Matthew 27:57 describes Joseph of Arimathea: "when it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea named Joseph, who also was himself a disciple of Jesus" and according to Mark 15:43 Joseph of Arimathea was "a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God". Likewise in Luke 8:3, we learn that the disciples of Jesus included "some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their resources", in other words wealthy female patrons.

Evidently, Jesus treated these people as individuals fit for the kingdom of God in spite of their wealth. Even in the famous story of the rich man where he gives the camel saying, we find the following:

Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.”

But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions...

Jesus answered again and said to them, “Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

(Mark 10:21-22)​

Jesus is described as loving the young rich man, namely because he recognised his earnestness and enquiring mind - that is, valued him as an individual distinct from his "damned class".

Finally, I would question your contention that Jesus "doesn't propose actually enabling and empowering the proletariat; he argues for centralized autocracy". I cannot understand how anyone can construe 'centralized autocracy' out of Matthew 20:25– 28 // Mark 10:41–45 // Luke 22:24–27:

"But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”​

This genuinely reads like a complete denial of 'authority' of one human over another - no positions of status remain, for mutual service is paramount. The New Oxford Annotated NRSV comments in relation to Mark 10:41–45 that “in contrast to the imperial practices of the nations, there will be no rulers in Jesus’ movement or communities”.

What are your thoughts on these points?

 

[Left Coast]

Does he though? In Matt 5 he tells his followers to uphold the law, the law that he is there to fulfill as the embodiment of the law.

He literally says "Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

That's as explicit a command to follow all of the laws of the Torah as I can imagine.

He advises them to be careful to do what the Pharisees tell them to, but that's not quite obeying the Pharisees, especially as it's followed by telling them to not do what the Pharisees do.

They're not to do what the Pharisees do because the Pharisees don't follow their own advice, not because Jesus disagrees with the advice.

"therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach."

It's essentially malicious compliance until the law is fulfilled with Jesus' sacrifice; that for now the Pharisees represent the law and it's important to not face punitive action, but what they stand for will not last very much longer.

He literally says the Torah will remain "until heaven and earth pass away." There's no indication in Matthew that the Torah will shortly be abrogated or his followers won't have to follow it soon.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

He literally says "Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

That's as explicit a command to follow all of the laws of the Torah as I can imagine.

To follow the laws of the Torah, yes. The law that Jesus himself embodies. Jesus' ministry was full of "Follow the law, but..." which is very much in line with Liberalism. Far more so than Conservativism; if Jesus had been more in line with Conservative ideologies, he would never have set out on his ministry.

 

[Left Coast]

To follow the laws of the Torah, yes. The law that Jesus himself embodies. Jesus' ministry was full of "Follow the law, but..." which is very much in line with Liberalism. Far more so than Conservativism; if Jesus had been more in line with Conservative ideologies, he would never have set out on his ministry.

I don't know how you get there.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

By him saying "be careful to do what they say, but,". It's no different, really, than "break the law, just don't get caught."

 

[paarsurrey]

Conservatives imagine a conservative Jesus...

Liberals imagine a progressive Jesus...

Which view is correct? And why?

He has to be either conservative or progressive, so which is it?

I will give my take in a follow-up post

What did (Jesus) Yeshua- the Israelite Messiah claim to be, did he ever claim to be a "conservative" or "progressive", please??
If he did not claim, why name him "conservative" or a "progressive", please?

Regards

 

[Vouthon]

@9-10ths_Penguin In favour of the 'Stalinist' imperial Jesus 'after the social Galilean revolution and destruction of the temple', this passage is often cited:

Luke 22:28-30: “You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

​

Admittedly, this does look on the surface like replacing one bad regime with another autocratic model, the only difference being 'cause', underlying egalitarian ideology and 'man of the downtrodden people' rhetoric - we have seemingly again an emperor ordained by God, doling out food, wine and thrones to his comrades, in other words patronage and spoils of victory. Crossley’s concluding observation is that “imperialism, theocracy, and empire were as integral to the earliest tradition as were promises to the poor and overthrowing the rich and Rome.”

Crossley argues that as Galilean peasants, Jesus and his followers basically had no other intellectual horizons available to them to conceive of post-oppression. That is, he and they recognised the tyranny and suffering of the benighted masses but had no viable "model" to replace it with in the here or here-after, other than a 'grand social reversal' - the have-nots become the haves. Luke's Beatitudes literally read like that, I guess.

