jesus as a political figure

[Geiseric]

So I was listening to Woody Guthrie, by the way i'm completely an atheist, and I was wondering if Jesus was somewhat a revolutionary against the roman empire. I mean the bible pretty much says so in almost all the parts Jesus is in it, and all of the theology and mythos that surrounded him came a few decades after he died which makes sense since it's all complete horseshit. I was wondering about any historical evidence of Jesus having radical leftist politics, or any information, or even bible scripture surrounding that theory. I'm not interested in spiritualism.

[Commiekirby]

While I can't overall quote the Bible or any scripture in particular because I'm no follower of this faith that really wasn't intended to exist in the first place, I can say that his mentality was kinda communal based and anti Roman so in a sense he was a revolutionary rather than a spiritual leader though he got grouped into the whole faith idea for whatever reason.

[eric922]

First of all keep in mind that the Bible is probably not an accurate account of Jesus's teachings so we have a very flawed picture of him. That being said, he did throw the money changers out of the temple. One of the verses of Matthew has him saying he came not to bring peace, but a sword and would set father against son. That sounds like a call to revolution. He told his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy a sword. His views on wealth are full of damning (literally) condemnations of the wealthy. He openly said the rich could never inherit the Kingdom of God. It always amuses me when conservatives try to paint Jesus as one of them, if he ever did return I think a lot of priests and preachers would be in for an unpleasant surprise.

[Book O'Dead]

So I was listening to Woody Guthrie, by the way i'm completely an atheist, and I was wondering if Jesus was somewhat a revolutionary against the roman empire. I mean the bible pretty much says so in almost all the parts Jesus is in it, and all of the theology and mythos that surrounded him came a few decades after he died which makes sense since it's all complete horseshit. I was wondering about any historical evidence of Jesus having radical leftist politics, or any information, or even bible scripture surrounding that theory. I'm not interested in spiritualism.

"Radical leftist politics" in antiquity? Me no think so.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Jesus was a radical egalitarian, but not a socialist. There was no such thing as a proletariat back then.

[Book O'Dead]

The People
February 1997
Vol. 106 No. 11

100 YEARS AGO IN THE PEOPLE

[WAS JESUS A SOCIALIST?]
(THE PEOPLE, Feb. 14, 1897)

The Terre Haute, Ind., RAILWAY TIMES, in its laudable, but untrained anxiety to promote socialism, is in danger of doing more mischief than good. In its issue of the 1st instant it argues extensively in favor of the claim that "Jesus was a Socialist."

In the language of Comrade Jules Guesde, held in the French Chamber recently, and published a few weeks ago in these columns, all the noble hearts and noble minds of the past who have truly felt pity for the oppressed and strove to improve their lot, and above all, all those among them, who, true to themselves, had the manhood to carry their great ideal to the scaffold, may justly be claimed by the Socialists as their traditional precursors, but not as their intellectual ancestors.

Jesus could not be a Socialist. To understand this is to be proof against the many sidetracking allurements that beset the path of the modern and militant Socialist.

Socialism is not an aim, it is the means to an object. The object is now, as it long has been, to remove popular, undeserved suffering. The means to that end could not be socialism until material conditions engendered socialist thought. The mere existence of misery is not the material condition precedent for socialist thought. The material condition precedent therefore is the existence of such tools of production as compel cooperative labor, and, therefore, compel the collective ownership of these tools as the means to escape a continued and intensified condition of popular degradation.

Socialism, while certainly animated by the noblest motives of all times, is an economic-political movement that begins and ends with the demand that the machinery of production, which is necessarily operated collectively shall be as collectively owned. Such a thought could not rise 1,897 years ago for the simple reason that no such machinery of production was then in existence, those being the days, infant days at that, of individual production by small and individual tools.

At that stage of man's career, and so long as the present machine had not yet appeared, popular poverty could not be abolished, for the simple reason that there was not enough producible for all. The best that a feeling heart could then do was to transfer to himself the distress of others. Where there is but one blanket and there are two men, one has to go cold. If A. has the blanket and B. is freezing, A. may pity B. and pass his blanket over to him; but then, the cold that B. suffered is not suppressed; it is passed over to A. Such was the nature of the apostolic communities. It could be none other. Today, however, we no longer need to shift misery about, we can abolish it: instead of there being one blanket for two men, there are now four to two; and this is the result of the cooperative labor of men who are, by the very nature of their tools, compelled to work together.

To maintain that Jesus was a Socialist is to ignore the reason why socialism is today a necessary thing. The center of gravity of the great movement of our day is thereby removed from its intellectual basis, where it belongs, to a purely sentimental basis that exposes it to be wrecked by that most dangerous of all elements: the well meaning but untutored.

[Devrim]

I was wondering about any historical evidence of Jesus having radical leftist politics, or any information, or even bible scripture surrounding that theory.

I think that you will find that there is no contemporary historical evidence of Jesus having existed, let alone details about his politics.

Devrim

[hatzel]

One of the better Jesus-themed political texts of recent years is Alexandre Christoyannopoulos's Christian anarchism: a political commentary on the gospel. In between all the stuff on the history and future of Christian anarchism, there's somewhat of a 'point-by-point' analysis of Jesus's various teachings and sayings, explaining how they might be seen to imply a certain (radical) politics. Not sure if that's necessarily what you're looking for here, but I guess you could join the dots somewhere and try to figure something out based on that, I dunno...

Actually the same guy edited the text Religious anarchism: new perspectives, to which he contributed the essay 'Responding to the State: Christian anarchists on Romans 13, rendering to Caesar, and civil disobedience,' which certainly invites a particular engagement with the State based on Jesus's engagement with his State, namely the Roman one. That might lead us to a better understanding of Jesus's politics, perhaps even letting us start to retroactively ascribe various labels, such as 'radical,' 'anarchistic' etc., whilst also being careful to ensure that we engage with him as an individual in his own temporal context, even if we are willing to engage with his ideas (or their legacy) against the backdrop of the modern day. This is an important distinction.

I don't think anybody's really going to get any idea of what Jesus was or wasn't without recourse to the Bible, which becomes an issue. Maybe he did sit around all day talking explicitly about the coming insurrection against Roman rule, and this stuff was left out of the gospels - or perhaps retained, though expressed more subtly - so as not to, you know, implicate anybody before the authorities; if we are to believe that he managed to ruffle the Romans' feathers enough to end up crucified, chances are he'd been saying something that didn't sit too well with them, though of course this relies on a minimal level of (trust in) Biblical veracity: that there was a guy called Jesus who said (at least some of) this stuff and ended up crucified. Christoyannopoulos certainly paints a pretty convincing picture of the political Jesus (without necessarily demanding historical veracity at all, actually; the sayings stand by themselves, irrespective of whether or not there was ever an individual to utter them), one which might suggest that he was of the broad 'proto-Left' so to speak, and that he was politically opposed to the domination by Rome. Though of course it would be foolish to claim that this makes him a socialist, or even a socialist avant la lettre, for the reasons that have already been outlined by others.

[Luís Henrique]

Jesus probably did not even existed. If he did, his sayings and acts are too few and disconnected for us to deduct any coherent world view from them. If pressed, I would say that he was a Jewish version of a Cynical philosopher.

