politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Insiders pump the brakes on Cruz
Source:
Politico
URL Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/ ... the-breaks-on-cruz-116444.html
Published: Apr 4, 2015
Author: James Hohmann
Post Date: 2015-04-04 13:40:19 by Hondo68
Keywords: Senate backbencher, name and rep toxic, NH open primary
Views: 19782
Comments: 73
Illustration by POLITICO / Getty Image Ted Cruz is the first Republican presidential candidate out of the starting gate, but GOP insiders in Iowa and New Hampshire are overwhelmingly skeptical of the first-term Texas senator’s chances of being the eventual nominee or succeeding in the general election. This week’s survey of The POLITICO Caucus — a bipartisan group of key activists, operatives and thought leaders in New Hampshire and Iowa — reveals grave concerns about Cruz’s electability. And after eight years in the wilderness, most Republicans want a nominee who can win. Not one of the 100 respondents believes that Cruz would win the Iowa caucuses or New Hampshire primary if they took place this week, though there is widespread agreement that he is much better positioned in the Hawkeye State than the Granite State. And nine out of 10 Republican insiders in the early states believe Ted Cruz couldn’t carry their state — both Iowa and New Hampshire are swing states, though relatively small electoral-vote prizes — against Hillary Clinton in the general. Launching his candidacy on Monday at Liberty University in Virginia, the senator tailored his roll-out toward the evangelicals who powered Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee’s victories in the past two Iowa caucuses. But most insiders believe Cruz will ultimately pose the biggest problem for Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who will kick off his own campaign on April 7. “Announcing first is an advantage in that he was able to fill a news vacuum for a few days,” said an uncommitted New Hampshire Republican, who — like everyone else — completed the questionnaire anonymously in order to speak candidly. “He’s a tremendous orator with great stage presence … However, he’s still Ted Cruz — a polarizing person who is more interested in making headlines than making policy.” Here are six takeaways from this week’s edition of The POLITICO Caucus: Cruz is a deeply polarizing figure — among Republicans. Most GOP insiders believe that Cruz’s push to defund Obamacare — which made him a household name and led to a federal government shutdown in October 2013 — is more a negative than a positive. “The shutdown made him infamous to most and loved by a vocal few,” said a New Hampshire Republican. “His supporters see his fight as a badge of honor,” said an Iowa Republican. “Undecided caucusgoers will likely see his shutdown strategy as a major blunder.” The senator’s outspokenness makes him the “fighter” in the 2016 field, several said, but they fear it will sour independents from ever backing him down the road. “His fighter mentality will play well with conservative activists and those who listen to talk radio,” said an Iowa Republican, “but it’s not like he has scored any real accomplishment on rolling back the Affordable Care Act.” “Ted Cruz has a legislative record that has no positive accomplishments,” said another. “He will be in a field with many people that can point to positive accomplishments, either as governors or senators.” “He is the reason Democrats can call Republicans ‘the Party of No,’” said a third Republican. “He has become a poster child for congressional dysfunction,” said a fourth. Pressed by Fox News’ Megyn Kelly this week on what he’s accomplished as a senator, Cruz argued that he has not been a backbencher in the Senate. “What I’ve tried to do is lead on the great challenges of the day,” he said, “whether it’s stopping Obamacare or stopping the out-of-control debt, or stopping executive amnesty or defending our constitutional rights or standing with Israel, or stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons.” Those who see Cruz’s crusade against Obamacare positively say that he showed the courage of his convictions and can’t be portrayed as a typical D.C. politician. “Doing the right thing, even if you don’t succeed, will win you points,” said a New Hampshire Republican. “The intelligentsia is annoyed, but real people are hungry for it,” said another. An Iowa Republican noted that Cruz “repelled many” but “propelled his base to actively proselytize.” Another explained that Obamacare remains toxic among caucusgoers: “Someone who bravely and with clarity speaks out against it will gain much.” But one New Hampshire Republican noted that Cruz was the only likely 2016 candidate with whom local GOP candidates did not want to appear in the run-up to last fall’s midterm elections. The 44-year-old did just one campaign swing through New Hampshire, for congressional candidate Marilinda Garcia. Cruz’s visit in the days before the GOP primary in the state’s Second Congressional District — the more Democratic of New Hampshire’s two seats — helped propel Garcia to the nomination. But the Republican says it hurt Garcia in the general election against Democratic Rep. Ann McLane Kuster. “The Democrats promptly used the trip in ads and used Cruz as a vehicle to successfully drive home the ‘extreme’ narrative against