Was Jesus a Rebel Leader?

[RedCeltic]

I noticed that Jesus seems to be a popular topic in philosophy. I don’t see anything wrong with that personally, despite not being a Christian myself.

However, I thought it would be interesting to talk about Jesus in terms of being a human being. Most atheists who understand scientific findings will agree he was at least that, (although Christians say he was that and more.)

As a boy Jesus had grown up in Nazareth, and I had read some stuff about Roman accounts of the time and apparently, while Jesus was growing up, there was a city/town near him that was being built… and than as he was a teenager, it was burned to the ground due to a violent uprising against the Roman and Jewish religious authority that had been seen as being corrupted. (The same thing Jesus had said.)

Also, apparently, there had been many, many “saviors” that had popped up now and then, usually leading one violent uprising or another against the established authority.

Jesus, actually had a major problem with the temple priests in Jerusalem. When he visited the temple there (now only consisting of the wailing wall) Which the dome of the rock sits on… the disciples who wrote all of this after his death, noted that Jesus’ first experience at the temple was not a present one for the young boy. He didn’t realize that much gold was to be found outside of Rome itself. And, later came to realize that the temple authority in Jerusalem that ran the Jewish religion, politics, and banking out of that same building… was completely corrupted.

So, the question in this thread… is… was Jesus in fact an early revolutionary who had been discouraged against a violent revolution out of his boyhood experience, and tried a peaceful revolution that would first liberate the Jewish people from the corruption of the temple priests, and than the Roman invaders… yet his message has been twisted beyond end to mean something completely different from what he had meant?

[Monty Cantsin]

yes i agree with all said he wanted people to worship by liveing their lives like his not being part of a church. every one nows the story were he had a fit in the church market and destroyed the hole thing because of the greed, that he thought the church shouldnt have been part of.

[RedCeltic]

Yeah, see, that's one thing that needs to be realized in talking about Jesus... is that in his time, during Roman Rule, the bank and provential government was housed in the same place as the temple. The Priests there had extreme power. So much in fact the never actually had contact with common people. There were causeways that connected the homes of the Preists to the temple.

What we're talking about is ultimate coruption... and also a period of political termoil.

They also said that Jesus having only 12 deciples was symbolic of his desire to bring the Jewish faith back to it's roots.... reflect on it's greatness and power it once had, and by that gain the power to expell Rome, and bring the religion back to the people.

I also think that saying that Jesus was the son of God, was a ploy to gain support... as many other rebel leaders in the past had claimed to be the Christ. Yet possibly unlike many of them, Jesus had people able to write, and carry out his message... probobly because others focused on recruting fighters.

I think Jesus was a very interesting historical figure. I don't actually think he was a God, however I think if he was alive to day, much of the same people who do awful things in his name would probobly nail him to a cross.

[Ortega]

He is a very interesting figure, quite a martyr, and quite a revolutionary I'd say. I personally don't believe in what he struggled for, but whether or not you agree with his views, you have to admit that he was a revolutionary against the Roman state.

[j.guevara]

I think Jesus was a revolutionary, i also think he was insane. But primitive christianity could be called a form of communism so ill give him credit for that.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 08:18 PM
I think Jesus was a revolutionary, i also think he was insane. But primitive christianity could be called a form of communism so ill give him credit for that.
Jesus being Insane is surely an interesting concept to say the least. Although, myself I wonder if him saying he was the "son of God" and actually leading his followerers to believe this, wasn't just him giving himself the credibility that he thought he might need in order to win the people over. Being a healer surely gained him alot of support and popularity, which I've also heard wasn't uncommon. "healers" were much in need in those troubled times, and there were many who were supposedly known to perform such miricales as he did.

I haven't explored the possiblility that he was insane however... and it is quite possible that he himself actually thought he was the son of God, and had heard vocies.

In a similar vein, I'm quite conviced that Joan of Arc was Scitsofenic... and she may in fact heard voiced in her head that drove her to such madness that she thought that God was talking to her.

This could be a common factor with Jesus, although totally unprovable.