We should avoid retrojecting modern labels into medieval and ancient people: the issues those people faced were radically different from those we face ourselves. Those people did not have to deal with capitalism, and, for the most part, not even with capital, they did not live in Nation-States, they did not have a modern concept of democracy, they lived in a world without science, etc. They could not be leftists as there was no such thing as a "Left" at their times, they couldn't be "progressist" as they had no concept of progress, they could not be anti-capitalist as there was no capitalism (and if they could somehow be anti-capitalist this would be a reactionary trait, not a progressive one).

Luís Henrique

[Book O'Dead]

Jesus probably did not even existed. If he did, his sayings and acts are too few and disconnected for us to deduct any coherent world view from them. If pressed, I would say that he was a Jewish version of a Cynical philosopher.

We should avoid retrojecting modern labels into medieval and ancient people: the issues those people faced were radically different from those we face ourselves. Those people did not have to deal with capitalism, and, for the most part, not even with capital, they did not live in Nation-States, they did not have a modern concept of democracy, they lived in a world without science, etc. They could not be leftists as there was no such thing as a "Left" at their times, they couldn't be "progressist" as they had no concept of progress, they could not be anti-capitalist as there was no capitalism (and if they could somehow be anti-capitalist this would be a reactionary trait, not a progressive one).

Luís Henrique

As far as anyone knows, Jesus never wrote anything.

Jesus was an okay guy who preached love at a time when love was almost impossible.

Socialism, Marxian socialism, will help create the material conditions that will make "love thy neighbor" possible.

[Dialectical Wizard]

Jesus was a revolutionary in the sense that he wanted to overthrow the old order and create a new one. Replace Greco-Roman paganism and Jewish dogmatism with Christian egalitarianism.

[eric922]

This thread does raise a question I sometimes wonder. Why do people who ask these questions only focus on Jesus? What were the politics of Buddha, Mohammed, Zoroaster, etc.? Granted, I know most of the posters here are from the U.S. and Europe so Jesus is the most well known religious thinker, it's just something I sometimes wonder.

[Luís Henrique]

Jesus was a revolutionary in the sense that he wanted to overthrow the old order and create a new one. Replace Greco-Roman paganism and Jewish dogmatism with Christian egalitarianism.

I don't think Jesus, if he ever existed, was a "Christian" in any meaningful sence.

Luís Henrique

[Revolution starts with U]

Jesus was a radical egalitarian, but not a socialist. There was no such thing as a proletariat back then.

Not exactly true. There was no such thing as an industrial proletariat. There definitely was a class of property-less wage laborers.

The more you know :lol:


This thread does raise a question I sometimes wonder. Why do people who ask these questions only focus on Jesus? What were the politics of Buddha, Mohammed, Zoroaster, etc.? Granted, I know most of the posters here are from the U.S. and Europe so Jesus is the most well known religious thinker, it's just something I sometimes wonder.

Good point :thumbup1:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As Devrim and Luis Henrique said, the historical Jesus probably never existed.The Jesus figure most likely emerged as a sort of composite of folk heros among messianic Essenes after the Diaspora and later had chunks of pagan mythology grafted on to it.

Philo, a Jewish Neo-Platonic philosopher who wrote a very detailed history of the period Jesus was supposed to have lived, mentioned eight guys named Jesus,(which seems to have been a title, meaning, "The Annointed One") none of whom correspond to the figure from Christian mythology.The closest was a guy who lived a hundred after our "Jesus" and was crucified as a rebel leader,

Having said this Jesus as a mythical savior-god does at least have cultural importance.We can see Jesus as a revolutionary-chasing the money lenders out of the temple, advising his followers to sell their clothes to buy weapons, announcing that he'd come to break up families with fire, etc.

The bible can be interpreted many ways for different agendas. As long as we are stuck with this primordial cultural symbol, let's use it and not let the right and the fundies misuse it.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

This thread does raise a question I sometimes wonder. Why do people who ask these questions only focus on Jesus? What were the politics of Buddha, Mohammed, Zoroaster, etc.? Granted, I know most of the posters here are from the U.S. and Europe so Jesus is the most well known religious thinker, it's just something I sometimes wonder.

Karen Armstrong wrote a short book on the life of Mohammed and a larger book partly on Islam (both of which I forget the names of) which seem to take a historical materialist approach. Early Islam itself seemed to represent class struggle against the corrupt merchant oligarchy of Mecca, which then made a lot of money out of the pilgrimage trade from paganism.I'm not sure if I agree with all her points but her work is fascinating.

Armstrong wrote a book about the Buddha and the early founding of Buddhism.Buddhism seems to have emerged as a product of an Indian capitalism which emerged in the 5th century and to some extent was a rebellion against the Brahman landed aristocracy.Much of Buddhism-"earning merit"which one could then draw on, by meditation or devotion, seemed to presuppose some of the mechanisms of capitalism, such as a banking system.

The Buddha was ostensibly non or anti-political but he seemed to favor the early Indo-Aryan republics which were then being gobbled up by large dynasties.

[Book O'Dead]

I actually believe that the Jesus Christ described in the Gospels did exist but that his actions and the events described in them were greatly exaggerated. But that is irrelevant.

Besides, I think that getting stuck in an argument about his actual existence as a historical figure misses the point concerning the impact his life and lessons had on history and politics.

[eric922]

Karen Armstrong wrote a short book on the life of Mohammed and a larger book partly on Islam (both of which I forget the names of) which seem to take a historical materialist approach. Early Islam itself seemed to represent class struggle against the corrupt merchant oligarchy of Mecca, which then made a lot of money out of the pilgrimage trade from paganism.I'm not sure if I agree with all her points but her work is fascinating.

Armstrong wrote a book about the Buddha and the early founding of Buddhism.Buddhism seems to have emerged as a product of an Indian capitalism which emerged in the 5th century and to some extent was a rebellion against the Brahman landed aristocracy.Much of Buddhism-"earning merit"which one could then draw on, by meditation or devotion, seemed to presuppose some of the mechanisms of capitalism, such as a banking system.

The Buddha was ostensibly non or anti-political but he seemed to favor the early Indo-Aryan republics which were then being gobbled up by large dynasties.
Yeah, I've read a collection of eary Buddhist sutras and the author, a Theravada monk, mentions that Buddha did favor the Republics, though he gave advice to monarchs as well on how to govern since it was becoming clear by his time that the republics wouldn't last much longer. I'll have to check out Armstrong's book on Buddhism. Thanks for mentioning it.

[Teacher]

Look up Bart Ehrman if you want to read some interesting stuff about the Bible and to what degree the stuff is historical.

[Luís Henrique]

Indian capitalism which emerged in the 5th century

What?!

Luís Henrique

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Well obviously India around 500 BCE wasn't "capitalist" as we know it. Elements of capitalists though existed long before the Industrial Revolution, the preceding 'Age of Manufactures" and even the "Genesis of Capital" in 14th century England. Sung Dynasty China was close to a capitalist breakthough, there were elements of this in the Ummayad and Abbasid Caliphates and there was a growing business class in India of this period.

Of course this didn't make the society itself capitalist. In China and India capitalist development was subverted and co-opteed by the feudalistic landowning aristocracy which inhibited its development.