Garcia,” this Republican said. “It was a net loss to be seen alongside Cruz in 2014. His name and reputation are both toxic.” Cruz has a much better shot of winning Iowa’s caucuses than New Hampshire’s primary. Nearly two-thirds of Iowa Republican insiders believe Cruz can win the caucuses, compared to just 14 percent of New Hampshire Republicans who said Cruz could win the New Hampshire primary. Iowans of both parties mostly agree on what the Cruz path to victory there looks like. As one Republican put it, “First, consolidate the evangelical right along with portions of the Liberty movement who think Rand’s too wishy-washy and, second, excel in the debates.” “He will need to be the last conservative standing,” said another. “In 2012, Santorum won the Iowa caucuses because he was the last conservative to catch fire. If Scott Walker, Santorum, Huckabee, etc. don’t have staying power, and Cruz can manage to light a fire, then he can win.” A third Republican thinks its unlikely but possible that Cruz wins the caucuses: “He’d have to grab a clear majority of evangelicals, sweep the hawkish, non-libertarian tea partiers, and hope the congestion in the race occurs in the establishment lane of [Marco] Rubio, Walker, [Jeb] Bush and [Chris] Christie.” The most common suggestion for Cruz is that he should focus on Iowa as much as possible. “He really needs to live in the state of Iowa,” said a fourth Republican, “so much that he knows that the chicken is way better than the pizza at Pizza Ranch.” Only eight insiders in New Hampshire said Cruz could win the Republican primary, and all but two of them mentioned Pat Buchanan as a reason why. If the controversial former aide to Richard Nixon could upset Bob Dole in 1996, they argue, Cruz certainly could beat a favorite of the establishment. “It’s very unlikely, but yes, it’s possible if the mainstream vote splinters, he consolidates the tea party/hard right vote (say, 25 percent of the total), and he times it perfectly,” said a New Hampshire Republican. “That is what Buchanan pulled off in 1996. But if he’s a threat to win two weeks out, a ‘Stop Cruz’ movement will kick in.” A handful of people who said Cruz could not win in New Hampshire volunteered, with no prompting, that the state has changed a lot in the 20 years since Buchanan won there. Some noted there are not enough religious conservatives in the Granite State to sustain Cruz, and others pointed to the state’s open primary as a reason the Texan won’t win there. “Long gone are the days of the mid 90s of Pat Buchanan dominating the GOP presidential primary,” said a Republican. “In New Hampshire, independent voters outnumber Republicans or Democrats, and they can vote in either primary.” “Assuming no credible challenger emerges to Hillary Clinton, independents will decide this thing, and they’re going to want to make their vote count and pull a GOP ballot,” said another. “Not going to happen,” said a third New Hampshire Republican. “No way, no how.” Paul is hurt the most by Cruz’s presence in the field. Asked from which candidate Cruz draws most, twice as many insiders chose Paul over anyone else. Huckabee and Santorum were tied for second, since the Texan will work to win over social conservatives. Rick Perry, because he’s from Texas, and Scott Walker, because some think it’s a race between Jeb Bush and one leading alternative, tied for fourth. “Ted Cruz’s path to victory is for Rand Paul not to run,” said an Iowa Republican. “That being said, three supporters of Ron Paul have endorsed Cruz.” “If Rand stumbles as the champion of the liberty voters, and Cruz excels with the social conservatives and becomes the winner of that micro-contest, he has a pathway to cobble together a finish in the high 20s, which could theoretically win the Iowa caucuses,” said a second. A New Hampshire Republican thinks Cruz won’t ever win the primary but might become a spoiler. If he prevailed in Iowa, perhaps he’d get a 7-to-10-point bounce in the polls. Much of that would come from Paul, and that could keep the Kentuckian from winning New Hampshire. “He loses to Cruz on charisma and passion,” another Granite Stater said of Paul. Enrolling in Obamacare has not conveyed the message Cruz hoped. Cruz told the Des Moines Register this week that he would “presumably” sign up for insurance through the federal health care exchange after his wife took a leave from her job at Goldman Sachs, which set off a firestorm. Democrats charge hypocrisy; Republicans wonder why he wouldn’t buy private insurance or use a COBRA plan. Cruz said he would not take federal subsidies, but now his aides say he is still exploring all of his options. Several Republicans wondered aloud about the backstory behind this tactic. “The Cruz campaign should have seen that coming and been prepared,” said one GOPer in New Hampshire. “The stagecraft and timing of the announcement was top notch; the handling of the Obamacare enrollment was worse than amateurish.” An Iowa Republican said Cruz’s fight to repeal the law is positive: “But it is quickly outweighed by his decision to go on the exchange to enroll in Obamacare. It is the height of irony. But I’m sure he’ll wear it like a badge of honor.” Democrats cite Cruz’s announcement as proof that health insurance is more affordable on the Obamacare exchanges than outside of them. Many argue that it damages