Was Jesus the First Republican?

sure but Jesus and Luther taught it too billions so are most responsibly for morality on earth

 

why point it out when religious liberty was not our subject?? individual liberty was our subject

 

insanity!! you quote me above as saying he created "individual liberty", then you say the liberty I pointed out was religious liberty. You are not up to debating. Sorry

 

the element was not our subject so we don't care about it. Do you understand??

 

If I said slavery was silly I'll pay you $10,000. Bet?? Do you know what a strawman is?

 

why?? understanding the bible is not at issue here? Do you know what the subject is?

 

cool, free associating again?
Can you tell us what your point is?

 

I never mentioned Holy Roman Empire????

 

how????

 

Simple history..

 

You mentioned the Roman Empire while claiming lasting affects that would be impossible to attribute to the empire of Caesar.

 

The subject is how the philosophy of Jesus matches the philosophy of Republicans today.

So, at least half the topic is illuminated ONLY by the Bible.

We don't know much about Jesus outside of what is in the Bible.

 

Was Jesus the First Republican?

Jesus never voted.

 

1000% beyond absurd. What Jesus was , especially to historians, was decided at places like Council of Nicea and several other places. Do you understand now?

 

what lasing affect????

 

our objective is not to write simple history but the determine if Jesus was first Republican.

 

nobody said he voted????? Slow???

 

You connected separation of church and state to Rome.

But, Rome didn't show anything similar to that. In fact, Christianity demanded full participation in state up to relatively shortly before the US came about. There were even wars over which brand of Christianity should be in charge.

Freedom of religion was not a gift of Christianity.

Even certain US colonies had all taxation go to the dominant religious denomination.

Colonies sprang up from those looking to practice their religion without being persecuted as they were in their homeland (where there wasn't religious freedom). But, that doesn't mean they were interested in individual religious freedom within their colony. There was still a strong tie between government and religion.

 

That's relayed to us through the bible that they put together.

And, there is no reason to believe that the passage in Matthew that I quoted to you is somehow misinterpreted.

But, your passage about giving unto Caesar is well known to have several different interpretations - even including that Jesus did not answer the central question being asked of him by the spies.

 

yes, when Jesus said to Romans give to Caesar and God he separated church and state. 1+1=2

 

Church and state weren't even split in our COLONIES, let alone anywhere previous to that.

The common interpretation of the "give to Caesar" comment is NOT division of church and state - it is the right of the state to levy taxes - the point the spies were after as they tried to trick Jesus into an arrestable offense.

And, that is NOT the same thing, at all.

 

totally absurd of course. There was always conflict between church and state in the Western Roman Empire, though not
in the Eastern. This dynamic intellectual tension is what accounts for the superiority of the Western Roman Empire.
Its called the theory of 2 swords.

 

dear, in the west you had the pope and the state always in conflict.

 

yes the right of the state was covered by give unto Caesar, and the right of the individual was covered under, give unto God. Notice how you tricked yourself and left out half the equation??

 

People in England were EXECUTED for adhering to the wrong VERSION of Christianity.

Then YOU come along and suggest that is religious freedom, separation of church and state???

You need to reconsider your position.