It seems that both in India and China Buddhism was at least partly an expression of the nascent capitalist class.Buddhism in Tang China pioneered a banking system (which ended in disaster) and semed almost close to a Calvinist ethos.

[Azraella]

the historical Jesus probably never existed


Tacitus and Josephus seem to think he existed. Both also disliked the movement that was started in his name. Tacitus was even nasty about the early Christian Jew movement and called it a disease.

[Hit The North]

I actually believe that the Jesus Christ described in the Gospels did exist but that his actions and the events described in them were greatly exaggerated. But that is irrelevant.



Why bother "believing" this when you are not a Christian and there is not a shred of evidence that he existed?


Besides, I think that getting stuck in an argument about his actual existence as a historical figure misses the point concerning the impact his life and lessons had on history and politics.
This is a good point. We can treat Jesus as a fictional figure and ask what values he embodied, in the same way as we can inquire about the values embodied by Hamlet or Holden Caulfield. The problem with the new Testament - which is the book(s) in which Jesus is the hero - is that it has been so overwritten by history - compiled, translated, re-translated, edited, added to and censored - that Jesus lacks a coherent plot-line. So he appears as both a radical egalitarian and an appeaser of the Roman state, simply because the interpretations of the time allowed or demanded it. If you want to understand the political relevance of Jesus you must examine it through the lens of the writers and subsequent editors to understand what their political purpose was. The Bible has sedimentary layers of meaning, the result of its historical journey. Partly this is why the Jesus figure appears to be all things to all men (not a bad attribute for a messiah, it has to be said).

In the classical world the division between politics and religion didn't exist in the way it exists for our post-Enlightenment civilisation. Priesthoods were powerful political agents. I think maybe that the story in the gospel when Jesus is asked whether people should pay their taxes to their oppressors, and he replies that one should render unto God what is his and render unto Caesar what belongs to him, is the first statement of why there should be a separation of power between religion and politics. But this is far more likely to be a Roman idea than the idea of an illiterate Nazarene.

[Bronco]

Eh I was always led to believe that it was practically fact Jesus the person did exist, I remember one of my old teacher's saying there's more evidence for his existance than Julius Caeser's

[Hit The North]

Yeah, teachers'll tell you just about anything.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Tacitus and Josephus seem to think he existed. Both also disliked the movement that was started in his name. Tacitus was even nasty about the early Christian Jew movement and called it a disease.

I admit I'm not super knowledgeable about this. Josephus in his "Antiquities of the Jews", a very chatty account of Palestine of the early First century, doesn't mention Jesus. There are Josephus texts that do mention Jesus but they are widely regarded as later Christian forgeries.One of these is believed to have been written by Ireneaus, one of the early "Church Fathers".

I wasn't familiar w/the Tacitus account until just now. It could be valid.It was written about 100 years after Jesus though and it could be based on legends or on stories Christians themselves told.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

This thread does raise a question I sometimes wonder. Why do people who ask these questions only focus on Jesus? What were the politics of Buddha, Mohammed, Zoroaster, etc.? Granted, I know most of the posters here are from the U.S. and Europe so Jesus is the most well known religious thinker, it's just something I sometimes wonder.

Muhammad and his companions expressed views that more or less fall in line with what's been said about Jesus in this thread. They were pretty revolutionary given the context of the society they came out of but would be viewed as reactionary by modern standards for obvious reasons.

Muhammad seems to have had some unique views on animal rights for a man of that age, and Umar had some pretty righteous things to say about defending the downtrodden:

"I will not calm down until I will put one cheek of a tyrant on the ground and the other under my feet, and for the poor and weak, I will put my cheek on the ground."

"By God, he that is weakest among you shall be in my eye the strongest, until I have vindicated for him his rights; he that is strongest I will treat as the weakest, until he complies with the law."

Again nothing about this should be viewed as progressive by us, but Islam has some really awesome history to learn about.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Jesus Crust was used to brain wash people and also to make thousand of war,deaths and so on :

This myths were created when there were really hard times,so the church told people how much jesus suffered and if he suffered so much so can you.
He was used to make people work more and not complain so that they can go to promised land when they die,so that the powerful people will stay on top and they will continue to rule the people forward,....


And jesus was no kind of a revolutionary,not even by a long shot,...what kind of a revolutionary would want to lie to people that there is a promise land out there and if they arent going to listen to his ideas,they will go to hell,and suffer for eternity.


Really fuck religion

[Sixiang]

Jesus (if he existed) was absolutely in no way a revolutionary. He never preached the overthrow of the Roman Empire or the slave economy it protected. Jesus's teachings specifically said to not challenge the Roman Empire. He said "Give Ceasar what is Caesar's and god what is god's." If Jesus were a revolutionary, he would have been calling for an overthrow of the Roman Empire's slavery society and those slave-owning aristocrats in the Roman senate and around the emperor. He never told masters to free their slaves. He told slaves to be obedient, good little servants, and basically used the slave-master relationship as a metaphor for the relationship between believer and god, that you must be an obedient, unquestioning servant to the god and his "messengers on Earth", i.e. the clergy and people like Jesus. Constantine's conversion to Christianity didn't symbolize a revolutionary overthrow of the slave mode of production or the state. Feudalism didn't come to replace slavery as the dominant mode of production in Europe until after the Roman empire fell and the new European states consolidated power under the over-arching papal state.

And religion in and of itself, regardless of whether it preaches you to be revolutionary or passive, loving or hating, is an idealist, metaphysical delusion. They have no material basis and engender reactionary thoughts and it's not wonder that reactionary states embrace them so lovingly. It is used to pacify the masses and to blind them of class consciousness.

[Luís Henrique]

Eh I was always led to believe that it was practically fact Jesus the person did exist, I remember one of my old teacher's saying there's more evidence for his existance than Julius Caeser's

Which says a whole lot more about your "teecher" than about Jesus or Julius Caesar.

There is only one non-Christian source about Jesus, which is a paragraph in Flavius Josephus. And it is dubious whether, a) Josephus' Jesus actually is the same character as the Christian Jesus; and b) Josephus actually wrote the paragraph.

Luís Henrique

[Devrim]

Which says a whole lot more about your "teecher" than about Jesus or Julius Caesar.

There is only one non-Christian source about Jesus, which is a paragraph in Flavius Josephus. And it is dubious whether, a) Josephus' Jesus actually is the same character as the Christian Jesus; and b) Josephus actually wrote the paragraph.

Also Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus, and would have been born after the later had died, if indeed he had ever lived.

With Caesar there are lots of contemporary references, and even two of his own books still in existence.

Devrim

[Devrim]

This thread does raise a question I sometimes wonder. Why do people who ask these questions only focus on Jesus? What were the politics of Buddha, Mohammed, Zoroaster, etc.? Granted, I know most of the posters here are from the U.S. and Europe so Jesus is the most well known religious thinker, it's just something I sometimes wonder.

I think in the case of Mohammed there is less speculation about what he advocated as it is more clear. He was after all running a state.

Devrim

[Philosopher Jay]

Ehrman's defense of an historical Jesus is based on his personal wishes and arguments that are laughable and embarrassing to any atheist who has studied the primary literature.