his credibility. “New Hampshire has experienced a high ACA enrollment rate, and while a majority of New Hampshire citizens were frustrated by the rollout, those who now have health care coverage do not want to see it taken away,” said a Democrat. “The real question is: What would Ted Cruz do to address the issue? Saying no or taking funding away is not a solution.” Most early-state Democrats want Hillary to back up Obama on Israel. The Obama administration has been harshly critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in the week since he won reelection. Unsurprisingly, 90 percent of Republicans think Hillary Clinton should distance herself from the White House on the issue. But two-thirds of Iowa Democrats and four-fifths of New Hampshire Democrats think the former secretary of state should stand firm with the president. There is deep frustration on the left with Netanyahu, most recently over the way he used fear-mongering about Arab turnout to gin up conservative voters with an Election Day video. “Netanyahu was the one who decided to politicize U.S.-Israel geopolitics for his own domestic political gain (or accepted John Boehner’s offer to do so),” said a New Hampshire Democrat. “I can see no upside for Hillary or any Democrat in fostering a relationship with Bibi. He clearly can’t be trusted.” “She has to stand with Obama on this because he is right, and also because Netanyahu has shown himself to be a classically shifty politician who just says what he needs to be elected,” said a second. “Very tricky issue here,” said a third, “but from a purely domestic political standpoint: As long as there is clamor for Warren or someone else in liberal base world, she needs to hem as close to President Obama as possible.” While supporting Israel under any circumstances is a priority for some key Democratic donors, early state insiders say that the issue does not pack as much of a punch at the grassroots level. “Most Iowans have never heard of AIPAC,” said a Democrat there. “Israel is not an issue that motivates many Iowa Democrats or Republicans.” “She should not wade into the fray at all,” said another. “This is Obama’s story. It will fade, and then she can write her own story.” “I feel we’ve finally hit a watershed moment in American politics where, at least on the Democratic side, it will be acceptable, even advantageous, to say no to Israel,” said a third. A few Democrats think she should publicly disagree with Obama. “She needs to find ways to separate herself from Obama; this is a natural one given her background,” said an Iowan. “She needs to be proactive, not reactive,” said another. And some Democratic activists urged Clinton to just say whatever she really thinks, rather than thinking through how various stakeholders might respond. “You might be surprised how much voters will like such refreshing behavior,” said a New Hampshire Democrat. Seven in 10 Democrats don’t think Joe Biden would have a shot if he challenged Hillary. Clinton is poised to enter the race soon, and she still appears unstoppable in her quest for the Democratic nod. But chatter continues about who might be credible enough to create a real race. The vast majority of Democratic insiders, including most of those uneasy with Clinton, do not think Vice President Joe Biden is the man to do it. “The belief that Vice President Biden can’t beat Secretary Clinton is already baked in here among activists,” said an Iowan. “He has a small and loyal corps of support, but the unaligned Democratic activists in Iowa will break for Clinton or, possibly, a fresh face.” “Vice President Biden is extremely well liked by Iowa Democrats,” said another. “There is no excitement around him though, it is a struggle to build crowds for him, and he is viewed as a great leader, but not the standard bearer to lead the party forward.” “I would like to see Joe Biden exit the stage with dignity, not getting crushed by Hillary Clinton in the caucuses,” said a third. A New Hampshire Democrat said the fondness for Biden is authentic, but that his Senate voting record — especially with respect to Wall Street, credit card companies and bankruptcy “reform” — won’t galvanize progressives. “He would have real issues appealing to the 30 percent constituting the left wing of the party, the wing that is more likely to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton,” said the Democrat. “So I don’t see where he gets his votes from.” Clinton’s ability to break the ultimate glass ceiling also insulates her from another stiff challenge. “Activists and core Dems are ready for a woman, or at least the right woman,” said a New Hampshire Democrat. “Much as I love Biden, he is now past his prime in electoral terms.” Biden finished fifth in the 2008 Iowa caucuses with just 1 percent. He withdrew before New Hampshire, but his name remained on the ballot: He got a total of 638 votes, or 0.22 percent. But that was eight years ago. “He’s the sitting vice president and is well liked in Iowa,” said a Democrat there. “And you can’t win if you don’t play!” “People forget that liberals will only vote in the New Hampshire Democratic primary — independents are likely to vote GOP — so if Biden embraced the left lane and became Populist Uncle Joe, then yes, he would have a legitimate shot … albeit as an underdog,” said a Democrat there. “It’s certainly