Well, I can’t say that he’s a Democrat, but I’m pretty sure that the Republicans wouldn’t want him.
He also told his apostles that those who didn’t have swords should sell their clothes to buy them, so I would say not.
Jesus’ remark to the disciples about selling their cloaks to buy swords was meant to be facetious, not literal. Here is the passage from Luke 22:35-38:
Jesus is quoting from Isaiah and saying that in order to fulfill the prophecy he must be “numbered as an outlaw.” He then jokingly tells the disciples that they better go get some swords (a symbol of an outlaw). When they tell him they have two swords among them, he tells them that two is enough. That is a clear indication that they were not to be used. He also told them not to fight back when he was arrested.
Jesus telling the disciples to go buy swords was a joke akin to telling them, “The prophecy says I’m going to a desperado, I guess you better go get some bandanas.” He wasn’t being serious, he was being ironic.
Finally! Someone who rightly interprets that passage. Thank you, Dio.
Next up, the “render unto Caesar” thing was nothing more than a trap turned on its head and flipped back to the Pharisaic spy, who wasn’t supposed to be carrying around images of Caesar. It was not an endorsement of taxation.
I beg your pardon. A question calculated to provoke outrage is far from “pointless.” 
Oh, and Jesus was a Democrat. He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, not an elephant! 
Conside the source. That ad was put out by Crusade Veterans for Truth.
Well, first, he’d be an Israeli. Maybe Rabin’s party, I think it’s called Labour, maybe he’d have his own minority party.
There’s a real problem with expecting someone like Yeshua to fit into someone else’s categories. I expect he’d be writing his own playbook, not just following someone else’s platform.
Thus, he’d be the leader of his own movement. “I’m not with the left nor with the right–you’re with or against me!”
By Christian theology, he’s the Son of God. YMMV.
We have a word for that around here, and it’s a dirty one.
My Lord never said what the government should do. He didn’t say all that much about what laws should be. He didn’t propose programs for the welfare of the many, nor did he organize or participate in the general defense.
He said that the stranger I meet is my brother, and that the way I treat the jailed lawbreaker is one and the same as the way I treat the Lord of All. He told me that I must love my enemies. He did not tell me to go into other lands and destroy their weapons. He said that even to despise the one who has done me harm is wrong. He said that 490 strikes and you still are not out.
I don’t recall seeing any of that on either party platform.
Trying to put God in a jar is disrespectful, no matter how nice you think the jar is. If you aren’t willing to give everything you have, immediately, and forever to set right something that is wrong, then don’t claim that you are on God’s side of things. Your devotion to God is as haphazard and halfhearted as your politics. Take responsibility for your own political opinions. Don’t try to blame them on Jesus.
Oh, and Lib, it wasn’t the property of the Temple that Jesus defended, it was the sanctity of the Temple that He defended. The goods on those tables were the property of others. He threw it all on the floor, because the Temple was not a marketplace, but a Holy place. He had no interest in the legal rights of the moneychangers, or their permission from the priests to peacefully conduct their lawful business. His acts were authoritarian, not Libertarian. He asserted an authority that transcended the existing social order but it was not based on law, or social compact.
Tris
“The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them.” ~ Albert Einstein ~
Jesus: It is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
And the young man went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
Libertarian socialist, through and through.