[Philosopher Jay]

Hi Bronco,

In the 1990's, archaeologists reached a consensus that based on the historical evidence Moses did not exist. At the time, a number of people who had studied the New Testament realized that there was no more evidence for Jesus' existence than Moses. Thus the Jesus Mythicist movement arose. It has made amazing progress in the last 10-15 years and people who believe in an historical Jesus are hard pressed to find any historical evidence for it. There is no evidence for the historical Jesus that does not require squinting and ignoring substantial counter-evidence. For example, Jesus historicists point to the Testimonium of Josephus in his 1st Century work "Antiquities of the Jews." This ignors the substantial evidence that the passage in question was forged and inserted into the work by the Christian historian Bishop Eusebius in the 4th century.






Eh I was always led to believe that it was practically fact Jesus the person did exist, I remember one of my old teacher's saying there's more evidence for his existance than Julius Caeser's

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Jesus Crust was used to brain wash people and also to make thousand of war,deaths and so on :

This myths were created when there were really hard times,so the church told people how much jesus suffered and if he suffered so much so can you.
He was used to make people work more and not complain so that they can go to promised land when they die,so that the powerful people will stay on top and they will continue to rule the people forward,....


And jesus was no kind of a revolutionary,not even by a long shot,...what kind of a revolutionary would want to lie to people that there is a promise land out there and if they arent going to listen to his ideas,they will go to hell,and suffer for eternity.


Really fuck religion

We get that you hate religion, already!

And I think it's wrong to say that Jesus was a construct of an organized church, because the followers of the Christ existed way before any organized church, and they were suffering from a lot of persecution at the time.
But yes, if the Jesus that is described in the New Testament ever existed, he was pretty revolutionary.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Hi Bronco,

In the 1990's, archaeologists reached a consensus that based on the historical evidence Moses did not exist. At the time, a number of people who had studied the New Testament realized that there was no more evidence for Jesus' existence than Moses. Thus the Jesus Mythicist movement arose. It has made amazing progress in the last 10-15 years and people who believe in an historical Jesus are hard pressed to find any historical evidence for it. There is no evidence for the historical Jesus that does not require squinting and ignoring substantial counter-evidence. For example, Jesus historicists point to the Testimonium of Josephus in his 1st Century work "Antiquities of the Jews." This ignors the substantial evidence that the passage in question was forged and inserted into the work by the Christian historian Bishop Eusebius in the 4th century.

This is fascinating. Do you have references or links to books on this? My knowledge of this is scanty. Also what would you , or the consensus of archaeologists in this field think about Vaneigam's idea that the Jesus myth evolved out of post-Diasporic Essene messianism? He also has the idea that the gospels seemed to have emerged as late as the Second Century. Anything to this?

[Luís Henrique]

Jesus historicists point to the Testimonium of Josephus in his 1st Century work "Antiquities of the Jews." This ignors the substantial evidence that the passage in question was forged and inserted into the work by the Christian historian Bishop Eusebius in the 4th century.

I don't think there is any consensus that the Testimonium is a complete forgery. On the contrary, it seems way more probable that the paragraph is authentic, but a few sentences or phrases were interpolated into it ("if it be lawful to call him a man," "He was the Christ," and "for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.")

The problem is, of course, that if we take these phrases and sentences out from the Testimonium, there is little else to suggest that Josephus' text refers to the character we are used to call "Jesus Christ" - basically only the last sentence in the whole paragraph, "the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day". And as it seems to depend on the previous obviously spurious "he was the Christ", it is quite probably an interpolation too. But, even if not, Josephus was writing much at the same time as the Gospels were being composed (certainly little earlier than Matthew or Luke, probably almost at the same time as Mark, perhaps even a little than it), so it would be quite possible that he was merely relating rumours common at the time, not necessarily accurate from a historic point of view. So it is quite possible that the Testimonium is partially authentic, but Jesus was not a historic figure anyway.

Luís Henrique

[Dave B]

The Josephus text on Jesus otherwise known as the Testimonium Flavianum is almost certainly a forgery or possibly an alteration of something else that was there.

Eg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

An early Christian, Origen, who was writing circa 230Ad and had almost certainly read the original Josephus material categorically said that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the christ or whatever.

eg;

Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book X.

17. The Brethren of Jesus



And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." [Gal. i. 19.] And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. [Jos. Ant.]And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.

Which is direct contradiction to what is found in the present version or the Testimonium Flavianum section.

The ‘implication’ is perhaps that Josephus had denied it elsewhere or before; otherwise why mention it.

One theory is that the original Testimonium Flavianum section Josephus said that Jesus was not the christ and that he was a fake and a magician who tricked the people etc and that christian monks later amended it to what we have now.

Later on in Josephus we have the reference to James the brother of Jesus etc. As mentioned by Origen above.

There is a kind of expectation from the text that this “Jesus” as a brother James was referred to earlier on in the Josephus text.

Perhaps in the original un-tampered with Testimonium Flavianum.

Also as above Origen as a scholar, when commenting on Josephus, is categorical that the James mentioned was the brother of ‘the’ Jesus.

And the new testament stuff is clear that Jesus had a brother called James.

And it was this James that wrote another anti rich section in the New testament.

Origen amongst other material wrote a pamphlet called Contra Celsum circa 230Ad which was a response to a vicious attack on christianity written earlier by somebody called Celsum (the latin accusative) or Celsus I suppose.

Origen like any good academic quotes from Celsus profusely and thus provides us with detail of the criticism.

Celsus interestingly does not deny the existance of Jesus instead preferring to mock the idea of a demi god appearing as a lowly carpenter and casting salacious aspersions as to his actual parentage etc

Ie his mother being a whore or having liasons with roman soldier or both, I can’t remember the details.

Celsus also appears to be completely familiar with other details of the story.

Early anti christian Jewish material followed that narrative as well adding in that he was a magician etc; again not challenging his historical existence.

Justyn the martyr writing circa 120Ad also provides, in passing, some detailed accounts of JC as a historical personage eg he was a carpenter who made yokes and ploughs and was born in a cave as opposed to a stable.

Although caves carved out of soft stone were used to stable animals etc.


Again not arguing against an argument over his existence as a historical character, that kind stuff is quite modern.


There was a rapid increase in waged agricultural labour in Palestine in particular following legal and economic changes after the full incorporation into the Roman empire after AD 6.

In fact it was becoming a social and economic problem circa 30AD as small land-owning peasants went into debt to moneylenders to pay taxes and were foreclosed on to become wage workers.

The stuff on supporting slavery was in the christian revisionism of the writings of ‘Saint’ Paul who came from the imperial ruling class and was ex Gestapo.

The stuff on giving money to the Romans, which can be clearly understood from the original was a trap set by competing Judiac organised religion to land him in trouble.

He asked whose head is on the coin, the answer was the emperor who was despised at the time in occupied Judea or whatever.

It was dirty money.

Given that it was a an anti rich pro working class movement it is surprising that any of that content survived at all. Let alone any certain historical evidence.

Tacitus wrote extensively and is regarded as a serious historian including on Boudica which he wrote as the only known source after the event and second hand.


As to the factual and fictional content of the Gospels it misses the point somewhat, it is after all; political.

Just as Orwell’s book Animal Farm is with its talking pigs.

[Dave B]

I just thought as I had nothing better to do to cross check some of the things I said.