a hell of a bank shot,” said another Granite State Democrat, “but he’s got to be taken seriously.” These are the members of The POLITICO Caucus (not all of whom participated this week): Iowa: Tim Albrecht, Brad Anderson, Rob Barron, Jeff Boeyink, Bonnie Campbell, Dave Caris, Sam Clovis, Sara Craig, Jerry Crawford, John Davis, Steve Deace, John Deeth, Derek Eadon, Ed Failor Jr., Karen Fesler, David Fischer, Doug Gross, Steve Grubbs, Tim Hagle, Bob Haus, Joe Henry, Drew Ivers, Jill June, Lori Jungling, Jeff Kaufmann, Brian Kennedy, Jake Ketzner, David Kochel, Chris Larimer, Chuck Larson, Jill Latham, Jeff Link, Dave Loebsack, Mark Lucas, Liz Mathis, Jan Michelson, Chad Olsen, David Oman, Matt Paul, Marlys Popma, Troy Price, Christopher Rants, Kim Reem, Craig Robinson, Sam Roecker, David Roederer, Nick Ryan, Tamara Scott, Joni Scotter, Karen Slifka, John Smith, AJ Spiker, Norm Sterzenbach, John Stineman, Matt Strawn, Phil Valenziano, Jessica Vanden Berg, Nate Willems, Eric Woolson, Grant Young New Hampshire: Charlie Arlinghaus, Arnie Arnesen, Patrick Arnold, Rich Ashooh, Dean Barker, Juliana Bergeron, D.J. Bettencourt, Michael Biundo, Ray Buckley, Peter Burling, Jamie Burnett, Debby Butler, Dave Carney, Jackie Cilley, Catherine Corkery, Garth Corriveau, Fergus Cullen, Lou D’Allesandro, James Demers, Mike Dennehy, Sean Downey, Steve Duprey, JoAnn Fenton, Jennifer Frizzell, Martha Fuller Clark, Amanda Grady Sexton, Jack Heath, Gary Hirshberg, Jennifer Horn, Peter Kavanaugh, Joe Keefe, Rich Killion, Harrell Kirstein, Sylvia Larsen, Joel Maiola, Kate Malloy Corriveau, Maureen Manning, Steve Marchand, Tory Mazzola, Jim Merrill, Jayne Millerick, Claira Monier, Greg Moore, Matt Mowers, Terie Norelli, Chris Pappas, Liz Purdy, Tom Rath, Colin Reed, Jim Rubens, Andy Sanborn, Dante Scala, William Shaheen, Stefany Shaheen, Carol Shea-Porter, Terry Shumaker, Andy Smith, Craig Stevens, Kathy Sullivan, Chris Sununu, James Sununu, Jay Surdukowski, Donna Sytek, Kari Thurman, Colin Van Ostern, Deb Vanderbeek, Mike Vlacich, Ryan Williams Kristen Hayford contributed to this report.
Poster Comment: Maybe his ObamaCare death panel will take him out, before he's able to get Jeb Bush nominated, and Hillary elected president?
Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire don’t think the polarizing Texan can win.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 51.
#2. To: hondo68 (#0)
(Edited)
I consider myself an evangelical Christian. I believe Ted Cruz when he says he is an evangelical Christian, as well. Therefore nothing is intended to impugn Sen. Cruz's personal walk with God. These are just observations re: his candidacy for POTUS. He is not electable for many reasons - some of which I'll list: 1. His base (evangelical Christians like myself) is too small. As much as I dislike the term "reaching out" (because it usually means compromising one's values), it is a necessity if one is expecting to be elected to high office. 2. Staying on the subject of his base for a moment - his base is not only a small fraction of the general electorate, it is not even much of a player when it comes to the gop. In reality, the gop hates Cruz type conservatives. They expect our votes (where else ya gonna go?), but other than that it's sit down and shut up. 3. Cruz has not only made enemies, he's made the wrong kind of enemies. Enemies who are the movers and shakers (who make up the Ruling Class - your Boehners, McConnells, Roves and Bushes and the like). You don't make enemies of the ruling class and expect to be nominated to head one of the Branches of Their Party. 4. Cruz would be a big loser with Millennials. For whatever reason (and I've observed this first hand), even Millennials who don't vote or who's political opinions aren't fully formed have a deep dislike - bordering on hatred - for Cruz. Maybe it's due to Comedy Central, Social Media or whatever else influences that generation. Though I don't know firsthand much about it, I suspect most of the shows on Comedy Central have had a field day with him. After all, they can't poke fun at Muslims, democrats or Obama. Pretty much all that's left to make sport of is evangelical Christians like Cruz. So these are only 4 reasons, but there are many more. But it doesn't matter - we're past the point where elections matter, anyway.
I've voted for at least one evangelical in the past, so that's not a factor for me. Playing the Evangelical Card is not working. Cruz does seem to have a bit of an issue with run of the mill non-evangelical Christians. He did go out of his way to attend a Christian gathering to tell them "You suck", and then walk out. However, he attended the Nelson Mandella service, and tweeted words of praise for the genocidal Commie scum. Maybe Politico does have a problem with certain Christians, but so does Rafael Cruz.
It was an unprecedented gathering of all the ancient churches of the Mideast, many of whom hadn't had any real contact in many centuries. The conference was to draw attention to the deadly persecution of Christians across the Mideast. Cruz showed up and declared "If you don't stand with Israel, I won't stand with you!" and stomped off the stage. What a sleazebag. Apparently, he was trying to appeal to Sheldon Adelson and the RJC. It was despicable. And, yes, I'm holding a grudge against Cruz for pulling such a scummy stunt.