As Crossley summarizes in his chapter “The Dictatorship of God" (aptly named!):

The Gospel kingdom tradition has all the key elements: challenging the dominant world power from below while implicitly or explicitly putting in place a system that likewise uses imperial language in its replacement of kingdom with kingdom, or empire with empire.

After all, the kingdom of God would, in the long run, become the empire of Rome and, of course, it helped to have imperial teaching which was ultimately compatible with Roman power.

The cliché that Constantine was a betrayer of Jesus’ teaching may be true to some extent but it is not the full story. The earliest teaching in Jesus’ name does seem to have envisaged him as having a prime position in the impending kingdom of God, as did the developing Christology in his name...

Domination, subjugation, imperialism, and theocracy are part of both the Synoptic tradition and the relevant contextualizing sources, and are perhaps the only way people could realistically conceive an alternative to the present world powers.

In explaining the development of early Christology, Crossley circles back to the political chaos of first-century Galilee. The exalted status of Jesus in the earliest Palestinian traditions (Messiah, king, judge) reflects the historical reality that “movements and leaders in times of social upheaval can . . . have agendas of power.”

Without identifying Jesus as an outright revolutionary bandit, Crossley notes that the earliest memories of Jesus are not unlike the earliest memories of bandits: “As bandits could be remembered as a product of social upheaval . . . attacking power, wealth, and Rome . . . and mimicking the world of kings and kingship . . . so can Jesus in the earliest Palestinian tradition, where he seems to have a prime role in the kingdom—might we even say, perhaps, leading the vanguard of the dictatorship of God?

Crossley surmises that “scholars have implicitly bought into the rhetoric of Jesus too much and have not been suspicious enough of the violence involved in such theocratic thinking.” This results in a sugarcoated Jesus. For example, at one point Crossley briefly singles out John Dominic Crossan, whose Jesus espoused a “brokerless,” anti-imperial kingdom devoid of hierarchy.

​

This is difficult to square with his denunciations against the formation of hierarchical privileges, expectations of social deference & domination (see Mark 10.42-44; Matthew 20.20-28, Luke 22.24-27; Matthew 18.1-5, Mark 9.33-37, Luke 9.46-48; Matthew 22.16, Mark 12.14, Luke 20.21; Matthew 7.21, Luke 6.46).

But I would strongly question this understanding. Just a few verses earlier Jesus tells them that the kingdom of God belongs to children (Matt 19:14); and in the previous chapter he tells Peter that he is responsible for forgiving repentant sinners without limit (Matt 18:22). Going back even further, those instructions to Peter are introduced by yet another analogy to children: “Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 18:4). Is that a violent sounding regime? It's on these bases that, critiquing Crossley, another scholar Helen Bond writes: "My point is that if the exercising of apostolic authority looks like the actual teachings of the Matthean Jesus, then Matthew 19:28 does not reflect imperialist ideology but is actually culturally subversive".

The key word in an ancient Second Temple Jewish context in that passage is the office that the twelve apostles are described as exercising in the new redeemed Israel and messianic kingdom of God on earth - 'judging', shoftim in Hebrew. This is a deliberate a call-back to the pre-monarchic tribal, ethnarchic society that existed before Israel had a king.

In lieu of a king, in the book of Judges - judges were liberators.

I agree with Professors Richard Horsley, Ched Myers, Dennis Hamm and Jonathan Reed (among others), that this is a case of Jesus "glancing nostalgically back to pre-monarchic times" when "no specific tribe or locale had primacy" (Reed, J. L. Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence p.58) but a series of twelve tribal judges governed Israel as "a loose confederation [with] no central government [except] in times of crisis, [when] the people would have been led by ad hoc chieftains, known as judges (shoftim)"(Kitchen, K. A. (2003)) and in this way, "recalling a time before the people of Israel decided to be like other nations and have a king, rejecting God's direct rule" (Meggitt (2015) p.24).

This explains why the "kingdom" is described solely as the kingdom of "God" by Jesus in the gospel accounts, rather than the kingdom of 'Jesus', or 'David' or any other human being.