The violation and non virginal status of ‘Mary’ from Celsus had a bit more detail than I remembered and it actually goes as far as to name JC’s ‘real’ father as a ‘Panthera’.

Plus the sorcerer stuff.

The later Judiac material can be interpreted as one likes I suppose.

I provide the link to Origens Contra Celsum for interest.

Like Justyn the Martry, Origen considered himself as an intellectual, which they were in their day.

‘Neo’-Platonism might look daft to us today but it was the equivalent quantum mechanics and theoretical physics then.

Justyn the Martyr and Origen where abandoned as forbidden and heretical reading by later christianity by about 500AD I think; for obscure theological reasons,

Apart from by intellectuals.


Origen. Contra Celsus


CHAP. LXIX


He was begotten by one Panthera, who corrupted the Virgin, "because a god's body would not have been so generated as you were." But we have spoken of these matters at greater length in the preceding pages.

CHAP. LXXI


But what reply need be made to him who, while professing to bring foreward credible statements, thinks himself bound to make use of calumnies and slanders against Jesus, as if He were a wicked sorcerer? Such is not the procedure of one who seeks to make good his case, but of one who is in an ignorant and unphilosophic state of mind, inasmuch as the proper course is to state the case, and candidly to investigate it; and, according to the best of his ability, to bring forward what occurs to him with regard to it.


http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen161.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Iulius_Abdes_Pantera



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu

The stuff about JC being an artisan and a Proudhonist simply commodity producer is as below;



Justin Martyr (110-165) Dialogue with Trypho Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson Chapter 88


http://www.logoslibrary.org/justin/trypho/088.html


Not that I would recommend reading Justin Martyr, it is hard work.


I was expecting a fun debate!

[Luís Henrique]

Josephus believed, and explicitly wrote, that the Messiah was the Roman general Vespasianus...

An Arabic version of Josephus' Antiquities has the Testimonium like this:


At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

Which seems much more congruent with what we know about Josephus.

If this is the actual Testimonium, the only things linking Josephus' Jesus to the Gospels' Jesus are his crucifixion by Pilate and his followers belief that he was the Messiah.

We know the dating of Josephus' Antiquities, and it is between 92 and 95 AD. We don't know for sure the dating of the Gospels. Mark is usually dated between 65 and 80 AD, but this reeks of Christian orthodoxy (Mark mentions the destruction of the Temple, which only happened in 70 AD, so any date previous to that implies the text is prophetic, and I don't see any reason that it couldn't be later than 80 AD, or even as late as 100 AD). Matthew and Luke are evidently based on Mark, and John is clearly compiled from the other three, so they are all later. The only texts mentioning "Jesus" that are surely older than the Antiquities are Paul's letters (or at least the authentic ones), in which Jesus seems to be a mystic being, not an actual man, and the Gospel of Thomas, which is a compilation of sayings by Jesus (from which Mark evidently drew heavily when composing his Gospel) but, as opposed to the canonic Gospels (and later apocrypha) has no plot at all.

Luís Henrique

[Dave B]

It has been mentioned that Josephus Flavius stated that Vespasian was they "Messiah" etc. which is sort of true but there is plenty of context.

I am not sure what I am going to do next but I think I am going to slot some Marxist theory into this somewhere later.

One version the relevant quotation is as below.


…….while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, "That then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square." But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination.

Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.


http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Jews/Book_VI

We need to have some idea I think about who Josephus Flavius and Vespasian were.

Josephus Flavius was turncoat and collaborator of imperialist Rome of the first kind, so much so that it is even difficult to find modern historical analogies.

Having initially been a ‘freedom fighter’ himself during the rebellion(s) of late 60AD he then turned and became an intellectual ‘Jewish’ apologist of the Roman imperial occupation.

He was in fact reviled almost entirely by nationalist ‘Jewish’ community and his works were, unfortunately, because of that not revered and preserved within Judaic culture.

No more than one would keep a history of modern England by Lord Haw Haw.

Next perhaps was then current intellectual attitudes amongst the Roman intelligentsia towards Judaism over say 0- 200AD which was the peak, perhaps, of Neo Platonism.

Then; the Roman intelligentsia were almost envious and fascinated with the Judiac religion because it was old, had history and went back a long way, as ancient text etc etc.

And was full of mumbo jumbo as well.

It was I suppose an equivalent of a Roman Da Vinci code and secret and prophetic old knowledge thing.

The Neo Platonic idea was that the Judaic god was real but just a local national deity, but with form and written history.

But probably embarrassed somewhat, on mount Olympus or wherever God’s hangout, by Judaic national chauvinism and hubris that had mistakenly identified him with the supreme being.


There are, were, or is various prophecies in the old testament depending on how you want to interpret them, of say, to reduce it to its basics.


Of an individual coming out of Judea or whatever and ruling the world.


Vespasian, after crushing Jewish Revolt circa 70Ad, by using the ‘English’ imperial method that made Vietnam and Laos actually look like a ‘policing’ action against people that didn’t know what was good for them.

[After having earlier practised it on British first, as a dry run, the bastard!]

Was made emperor and ruler of the world “in Judea”, after crushing the revolt allegedly.

And thus a ‘slam dunk’ and obvious fulfilment of prophecy etc etc.

We don’t need to dwell to much on the real opinions of Vespasian, Josephus Flavius as to whether they really regarded this kind of thing as the fulfilment of prophetic destiny; and Blair’s ‘hand of history’etc.

As far as Josephus Flavius was concerned it was, I am sure just sycophantic intellectual crap, for Vespasian flattery perhaps, and for rest whatever you want to make of it.

Including rationalisation and self delusion as far as the Quisling, Vichy, Judaic ruling class that ran the show afterwards.

{I think the whole thing wasn’t helped by some comets appearing around the same time}.

It would appear in fact that Josephus Flavius was just parroting and following the Murdoc News Corporation party line.

Thus;



There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated for men coming from Judaea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome -as afterwards appeared from the event- the people of Judaea took to themselves.

(Suetonius, Life of Vespasian 4.5)



The majority [of the Jews] were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world. This mysterious prophecy really referred to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, true to the selfish ambitions of mankind, thought that this exalted destiny was reserved for them, and not even their calamities opened their eyes to the truth.

(Tacitus, Histories 5.13)

I have not checked those two quotes out, and there maybe anachronism, but I assume they are ok.

The details of the economic situation in early first century Judea aren’t completely clear and generally haven’t been studied from a Marxist perspective, as far as I know .

However it would appear that the situation prior to say 6Ad was standard or typical from a Marxist paradigm.

The small land-owning peasantry had to pay taxes and tithes to the temple etc etc.

However before 6Ad they appeared to have been paid, as in feudal Europe, as a proportion of product they produced, or in kind ie every sixth, or twelve bushel of corn.

Eg France in the twelfth and thirteenth century.

A bit like pay as you earn in kind, kind of thing.

What the state or ruling class did with it was there business.

The Roman state decided that they wanted cash instead, on a set date, at harvest time to make things easier, which was fair enough.

At harvest time the price of grain crashed, or was lower.

The stupid peasant sold his grain when the price was low; and the clever saving peasant paid his taxes out of his money hoard and waited for the price to rise before he sold his produce.