What a sleazebag. Apparently, he was trying to appeal to Sheldon Adelson and the RJC. Yep, Cruz told the most persecuted group of Christians in the world -- those with histories, friends and families in the Middle East -- to fuck off. Screw the bastard.
Screw the bastard. He opened well enough, saying Christians have to take a united stand against terrorism in all its forms –pointedly including Hezbollah & Hamas among the list. This ruffled some feathers for reasons I’ll get to, but I think it would have been let go had he not moved into a disquisition on the nobility and rightness of the founding (not the existence today) of Israel. Responding to grumbling about that, the Senator then said that Israel is the greatest ally of Christians in the Middle East, at which people from largely Christian Lebanon (I’m guessing the majority of the people in the room) took profound offense. They lay claim to that title. Misreading (as I think) the reason for the grumbling, Cruz then said people who don’t love Israel hate the Jews and those who hate Israel hate America. At that point the Lebanese ambassador and one of the Patriarchs stomped out and a few people in the back of the room shouted comments at Cruz ( I couldn’t make out what they said.) I would say about half the room applauded Senator Cruz — either in agreement or just wanting him to be allowed to have his say. It is important to note that early in his remarks the audience applauded when Senator Cruz said Christians need to be united in defense of Christians, and applauded again when he said they need to be united in defense of Jews.
How do you suppose Cruz would react if someone lectured a group of persecuted Cubans about Israel and told them that "if you cannot stand with Israel, I cannot stand with you."? The explanations for what Cruz did fall short. He made a complete ass of himself to persecuted Christians. AFAIK, he never did apologize.
The explanations for what Cruz did fall short. He made a complete ass of himself to persecuted Christians. AFAIK, he never did apologize. If "Christians" hate Israel. They probably aren't real Christians. He shouldn't apologize as he did nothing wrong.
I think attending a meeting to promote wider media awareness of persecuted Christians and then denouncing them because they don't love Israel as much as Cruz says he does (only because he wants Adelson's money so badly) is despicable. Cruz made the big headlines and threw the martyrs of the Mideast under the bus and drove over them. And damned them in the process. It was a cheap stunt and showed a real lack of character. There were indicators that he planned to do this to them well in advance. Cruz was happy to throw the murdered, raped, indigent Christians of the Mideast under his bus as he whored himself for Adelson's cash. And it worked. His standing with Adelson and the RJC improved almost immediately. Before this stunt, the RJC types disliked and distrusted him. So now we know which 30 pieces of Adelson's silver are the price to buy Ted Cruz.
What was his exact words that were so offensive?
The conclusion of his offensive speech, most of which did not address Mideast Christians in any way, shape or form: Cruz: “If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews,” he said. “Then I will not stand with you. Good night, and God bless.” And with that, he walked off the stage.
So basically if they stand with the muslims who want to murder all the Jews he will not stand with them. Good for Cruz. I like him even better now. Thank You.
That most of his supporters think this way is a good sign that Cruz can never get the GOP nomination. Cruz has a small sliver of GOP voters, mostly Tea folk who imagine themselves to constitute a great Silent Majority. He has almost no room to grow outside that core constituency. He also has a habit of making very rash statements in public of which his condemnation of persecuted Mideast Christians is only one example. Cruz's supporters seem to have a habit of confusing "invective" for "statesmanlike". It is one of the main reasons that the Tea candidates fared rather poorly in 2014 against the GOP establishment, losing virtually every race.
You talk like a liberal. You also ignored 17 where I showed you that you were incorrect.
I thought I'd ignore it to avoid embarrassing you further. I think you misread this rather badly. Jesus was saying he was the Messiah and that He would fulfill all the prophecies entirely but until that time (His crucifixion and resurrection), all the ancient Mosaic laws of the Old Covenant were still intact and to be properly observed. Are you saying that Christians must observe and fulfill every bit of the Mosaic law? Circumcision, cleanliness, dietary restrictions, the whole kosher bit? I think this is something you just say. Not something you actually do.
I think this is something you just say. Not something you actually do. It seems to me it would require repentance when you do break the law. So according to you the 10 commandments is outdated. Did Jesus repeat all the 10 commandments? Because if he didn't according to you it is ok to break those he didn't mention now. That is not what the book says. It says "not one iota...." Sorry if I get testy with you. I'm just putting it the way I honestly see it.