[Ortega]

Jesus could possibly have just been motivated by a wish for the common good, and believed that he felt "god". Or maybe he never claimed to have anything to do with god, maybe his disciples just made that up after his death. When the bible was written, the Christians were looking for new converts, and the story goes that Jesus's disciples exaggerated everything in order to gain followers.

[redstar2000]

I agree that "Jesus" was a rebel...but I think his rebellion was theological and cultural, not political.

By the time "Jesus" was born and grew up, Jewish theology had already become very complex (and would go on to become even more so).

People like "Jesus", "John the Baptist", and probably quite a few anonymous others represented a kind of primitive fundamentalism...a "back to basics" movement within Judaism.

His rebellion probably had cultural elements in it as well; the priestly hierarchy and the wealthy Jewish ruling class in Jerusalem were heavily influenced by Greek and Roman culture...completely alien to the older cultural traditions of the countryside.

Our modern Christian fundamentalists are very much "cut from the same cloth"...they regard New York and Los Angeles as "Babylon"--cesspools of sin and depravity. All of the elaborate Christian theologies built up over the last 1500 years are, in their eyes, "man-made" or even "Satan-made" devices to hide the plain-spoken "word of God".

There is, by the way, some evidence that a certain form of mild epilepsy is connected with "strong religious feelings". It's also been suggested that the "prophetic impulse" derives from a very mild form of schizophrenia--you "hear the voice of the Lord" but you can still function.

I think those are promising avenues of research into the origins of religion.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What kind of rebel says 'give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's'?

[cubist]

hello again, not allowed to do forums at work anymore so my precence will be scarce on this board until i get a new computer for my house, the last one decided that enough was enough and won't turn on just beeps eratically, i know that means something but its old it can stay broken.

Jesus was a punk. thats really it i think if jesus was ere today he would cry about what we humans have turned his ideals into.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 05:45 AM
What kind of rebel says 'give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's'?
Jesus never said that, Paul said it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm pretty sure he said that after being shown a roman coin.

[cubist]

Mathew 22 NIV
Paying Taxes to Caesar

15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

Mathew 22 KJV talking to jesus
17Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.


as you see it was jesus who said it

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 03:47 PM
Mathew 22 NIV
Paying Taxes to Caesar

15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

Mathew 22 KJV talking to jesus
17Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.


as you see it was jesus who said it
Yes, that was obviously a subversive action. Jesus was saying give Caeser what is Caesers but also give to God what is God's. Obviously Jesus was saying that God superceds Caeser. Yet he worded it to be legal and get away with it. Also, he threw it in the face of his accusers. Jesus knew what he was doing. People that say Jesus wasn't rebeling agaisnt the government (and theiocracy) are making it up. There is only support for this conclusion, historically through many records. I'd say Jesus was a revolutionary, different but like so many before him. Crazy, maybe but it worked for his so it seems almost irrelivant.

[RedCeltic]

Oh... I had always thought Paul said that. My mistake.

[hazard]

RC:

thats an excellent question

without seeing what everybody else wrote, the base elements present an interestng case on paper

like you got JC and his guerrilla's, the apostles

they walk around from town t town, under the roman's noses, instigating riots

until finally one of JC's top guerrilla's is bought out by the roman dollar and the guerrilla leader is put to death because all the people he was forcing into rioting were going to riot if he didn't get killed

seems ironic, no? YES

[ComradeRed]

without a doubt ,Jesus was a leader of a "cult", for a lack of a better word, of people of the jewish faith promoting non violent resistance. If they were caught then they'd go to heaven for helping spread religious tolerance, from my understanding. However, since the fall of the roman empire, christianity wandered aimlessly throughout time thus far.