Next year the stupid peasant couldn’t pay his taxes from selling his grain, borrowed off the clever peasant at interest and went into a debt spiral.

The exact same thing was happening in Russia almost 2000 years later, with the Tasrist state’s increased capitalist ‘whirlpool’ interest in revenue as cash.

The Judaic laws, or the forty year rule, I think it is in Leviticus, on foreclosing on land from debt had been ‘relaxed’ under Roman rule.

So we had Kulak "bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers” in Judea as well as in Russia.

That led ‘suddenly’ to a class, dispossessed of their own means of production, and of agricultural wage labourers and the ‘new rich’.

Blah blah.

I think when you read Origen and Justyn the Martry you can’t help coming to the conclusion that they thought of themselves in their time as steady intellectuals and academics, as opposed to ranting bishops and monks.

It is hard to believe that within intellectual debate that they would make such casual throw-away comments as to the historicity of JC when it was still ‘generationaly’ within oral memory .

There is always the possibility I suppose that Origen and Justyn the Martry have been forged and tampered with itself.

But that would involve a level of sophistication that probably didn’t appear until around 500Ad, when the market for faked documents took off.

[There is a plethora of really quite excellent and sophisticated ones dated from that era.]

Origen and Justyn the Martry was pretty much top shelf stuff by then and not general reading material worth bothering faking.

It would have been fantastic of course if Celsum and such like had denied that such a charcter as JC had existed in order to have read the response.

[Invader Zim]

Tacitus and Josephus seem to think he existed.

No, they both believe that there was a cult at that time that worshipped what they believed to be a historical figure called Jesus. As others have noted, the part of Antiquities that states that Jesus was the Messiah was an outright forgery.

This video is really pretty good in explaining why it is well worth casting a highly critical eye at the idea of a historical jesus.

MvleOBYTrDE

[Dave B]

According to Engels one of the earliest christian documents and certainly one of the maddest was the Revelation according to John.

Which was controversially adopted into the cannon.

And according to that interpretation it was not so much a prophecy but more a kind of ‘Animal Farm’ political commentary on unfolding events at the time.

And Engels dates it from internal evidence at three months before April 15, 69AD.



“From this we see that our Revelation was written under Galba. Probably towards the end of his rule. Or, at the latest, during the three months (up to April 15, 69) of the rule of Otho, "the seventh."

And that was also of course the period immediately preceding and even contemporary to the events recorded by Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus re Vespasian as the fulfilment of ancient Judiac prophecies re world ruler(s) coming out of Judea etc etc.;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespasian


Works of Frederick Engels 1894
On the History of Early Christianity



For the interpretation of these prophecies, as far as they refer to events of that time, we are indebted to German criticism, particularly Ewald, Lücke and Ferdinand Benary. It has been made accessible to non-theologians by Renan. We have already seen that Babylon, the Great Whore, stands for Rome, the city of seven hills. We are told in Chapter XVII, 9-11, about the beast on which she sits that:

"The seven heads" of the beast "are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even. he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition."


According to this the beast is Roman world domination, represented by seven caesars in succession, one of them having been mortally wounded and no longer reigning, but he will be healed and will return. It will be given unto him as the eighth to establish the kingdom of blasphemy and defiance of God. It will be given unto him

"to make war with the saints and to overcome them.... And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb.... And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."
(XII, 7-18.)


We merely note that boycott is mentioned here as one of the measures to be applied against the Christians by the Roman Empire — and is therefore patently an invention of the devil — and pass on to the question who this Roman emperor is who has reigned once before, was wounded to death and removed but will return as the eighth in the series in the role of Antichrist.


Taking Augustus as the first we have: 2. Tiberius, 3. Caligula, 4. Claudius, 5. Nero, 6. Galba. "Five are fallen, and one is." Hence, Nero is already fallen and Galba is. Galba ruled from June 9, 68 to January 15, 69. But immediately after he ascended the throne the legions of the Rhine revolted under Vitellius while other generals prepared military risings in other provinces. In Rome itself the praetorians rose, killed Galba and proclaimed Otho emperor.


From this we see that our Revelation was written under Galba. Probably towards the end of his rule. Or, at the latest, during the three months (up to April 15, 69) of the rule of Otho, "the seventh." But who is the eighth, who was and is not? That we learn from the number 666.

Among the Semites — Chaldeans and Jews — there was at the time a kind of magic based on the double meaning of letters. As about 300 years before our era Hebrew letters were also used as symbols for numbers: a=l, b=2, g=3, d=4, etc. The cabbala diviners added up the value of each letter of a name and sought from the sum to prophesy the future of the one who bore the name, e.g., by forming words or combinations of words of equal value.


Secret words and the like were also expressed in this language of numbers. This art was given the Greek name gematriah, geometry; the Chaldeans, who pursued this as a business and were called mathematici by Tacitus, were later expelled from Rome under Claudius and again under Vitellius, presumably for "serious disorders."

It was by means of this mathematics that our number 666 appeared. It is a disguise for the name of one of the first five caesars. But besides the number 666, Irenaeus, at the end of the second century, knew another reading — 616, which, at all events, appeared at a time when the number puzzle was still widely known. The proof of the solution will be if it holds good for both numbers.

This solution was given by Ferdinand Benary of Berlin. The name is Nero.


The number is based on xxx xxxx Neron Kesar, the Hebrew spelling of the Greek Nerôn Kaisar, Emperor Nero, authenticated by means of the Talmud and Palmyrian inscriptions. This inscription was found on coins of Nero's time minted in the eastern half of the empire. And so — n (nun)=50; r (resh)=200; v (vau) for o=6; n (nun)=50; k (kaph)=100; s (samech)=60; r (resh)=200. Total 666. If we take as a basis the Latin spelling Nero Caesar the second nun=50 disappears and we get 666 - 50 = 616, which is Irenaeus's reading.

In fact the whole Roman Empire suddenly broke into confusion in Galba's time. Galba himself marched on Rome at the head of the Spanish and Gallic legions to overthrow Nero, who fled and ordered an emancipated slave to kill him. But not only the praetorians in Rome plotted against Galba, the supreme commanders in the provinces did too; new pretendants to the throne appeared everywhere and prepared to march on Rome with their legions.

The empire seemed doomed to civil war, its dissolution appeared imminent. Over and above all this the rumour spread, especially in the East, that Nero had not been killed but only wounded, that he had fled to the Parthians and was about to advance with an army over the Euphrates to begin another and more bloody rule of terror. Achaia and Asia in particular were terrified by such reports.

And at the very time at which the Revelation must have been written there appeared a false Nero who settled with a fairly considerable number of supporters not far from Patmos and Asia Minor on the island of Kytnos in the Aegean Sea (now called Thermia), until he was killed while Otho still reigned. What was there to be astonished at in the fact that among the Christians, against whom Nero had begun the first great persecution, the view spread that he would return as the Antichrist and that his return and the intensified attempt at a bloody suppression of the new sect that it would involve would be the sign and prelude of the return of Christ, of the great victorious struggle against the powers of hell, of the thousand year kingdom "shortly" to be established, the confident expectation of which inspired the martyrs to go joyfully to death?v


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm

It is sometimes argued against the Tacitus on christians quote that if it had been true then Tacitus would not have been interested in babbling on about some weird religious ideas originating from the fringes of the empire.