The pre-monarchical judges had refused to allow themselves to be made into kings over their countrymen, because God alone was "king":

22 Then the Israelites said to Gideon, “Rule over us, you and your son and your grandson also; for you have delivered us out of the hand of Midian.” 23 Gideon said to them, “I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the Lord will rule over you.” (Judges 8:22-23)​

In a parallel from Jesus's life, after the feeding of the multitude Jesus' evades an attempt by a crowd “take him by force to make him king” (John 6:15):

"Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself."​

In the Synoptics and in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus often responds to acclamations of royal identity with correction and reproof (Matt 26:64; Mark 8:30–31; 10:47; 15:5; John 6:15, 18:34, 37). As Peter Marshall rightly observes, Jesus consistently “held political authority up to derision [by] demystifying and mocking the power it claimed." To quote Professor Brian pounds in a recent 2019 thesis:

"Jesus does seem to subvert Roman power structures by declaring that his followers are not to “lord over” others as Gentile rulers do but rather that the one who desires to be great should become servant or slave of all (Mark 10:42-44).

Even more politically pointed is Jesus' contrast of John the Baptist's ascetic lifestyle with those who live in palaces (Matthew 11:7-10; Luke 7:24-27). The singular reference to a man clothed “in soft robes” is likely Antipas himself and the subsequent plural reference to those who live in royal palaces may well refer to his extended family and entourage." (Pounds, B. p.122)

​

It is for this reason that Professor Crispin Fletcher-Louis argues in volume 1 of his study, Jesus Monotheism that:

"biblical and Jewish “republicanism” helps explains aspects of the earliest beliefs about Jesus. There was, in effect, a strongly republican spirit in second temple Judaism that was firmly grounded in a distinctively biblical theological anthropology. So it is not at all surprising to find a statement in 1 Maccabees 8:14-15 praising the Roman model of governance that rejected the need for a king" (Fletcher-Louis (2015), p.239)​

 

[Vouthon]

But to answer the OP myself, I'd say that the historical Jesus would be neither conservative or liberal in our political terms.

• Jesus's ideology seems closest to what we might call (I guess!) revolutionary agrarian, theocratic anarcho-communism under a charismatic leader / cult of personality, although with decentralized, tribal confederal governance in mind;

• His strategy would be to proceed with a pragmatic policy of calculated protest and co-existence with, and within, the prevailing system (hence, continuing to pay tax to Caesar and the temple authorities in the meantime, not engaging in zealotry or political violence etc.);

• This would be achieved through the formation of a culturally subversive and egalitarian social order inside the movement itself, which models the kind of society he hopes will become general throughout Israel and then the entire world; and

• He would then - when the time is deemed right - propose that his followers march on the political and religious centres of power, to enforce an effective trade embargo / complete disruption of economic activity (in his day, occupied Jerusalem where the Roman governor and High Priest resided) and then face any ensuing police brutality / state recriminations with passive resistance alone.

That's honestly the best I can capture his 'politics' in our terms.

As Horsley and Pounds note:

"Jesus engaged in economic conflict...[in] a Palestine burdened by intolerable taxation and debt causing the disintegration of local village economies/ With regard to Galilee, Horsley points to Herod Antipas' building projects in Sepphoris and Tiberias, which he proposes drained resources from the peasant population.​

Within this specific context...Jesus responded to economic exploitation by attempting to found an egalitarian village community. As opposed to the imperial system of economic exploitation, within this community there was to be a mutual economic support, cancellation of debts, redistribution of land, local resolution of economic and social conflicts, and an absence of hierarchy...​

In line with the broad contours of Horsley's thesis, there is plausible evidence that Jesus' economic critique extended beyond the confines of Galilee to the high-priestly aristocracy and their retainers in Jerusalem. Much of his prophetic critique of them involved a condemnation of economic exploitation that is consistent with depictions and remembrances of the first century high priesthood" (p.119).​

 

[Ella S.]

Jesus explicitly states that he came to fulfill the Torah and restore its original meaning. The issues he had with the status quo at the time was that they had strayed too far from his romantic and idealized conception of the past. In the words attributed to him, he claimed to come to restore the Jewish people to their former glory.

That seems to border fairly close to palingenetic ethno-nationalism and traditionalism to me, which would be considered radically culturally conservative for that time period. At the very least, he seems to view himself that way, despite the fact that many seem to disagree even within the narratives presented by the gospel accounts.