[hazard]

yeah, well, early christianity WAS a cult

like all new religions until they gain popular support

the christians were persecuted and sent into the sewers to perfrom pseudo vampiric rituals at its earliest intervals

also, early christians refused to reproduce not just because JC was a virgin, but because they believed the world was too evil to bring children into. additionally, they were certain that JC would return as "the destroyer" very soon so why bother having kids just so they can be birthed into an apocalyptic nightmare?

naturally, these bizarre cult like beliefs were phased out when the Roman empire made christianity its national religion

[ComradeRed]

Byzantine Empire

Byzantine Empire, successor state to the Roman Empire (see under Rome), also called Eastern Empire and East Roman Empire. It was named after Byzantium, which Emperor Constantine I rebuilt (A.D. 330) as Constantinople and made the capital of the entire Roman Empire. Although not foreseen at the time, a division into Eastern and Western empires became permanent after the accession (395) of Honorius in the West and Arcadius in the East.
and the division of the roman empire

The division of East and West was resumed after the death (337) of Constantine I, who moved the capital to Byzantium, renamed Constantinople. By the Edict of Milan (313), Constantine granted universal religious tolerance, thus placing Christianity on the same footing as the other religions. He divided the empire administratively into prefectures, dioceses, and provinces; the bishops thus gained great influence and shared in the authority of the civil administration. There was a brief resurgence of paganism under Julian the Apostate, but Christianity was securely established.

so ROME never officially accepted christianity as the official religion, but divided the empire into two seperate ones, and the eastern one, namely christians, decided that christianity would be the official religion; however, when it was accepted, it was the Byzantine empire, no longer rome.

quod erat demonstrandum
:redstar2000:

[hazard]

um, where, or, um, how do you draft the conclusion you make from either of your quotations?

it is a well known historical fact that christianity was spread to the world due largely to the influence of the romans. who DID maintain religious tolerance to ALL religions, except for cults, at ALL times. this tolerance is not the same as endorsing a religion as an official state religion. the romans did make christinaity the official state religion. end of discussion.

[Rasta Sapian]

of course Jesus was a rebel activist, his pleight was in the name of God!

how could you argue with that, it was devine intervention....

he was a prophet, trying to show people the way to a more complete life on earth, peace on earth ;)

His opposition was that of the Roman civilization, and a jewish/zionist movement who belived in one almighty God, but not in mortality, ie. they beleived that Jesus could not be the true son of God born from a virgin mother who communicated with angles! :huh:

The evolution of God and his plans, later gave rise to christianity.

Long after the prophet Jesus Christ was tortured, died and buried.

fuck ya, jesus kicked ass, and if came back he would still be the son of God, and those of you who appose religion as Jesus would now! would all be followers, waiting for a miricle to happen!

peace yall

[LSD]

uh huh....right.....and yet no one can prove he ever existed.......

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 19 2004, 08:07 PM
uh huh....right.....and yet no one can prove he ever existed.......
That's not true, there's plenty of historical evidence that Jesus as a person did in fact live. This can be found in census records (Mary and Joseph were in fact on their way to regester for the census when she had Jesus) and many writings about the man, both by his supporters and his critics. Also don't forget that he had brothers that were also fairly known.

The two things I see as having little proof are 1) if he really was the son of a supreme being, and 2) if he really said everything the bible says he said.

Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John... very well may have agreed upon some fabrications of the story, however to say that the fabricated the entire existance of the person, than to go back in time and fabricate census records, and have Roman officials fabricate their records, and than go so far as the have the historian Josephous fabricate his records... is almost as far fetched as believing that Noah built a ship as large as the Titanic and put two of every species on the planet onto it.

[cubist]

islam recognises jesus as a prophet too, had a conversation with a turk once when i was a christian we were talking about the differences in our faiths

[Se7en]

A few things on this topic..which I might add is an interesting one.

Jesus, The Revolutionary or Jesus, The Christ? Revolutionary hands down.

First, it is absolutely necessary to remember that Jesus was raised Jewish and lived a Jewish life (most likely of the Pharisean sect, despite what the anti-semitic New Testament would lead one to beLIEve). This is of the utmost importance when considering anything the Bible claims he said or did, or that following theologians claimed he said or did that were not of a Jewish nature.

Second, Jesus' revolution was religious, cultural, and political.