I said no such thing. Jesus taught these things very directly, as Vicomte often drills home when he's wearing his Red Letter Catholic hat (not a bad thing). Commandment 2 "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve" (Mat 4:10). "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve" (Luke 4:8). "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). "But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam...to eat things sacrificed to idols" (Rev 2:14). "Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, because you allow...My servants to...eat things sacrificed to idols" (Rev 2:20). Commandment 3 "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men" (Mat 12:31). "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,...blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man" (Mat 15:19-20). Commandment 4 "What man is there among you who has one sheep, and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" (Mat 12:11-12). "And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath" (Mat 24:20); there would be no reason to pray this if the Sabbath was not going to be in existence. "And He said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath'" (Mk 2:27); this verse tells all who will see which day is the Lord's Day. "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue" (Mk 6:2). "And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read" (Luke 4:16). "Then He went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and was teaching them on the Sabbaths" (Luke 4:31). "The Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath...Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy?" (Luke 6:5,9). "But the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath...The Lord then answered him and said, 'Hypocrite...So ought not this woman...be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?'" (Luke (13:14-16). "'Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?'...And they could not answer Him regarding these things" (Luke 14:3,6). "are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?" (John 7:23). Commandment 5 "For God commanded saying, 'Honor your father and your mother' and 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death'" (Mat 15:4). "Honor your father and your mother" (Mat 19:19). "Honor your father and your mother" (Mk 7:10). "Honor your father and your mother" (Mk 10:19). "You know the commandments:...Honor your father and your mother" (Luke 18:20). Commandment 6 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder', and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment" (Mat 5:21-22). "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders...These are the things which defile a man" (Mat 15:19-20). "You shall not murder" (Mat 19:18). "...murders...All these evil things come from within and defile a man" (Mk 7:21,23). "Do not murder" (Mk 10:19). "You know the commandments:...Do not murder" (Luke 18:20). Commandment 7 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery'. But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mat 5:27-28). "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery" (Mat 5:32). "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts...adulteries, fornications...These are the things which defile a man" (Mat 15:19-20). "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery, and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" (Mat 19:9). "You shall not commit adultery" (Mat 19:18). "...adulteries, fornications...All these evil things come from within and defile a man" (Mk 7:21,23). "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" (Mk 10:11-12). "Do not commit adultery" (Mk 10:19). "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18). "You know the commandments: Do not commit adultery" (Luke 18:20). "'Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery'...And Jesus said to her...'sin no more'" (John 8:4,11). "Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation" (Rev 2:22). Commandment 8 "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts...thefts...These are the things which defile a man" (Mat 15:19-20). "You shall not steal" (Mat 19:18). "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer', but you have made it a den of thieves" (Mat 21:13). "...thefts...All these evil things come from within and defile a man" (Mk 7:22-23). "Do not steal" (Mk 10:19). "You know the commandments:... Do not steal" (Luke 18:20). Commandment 9 "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord. But I say to you, do not swear at all" (Mat 5:33-34). "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts...false witness...These are the things which defile a man" (Mat 15:19-20). "You shall not bear false witness" (Mat 19:18). "Do not bear false witness" (Mk 10:19). "You know the commandments:...Do not bear false witness" (Luke 18:20). "And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars" (Rev 2:2). Commandment 10 "Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on" (Mat 6:25). "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts...These are the things which defile a man" (Mat 15:19-20). "...covetousness...All these evil things come from within and defile a man" (Mk 7:22-23). "I have kept My Father's commandments" (John 15:10). So it is clear that Jesus taught everyone of the ten commandments and that he also kept them. Ten Commandments - God's Revelation in the Old Testament It seems to me that Jesus personally upheld and taught the Decalogue on multiple occasions and His position was quite clear. More importantly, He gave many commandments in addition to these ancient ones. The commands of Jesus embrace and supercede the Ten Commandments.