Eg from Tacitus and the relevant quotation;



"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

However I think it is clear from Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus himself elsewhere that there was a general interest in that kind of thing.

And thus of competing ideas re anointed world rulers prophesised in Judaic text etc.

Of course you don’t appear to be allowed to investigate the subject at all without being confronted with allegations of some massive sophisticated christian conspiracy and monkish forgeries, which has some truth though.

More on that later and the apparent less than universal and all embracing level of sophistication.

And you come across double apoplexy from both sides when you speculate that it may have in fact originated from or was an expression of a proto ‘working class’ communist type movement.

But maybe that is the real fun of it.

(it was to become Kautsky’s position in 1908 even though he disputed JC as a historical figure and it was Marx and Engel’s position when they were Feuerbachians prior to 1845. Feuerbach basically argued that Christianity was a ‘subconscious psychoanalytical’ expression or ‘projection’ of a repressed communist, and what was to become, a ‘Darwinian’ Social instinct.)
Eg.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_08_11.htm



Despite anti rich elements within it and other communist ideas eg Acts 4

The Believers Share Their Possessions


32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 ………… was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%204&version=NIV

On forgeries and prophecies there is what C. S. Lewis called;

"the most embarrassing verse in the Bible”

that you would think was just begging to be tampered with or altered ‘later’.


Thus, Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21;


For then there will be great distress, un-equaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
It is pretty clear; basically a prediction that the Second Coming along with a load of you would have thought would be noticeable cosmological fireworks would happen before everybody who was then alive, or alive then, was dead.

Apart from the fact in the first place that you would have to be an idiot to write down a prediction that never happened. ie write that say over a hundred years after the event.

Even given that; you would have thought somebody would have spotted the ‘problem’ and adjusted it later.

There allegedly was an idea that the apostle John would survive until the second coming and perhaps there is something pertinent to that, as an obvious addendum at the end of the Gospel of John.

John 21



22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2021&version=NIV


There is another interpretation of the second coming prophecy; and that the present version itself is tampered with or scrambled.

The original being, more in consistency with the old testament prophecies, that stuff would kick off within a generation of an independent Jewish state etc etc.

And there is the juxtaposition of the lesson of the fig tree, often a metaphor for the Jewish state.

Unless of course there is still somebody from two thousand years ago still wandering about, and all things are possible in christianity I suppose.

But even then on JC’s part it would be a misleading deception.

[Rafiq]

I think in the case of Mohammed there is less speculation about what he advocated as it is more clear. He was after all running a state.

Devrim

Indeed. People may say whatever nonsense they'd like about Jesus being a "radical" (of which, of course, is purely speculation) but in regards to Mohammed, it has been established that this clearly isn't the case. Disregarding the fact that he may have been a plunderer, mass rapist, etc., the politics of Mohammed were clearly in the favor of the upper crust of the Merchant class in Arabia, during his time. Mohammed opposed uprisings on behalf of the lower classes, and wanted a sort of a compromise, i.e. He wanted a "good" king, a "good" slaver who treats his slaves kindly, that the problem with Arabia during the time wasn't really the existence of the according mode of production and all of it's contradictions, the existence of slavery, but "paganism" and a lack of morality. Mohammed was of course, not only an Idealist, but a slavery apologist, in that there is nothing wrong with slavery to him, it's just, slavery needs to be "moral". It's kind of ironic, it reminds me of how western "Left" Liberals say the same about capitalism (or religious leaders of modern times, if you will) that the problem is moral decadency, not contradictions or systemic imparity within the capitalist mode of production. It's really no wonder why Free market scum in Malaysia, like Mahathir Mohamad (who firmly believes that all crises in capitalism are not inherent to it's own systemic defections, but to da jeeewz and bankers like George Soros) recognize the inherent free market mentality within the Quran.

Mohammed for anyone, like a lot of other Eastern spiritualist thinkers during the time and before, is metaphorically a class enemy, and a champion of the ruling classes in the times accordingly (in the same way Spartacus is a champion of the proletariat today, metaphorically).

[IrishLefty]

So I was listening to Woody Guthrie, by the way i'm completely an atheist, and I was wondering if Jesus was somewhat a revolutionary against the roman empire. I mean the bible pretty much says so in almost all the parts Jesus is in it, and all of the theology and mythos that surrounded him came a few decades after he died which makes sense since it's all complete horseshit. I was wondering about any historical evidence of Jesus having radical leftist politics, or any information, or even bible scripture surrounding that theory. I'm not interested in spiritualism.

The Jesus figure as depicted in the Bible is a very revolutionary figure in my opinion. He promoted an anti-materialist, anti-capitalist message, as demonstrated by his casting out of the money changers from the temple. He disdained fundamentalist interpretation of the old testament law, and most importantly, the ideals expounded from his sermon on the mount cried out for a compassionate and communal sense of care for one's fellow human being.

Following in his footsteps, early Christians lived communally, while various revolutionaries from history have learned from his teachings. One must remember that Eugene debs, often referred to the Jesus figure as a form of a revolutionary, while Martin Luther King was obviously heavily influenced by his teachings.

There are holes in the teachings of Jesus, as pointed out by great philosophers like Bertrand Russell.

On a personal note, it was my reading of the words of Jesus that sparked my own drive to become a socialist, as they immediately struck me as truly revolutionary.

"The Man of Galilee, the Carpenter, the workingman who became the revolutionary agitator of his day soon found himself to be an undesirable citizen in the eyes of the ruling knaves and they had him crucified."

-Eugene V. Debs

[RedSonRising]

The Jesus figure as depicted in the Bible is a very revolutionary figure in my opinion. He promoted an anti-materialist, anti-capitalist message, as demonstrated by his casting out of the money changers from the temple. He disdained fundamentalist interpretation of the old testament law, and most importantly, the ideals expounded from his sermon on the mount cried out for a compassionate and communal sense of care for one's fellow human being.

Following in his footsteps, early Christians lived communally, while various revolutionaries from history have learned from his teachings. One must remember that Eugene debs, often referred to the Jesus figure as a form of a revolutionary, while Martin Luther King was obviously heavily influenced by his teachings.

There are holes in the teachings of Jesus, as pointed out by great philosophers like Bertrand Russell.

On a personal note, it was my reading of the words of Jesus that sparked my own drive to become a socialist, as they immediately struck me as truly revolutionary.

"The Man of Galilee, the Carpenter, the workingman who became the revolutionary agitator of his day soon found himself to be an undesirable citizen in the eyes of the ruling knaves and they had him crucified."

-Eugene V. Debs

His legacy as a champion for the poor and dispossessed is most clearly seen and felt within the liberation-theology of Latin America and other religiously inspired anti-capitalist movements like the MST in Brazil.