Whether he would support modern conservativism is another question. I think the truth is that we just can't tell. Jesus lived in a different time with different political issues. He doesn't comment directly on most of the relevant policies that divide the modern liberals from the modern conservatives, because they simply weren't relevant issues to comment on in the gospels.

He did openly support Caesar's rule, however, which is probably the closest we have to a direct political stance that he takes. I'm not sure if that's enough to label him an imperialist, but he's at least depicted as an imperial sympathizer or at least he's against his followers rocking the boat with the empire too much. Given his quasi-conservative approach to scripture, it is not really surprising that his political approach would also be conservative.

Unless we see him explicitly endorsing policies associated with modern liberalism, which I don't see at all in the gospels, I'd wager that he would tend towards conservativism in the modern age. To those bringing up him running off greedy merchants, feeding the hungry, etc. conservatives actually do this, too, and these aren't really political tells. They're just not in support of government programs to do this, which Jesus also never explicitly endorses.

 

[DNB]

Conservatives imagine a conservative Jesus...

Liberals imagine a progressive Jesus...

Which view is correct? And why?

He has to be either conservative or progressive, so which is it?

I will give my take in a follow-up post

Truth is truth, and morality has absolutes, therefore Jesus was not progressive - he merely expressed the full and deeper meanings of what was already announced and ordained in older times.
Due to his perfect sacrifice of himself, he enable God to abrogate the former Law and enact a new Law - but the new Law also had its roots in older times: that of faith.

Nothing progressive about Jesus, but only profound.

 

[PruePhillip]

Personally, I think liberal

I think that if we judge him by his deeds and words as recorded in the bible then he seems more liberal than he does conservative

Didn't accept divorce
Accepted all authority
Saw anything outside of worship of God as being foolish and vain
Actually went to church

Jesus is neither liberal nor conservative, He was something else. But one thing for sure - if the 'adulterous' society of His day offended Him, what would He think of our own society?

 

[soulsurvivor]

Conservatives imagine a conservative Jesus...

Liberals imagine a progressive Jesus...

Which view is correct? And why?

He has to be either conservative or progressive, so which is it?

I will give my take in a follow-up post

Obviously, Jesus was a progressive. I would say he was to the left of Nancy Pelosi. "Sell your possessions and give to the poor." - even Bernie does not say that!

 

[wellwisher]

Jesus summarized the law as two things; love God and love your neighbor. If you did just those two things, you would not need the rest. You would follow the spirit of truth and be generous. Jesus was trying to streamline law, not make the numbers of laws compound with time. Conservatives prefer minimal law and therefore smaller government. Smaller government is not designed to enforce an over abundance of laws. Instead we rely on spiritual values; freedom of religion, so people use their conscience to a self regulator.

In the USA, defense lawyers collectively donate the lion's share of their campaign donations to the Democrat party. This is expected since Liberals like to make laws; regulatory state, which creates more potential violations of law, which then creates jobs for lawyers. People need lawyers in proportion to the number of laws. This has to do with the rich man not able to find heaven, so he make more laws for more profit. Many tailored laws require a campaign donation. Green energy was able to get the Left to make laws, to take out its competition, since they could not compete without a cheat. Law can be treacherous and self serving, which is why minimal is better. Cheats are easy to spot when there are less.

The Pharisees were hypocrites, since they would stress the law, while thinking they were above the law; do as I say and not as I do. Does anyone remember COVID lockdowns? Like the Pharisees, law only applied to the peasants during Left wing lockdowns. The conservative allows more freedom not adding more laws, instead using guidelines; wear a mask or not, but a mask can help.

Forgiveness of sins, which Jesus taught, was a backdoor way to reduce the number of laws. A law is useless if the violation is forgiven. Law needs fear and punishment to act as deterrent. If violation of law is forgiven, the fear element is gone and the law becomes more like a guideline. With a guideline, a lesson can be learned, but there is no punishment; love and help your neighbor but also forgive.

 

[soulsurvivor]

View attachment 69666

@Subduction Zone and his sinful ways made me do it.

You missed welcome strangers/deport strangers

 

[ElishaElijah]

Conservative, no doubt. Who could forget:

And then Jesus tells them they only come for the food and not for Him.
“Jesus answered them and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.””
‭‭John‬ ‭6‬:‭26‬-‭27‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
John 6:26-27 Jesus answered them and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for the food which perishes, bu | New King James Version (NKJV) | Download The Bible App Now