It's a bit more complicated than that, but basically, yes. Now the complications. God gave a few marching orders to man at creation: (1) "Reproduce and increase!" He repeated this to Noah and his sons after the Flood. He repeated it again to Jacob. (2) "Fill the land and subdue it." Man was commanded to fill the land up. The sin of Babel was in refusing to follow instructions but instead refusing to remain clumped together and building skyward. (3) "Rule the animals." Initially, this was without eating them (though milk was ok - Abel herded sheep but didn't eat them). Originally, animals did not have fear of man, their ruler. After the Flood, God instilled fear of man in animals. (4) Eat fruit and plants, nuts and seeds. (And through dominion, by implication, eggs and dairy are ok). After the Flood, God put meat on the menu, as long as it was killed first. (5) After the Fall, clothes to cover nakedness. (6) God set the 7th day apart as blessed because he rested upon it after his work in creating. Later, he would make a model of this for the Hebrews, and by extension, for mankind. Once Adam and Eve fell and were expelled from the Garden there were some specific burdens God placed upon them, at least some of which have apparently been carried forward by the race. To Eve, he said that she would have greatly increased pain in bearing children. Women in general bear children in great pain. He also placed Adam over her, and said that her urge would be for him. Some have asserted that this applies to humanity for all time. The text does not say that, however, so one cannot assert it as a positive doctrine. It's an opinion. Also, God promised that her seed would strike at the seed of the head of the serpent. Later, in Revelation, there are two discussions of Satan as "the ancient serpent" - whether that refers to Genesis or not is an open question. To Adam, he said that the ground would thenceforth be cursed, such that Adam would wring his bread from it "by the sweat of his brow". After the Flood, God specifically said that he would not longer curse the ground because of men, so the cursed soil that Adam and the antediluvians faced is NOT any longer in place. And with that, the "from the sweat of your brow" penalty is not a "forever" penalty - the curse was removed from the soil. We also, know, from the reference to "bread" (specifically BREAD in the Hebrew) that Adam and Eve had fire in Eden: they would NOW have to get their bread through harder work. 'Twas easier before. Adam and Eve had jobs in Eden: they were gardeners, to tend and keep the garden. This gives rise to nice philosophical musings about "tending our garden" - for our first parents it was NOT a necessity of life: food in the Garden was free for the taking. Rather, it was the task to which they were put by God. The original "job" of man was to be master of animals and gardener. Given the need for Vitamin B-12, which is unavailable in any plant source, God made us literally dependent on the animals for our existence. We can live without killing them, but without modern scientific and synthetics, we CAN'T live without at least MILKING them. In this way, God made dominion over the animals non-optional. To this day, if we don't exercise dominion over the animals and keep dairy herds or egg farms, even if we eat no meat, we then have to rely on chemical factories to produce Vitamin B-12 through bacteria. PETA notwithstanding, exercising dominion over the animals is necessary for human life for vegetarians AND carnivores. Finally, there was one additional law given in Genesis: not to shed blood or kill people. The man who sheds blood, by man his blood shall be shed, said God. And God said that he would hold men accountable for the lives they take. Note well, God said this to Adam and his Sons - and everybody on earth descends from them. THIS law is no law of Moses. Nor is it a law for the Jews. THIS law is the law that God gave directly to the ENTIRETY OF MANKIND, after the Flood. The one universal, non-optional, non-culturally referenced law, is NO KILLING PEOPLE. Blood must be repaid by blood. And God will hold the killer accountable. THIS law was not "nailed to the Cross". First off, it's not a "Law of Moses" - it's a Law of Noah, given to the entirety of mankind then living, and down to us. Secondly, it is repeated twice by Jesus in the final page of Scripture: The Greek work in Rev. 21 is "phoneusin"; in Rev 22 it is "phoneis". It is traditionally translated as "murderers". The word means "slayer". The rroot, "phen", means "to slay". The Greek LXX places this word both at the "Thou shall not kill" statements, but also in the portions that refer to manslaughter. So, the ACCIDENTAL killer of men is also a "slayer" using this same word. In other words, the Biblical word is NOT "You shall not commit murder". It is "You shall not slay people". Even by accident. Be CAREFUL. IF you slay somebody by accident, you're still a slayer, and if the avenger of the blood tracks you down and slays you, he is not going to be tried as a killer either. There is an eagerness among men to REDUCE God's prohibition of killing people in order to allow the killing of people for reasons of state, such as wars. For indeed, how would kingdoms be established without killing people? They would not be. And where did God EVER authorize men to kill other men in order to set up governments? He never did. People who kill people to establish their rule are, in fact, just "slayers" under the law that has been the law since Moses. Consider then, Nimrod, "a mighty hunter before the Lord". He set up the first empire, and he did it by conquest. That is how most nations (and all empires) were created: by willfully killing any men who will not comply with "the law" of whomever presumes to be a lawgiver. But actually, God only ever authorized men to kill other men for the crime of killing other men. That's it. That's all. So, if your state cannot hold together unless it has the power to kill men for breaking any old law (which all states claim), then your state is held up by slaying - by "murder" as the word is used in Scripture. This is a REAL PROBLEM for statecraft, because it essentially reduces every government and state on earth to a cesspit of murder. And God warns sternly twice on the last page of the Bible that slayers are thrown into the fire. This one little law, against killing, which was NOT revealed at Sinai, is NOT therefore "only for the Jews", and which was NOT "nailed to the cross" as evidenced by the fact that twice on the last page of Scripture God says that slayers will fail judgment and be thrown into the fire - THIS is the oldest, most permanent moral law of the Scriptures. And this one little law turns out to invalidate most human government, law enforcement and fighting. Jesus makes it clear that carrying a sword for self-defense is licit even for Christian apostles, but nowhere in the Bible does God EVER give men permission to use violence on other men in order to take land to build a country, or to enforce laws other than the laws of Israel in Israel, or to punish killers. The law against slaying men is the Prime Directive of God's laws in the Bible, stated clearly with Noah (and before that, with Cain), and holding all the way through until the end of the Scripture. It is the one law I insist most on talking about precisely BECAUSE it renders the history of ALL proud nations wicked and sinful. Consider well: if God's law were followed, there could be no Kingdom of England, other than by consent, or United States, or any other country, and police could not use deadly force to enforce the law generally, only to prevent killing and pursue killers. It's not exactly pacifism, for one may defend with a sword, and slayers are to be slain. (We should also note that the very word used for execution is the SAME word - a slayer, once judged, is to be taken and slain. If one insists on the word "murderer", which is too narrow (for we do not call, say, Julius Caesar a MURDERER for having conquered Gaul, but he was), the the law God gave to the Jews says that upon conviction, the murderer is to be taken out and murdered. WE would insist that the murderer is EXECUTED, but God says that the murderer is MURDERED by the law - rather establishing that MY POINT here is what the text SAYS. God prohibited KILLING. Just this one simple and clear law against killing men renders human law voluntary (except for the law against killing men), just as obedience to God's law is voluntary, for awhile. Think how DIFFERENTLY God envisions human relationships. Consider what it would mean to put it into practice. And remember, when you leap to the defense of the use of deadly force to enforce laws, because you realize that laws won't be enforceable and empires won't be able to hold together as structures for concentration of wealth and power unless they have the power to kill to compel obedience. And read your Scripture carefully, and realize that God never, ever, gave any men but the Jewish judges the power to ever kill another man for anything, other than in defense against attack, and as punishment for killing. Consider, under God's law, how very important WORDS ARE, and how relatively unimportant physical power is. And remember: if you're fighting these notions, you are not fighting ME, you are fighting God, because that's what he said, from Noah through Revelation. It's right there.