Indeed. People may say whatever nonsense they'd like about Jesus being a "radical" (of which, of course, is purely speculation) but in regards to Mohammed, it has been established that this clearly isn't the case. Disregarding the fact that he may have been a plunderer, mass rapist, etc., the politics of Mohammed were clearly in the favor of the upper crust of the Merchant class in Arabia, during his time. Mohammed opposed uprisings on behalf of the lower classes, and wanted a sort of a compromise, i.e. He wanted a "good" king, a "good" slaver who treats his slaves kindly, that the problem with Arabia during the time wasn't really the existence of the according mode of production and all of it's contradictions, the existence of slavery, but "paganism" and a lack of morality. Mohammed was of course, not only an Idealist, but a slavery apologist, in that there is nothing wrong with slavery to him, it's just, slavery needs to be "moral". It's kind of ironic, it reminds me of how western "Left" Liberals say the same about capitalism (or religious leaders of modern times, if you will) that the problem is moral decadency, not contradictions or systemic imparity within the capitalist mode of production. It's really no wonder why Free market scum in Malaysia, like Mahathir Mohamad (who firmly believes that all crises in capitalism are not inherent to it's own systemic defections, but to da jeeewz and bankers like George Soros) recognize the inherent free market mentality within the Quran.

Mohammed for anyone, like a lot of other Eastern spiritualist thinkers during the time and before, is metaphorically a class enemy, and a champion of the ruling classes in the times accordingly (in the same way Spartacus is a champion of the proletariat today, metaphorically).

Interesting analysis but I find it odd to classify Mohammed as a "class enemy" (however metaphoric you'd like to interpret him), considering the principles and establishment of the Bayt al-mal was what many consider the first welfare state and financial institution focusing on the securing of basic human needs within communities. His class origins are clearly of the merchant class, but he does seem to challenge-to an extent- the precapitalist hierarchies of the Arab world.

[Luís Henrique]

His legacy as a champion for the poor and dispossessed is most clearly seen and felt within the liberation-theology of Latin America and other religiously inspired anti-capitalist movements like the MST in Brazil.

The MST is a secular movement; anyone can take part of it regardless of religion. It has Catholic members, but also Protestant, non-religious, spiritist, etc., members. Considering its rural nature, it is probably more Catholic in its demographic than the population at large. But the Catholic Church has little say in it.

It is indeed heavily influenced by Liberation Theology, but it certainly isn't controlled by LT priests or non-clerical agents.

Anyway, LT is much more a legacy of a modern reinterpretation of the Gospels than of the Gospels themselves.

Luís Henrique

[Raskolnikov]

and I was wondering if Jesus was somewhat a revolutionary against the roman empire.

Yes. I won't question how you don't know this because you likely haven't had a peep within the Bible - and I don't blame you.

One - look at the quote "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

While most of Christianity (progressive and fundamentalist parts) address this as adhering to the state - it has far more clever undertones. For example - prior to the Pharisees and friends (as stated in Luke, I believe) ask Jesus whether or not the people should be taxed for not believing in the Roman Religion. Take notice that also there was a protest going around whilst they were asking - so let's go into Jesus choice of answers.

If he says yes, we should then the protestors feel alienated and attack him - due to this betrayal. As he, too, was a Jew and the type of Jew that did not profit from the Roman occupation (ala pharisees). But if he said No, then he'd be arrested on the spot.

So - what does he do? He makes a statement seemingly saying "sure whatever, give to Caesar what's his and give to God what's his." But it's more clever than that. From this statement we can clearly see Jesus believes in a 'God'. The 'God'. The 'God' that created everything and anything. Now with this in mind..doesn't everything and anything belong to this God anyways? He did create it. So by default it is 'His'. And who is Caesar? A man. A creation of God that claims to be near or at God's level - but we know this isn't true. He merely temporarily claims to own what God actually owns.

So in reality - he's basically saying "Give everything to God, and nothing to Caesar."

Then there is also his various times of opposing the aristocracy into his sect (with the prince and the rich not being able to easily get into heaven, and their riches needing to be spread amongst the poor to 'follow' Jesus). He also tells his followers that they should prepare for the worst - as in Revolution the family is broken. Father hates son, Son hates mother, Daughter hates Mother and so forth.

You must endure the entire destruction of what you once 'held' dear to, because it likely will be broken and torn apart in a Revolution. For freedom and sovereignty, one must sacrifice what is important. These things come at a hefty price. Robespierre knew this as well.

[Rafiq]

His class origins are clearly of the merchant class, but he does seem to challenge-to an extent- the precapitalist hierarchies of the Arab world.

The point I was trying to put forward is that Mohommad sought to place a human face on these existing hierarchies, not completely abolish them.

[Grenzer]

I was wondering about any historical evidence of Jesus having radical leftist politics, or any information, or even bible scripture surrounding that theory. I'm not interested in spiritualism.

There's not really any solid historical proof that Jesus even existed, let alone did anything; so I can't really help you here.

[Grenzer]

Tacitus and Josephus seem to think he existed. Both also disliked the movement that was started in his name. Tacitus was even nasty about the early Christian Jew movement and called it a disease.

Actually they didn't. If you had actually bothered to read what Tacitus wrote, you'd know that he merely acknowledged this existence of a religious sect which worshipped a man called Chrestus. This is also decades after Jesus' supposed death.

Hardly compelling historical evidence, all things considered.

[Dave B]

Actually you could say that there is not much evidence that Gerrard Winstanley existed apart from fairly recently available writings from him.

They tended not to put the heads of revolutionaries on coins and make statues of them, sigh.

Karl didn’t appear to know about him either or have read his stuff; which is a great pity.

Thus;



There is no” English communism, “for what Weitling”, etc. Thomas More, the Levellers, Owen, Thompson, Watts, Holyoake, Harney, Morgan, Southwell, Goodwyn Barmby, Greaves, Edmonds, Hobson, Spence will be amazed, or turn in their graves, when they hear that they are no communists “for” Weitling went to Paris and Geneva.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch04b.htm


There were some Gerrard Winstanley’s in the records etc but tying him up to one or some of them has been rather speculative.

But for all that he was probably from Lancashire and the outskirts of Manchester, just down the road from me; as did originate the other famous ‘communists’, the Shakers.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm

The Shakers as I have discovered recently were generally widely used as a ‘model’ for communism in early 19th century communist literature.

Despite being otherwise quite mad.

But they did invent the circular saw ( Tabitha Babbit- they were into equality of the sexes as well ) and techno music rave parties.

[Luís Henrique]

[SIZE=3]Actually you could say that there is not much evidence that Gerrard Winstanley existed apart from fairly recently available writings from him.

That, and his baptism in 1609, his marriage to Susan King, his apprenticeship and membership in the Merchant Tailors' Company, his leadership of one of the factions during the English Revolution, his protest to government at the occasion of the destruction of his agricultural project, his obituary in Quacker records, his nomination as Overseer for the Poor in 1660, his election as Chief Constable of Elmbridge in October 1671, etc.

But even if we only had his writings, this would still put him at considerable advantage regarding Jesus of Nazareth, who apparently wrote nothing, or at least nothing that survived.

Luís Henrique

[RedCloud]

You could see it that way.
I believe Jesus also represented socialism in many ways or at the very least the "classic" meaning of socialism/social thought.

Conservatives hate Mark 10:21 because it goes against what they really believe. ;)

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."

I know it might seem stupid to represent a comedy cartoon but you guys ever see that South Park episode where the whole thing basically re-enacts highlights of the Bible?
http://movpod.in/2x6yw4n7g3fm

I think in a way it does seem like that, OP.

Also, in case you haven't seen this:

hQ1vdki-2RY

:laugh:
I love WKUK.