Third, I would like to address the idea of Jesus (Yeshua, Yehoshua) calling himself the 'Son of God.' The term was not uncommon nor blasphemous in the first century. Everyone was/is a Son or Daughter of God. Jesus' references to this title held no specific meaning.

Fourth, "The Christ" or "The Messiah." Both terms translate to "The Annointed One." In Jewish theology, the Messiah was to be a HUMAN that would lead the Jewish people out of oppression and into a time of peace and prosperity for all mankind. This Messiah would also reestablish the throne of the Jewish Monarchy. This was Jesus' goal and he had hoped that his non-violent approach would be rewarded by God in the manner of expelling the Romans from Palestine. God didn't follow through though..."why have you forsaken me?" The idea of a god-man dying for the sins of the world has never been a Jewish concept. Its origins lie in the allegorical ancient worship of the sun as well as in the pagan mystery cults of central europe/asia.

Fifth, the Nazoreans (the first "Christians") continued after Jesus' death as a sect of Judaism and not as a new religion. Paul (or at least the writings in the NT signed with his name) and Rome helped to create "Christianity" as we know it today.

Sixth, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John absolutely cannot be taken at face value. We must remember that they were back-written over the historic life of Jesus to further the theological goals of each writer.

That's all for now.

EDIT: It's also ironic that Jesus' hebrew name of Yeshua roughly translates to "YHVH is salvation" and yet Jesus is the one that so many came to rely on for their salvation. YHVH being the Hebrew tetragram that Jews believe represents the Supreme Being's formal title.

[LSD]

That's not true, there's plenty of historical evidence that Jesus as a person did in fact live.

There are no contemporary reports of Jesus existing.

Even the earliest manuscript of the New Testament was written a generation after Jesus's alledged crucifiction.


This can be found in census records (Mary and Joseph were in fact on their way to regester for the census when she had Jesus)

I'm assuming you'r talking about the census of Luke 2:2, which claims that a census was held at the birth of Christ.

1) Luke's solution is a worldwide census decreed by Caesar Augustus when Quirinius was governor of Syria (2:1) -- unfortunately, such a census (which would have had to occur ca. 5 B.C.) cannot be documented in any other ancient source. According to ancient records, Quirinius, who became governor of Syria in A.D. 6, conducted a census of Judea, but not of Galilee, in A.D. 6-7. Attempts to reconcile Luke 2:1 with the facts of ancient history are hopelessly contrived.

2) Since no census was conduced, certainly no records exist today.



and many writings about the man, both by his supporters and his critics.

All of which are either hearsay accounts, and are written well after Jesus's reported death.

There are no authentic contempory accounts.


however to say that the fabricated the entire existance of the person

Certainly not unprecidented in religuous history.


than to go back in time and fabricate census records, and have Roman officials fabricate their records

1) There was no Census in 754 AUC or 750 AUC

2) Besides, as to fabricating records, time travel is hardly needed. When the Church controlled all of Europe (let's say 500 - 1500).........it's called doctoring.......


and than go so far as the have the historian Josephous fabricate his records

Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus was born in 37 C.E!!! After the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, and wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E. after the first gospels were written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay, and the available evidence suggests that his references to Jesus (and there are only two) were fabricated later. Josephus would not have called Jesus "the Christ" or "the truth." Whoever wrote these phrases was a Christian. Josephus was a messianic Jew and never converted to Christianity. Plus the mentions of Jesus do not appear in any early copy of Antiquities, and only appear after the FOURTH
century, not to mention that the primary paragraph about Jesus is out of context with the rest of the section.


is almost as far fetched as believing that Noah built a ship as large as the Titanic and put two of every species on the planet onto it.

Hey, prove me wrong. But as of right now, there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed.

And believe me, if it existed, the Church would be using it as we speak.

It doesn't, they aren't, and Jesus (in all likelyhood) is just another good old fashioned mythical invention to add to the pile.

Appollo, Zeus, Thor, Odin, Asgard, Xibalba, God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.......

Amen.

[pocketfullofshells]

Xibalba isn' real????