#52. To: redleghunter (#51)
Ping to 51
Nice points all, highlighting why God did not want Israel to have a king. Mmmm...but I don't think I did that in my posts on the Decalogue and the commandments of Jesus.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: Rufus T Firefly, The Evangelical Card (#2)
(Edited)
Pretty much all that's left to make sport of is evangelical Christians like Cruz.
#4. To: hondo68 (#3)
He did go out of his way to attend a Christian gathering to tell them "You suck", and then walk out.
#5. To: TooConservative (#4)
(Edited)
Cruz showed up and declared "If you don't stand with Israel, I won't stand with you!" and stomped off the stage.
#6. To: cranko (#5)
Yep, Cruz told the most persecuted group of Christians in the world -- those with histories, friends and families in the Middle East -- to fuck off.
#8. To: A K A Stone (#6)
(Edited)
#9. To: TooConservative (#8)
How do you suppose Cruz would react if someone lectured a group of persecuted Cubans about Israel and told them that "if you cannot stand with Israel, I cannot stand with you."?
#10. To: A K A Stone (#9)
He shouldn't apologize as he did nothing wrong.
#11. To: TooConservative (#10)
Adelson's money so badlyIt was a cheap stunt and showed a real lack of character. There were indicators that he planned to do this to them well in advance.
#16. To: A K A Stone (#11)
What was his exact words that were so offensive?
#18. To: TooConservative (#16)
Cruz: “If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews,” he said. “Then I will not stand with you. Good night, and God bless.” And with that, he walked off the stage.
#20. To: A K A Stone (#18)
Good for Cruz. I like him even better now. Thank You.
#21. To: TooConservative (#20)
#22. To: A K A Stone (#21)
You also ignored 17 where I showed you that you were incorrect.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)
#24. To: TooConservative (#22)
Are you saying that Christians must observe and fulfill every bit of the Mosaic law? Circumcision, cleanliness, dietary restrictions, the whole kosher bit?
#26. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#24)
So according to you the 10 commandments is outdated. Did Jesus repeat all the 10 commandments? Because if he didn't according to you it is ok to break those he didn't mention now.
Notice how often Jesus said, "You know the commandments...". Or mentioned healing on the Sabbath as "lawful". Commandment 1 "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve" (Mat 4:10). "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and the great commandment" (Mat 22:37). "And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment" (Mk 12:30). "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve" (Luke 4:8).
The 10 Commandments are found in the Bible's Old Testament at Exodus, Chapter 20. They were given directly by God to the people of Israel at Mount Sinai after He had delivered them from slavery in Egypt:
"And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God…
ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
#51. To: TooConservative (#26)
(Edited)
It seems to me that Jesus personally upheld and taught the Decalogue on multiple occasions and His position was quite clear. More importantly, He gave many commandments in addition to these ancient ones. The commands of Jesus embrace and supercede the Ten Commandments.
Replies to Comment # 51.
#56. To: Vicomte13 (#51)
There is an eagerness among men to REDUCE God's prohibition of killing people in order to allow the killing of people for reasons of state, such as wars. For indeed, how would kingdoms be established without killing people? They would not be. And where did God EVER authorize men to kill other men in order to set up governments? He never did. People who kill people to establish their rule are, in fact, just "slayers" under the law that has been the law since Moses.
And remember: if you're fighting these notions, you are not fighting ME, you are fighting God, because that's what he said, from Noah through Revelation.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 51.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]