Communist views on Jesus Christ..

[R_P_A_S]

What is the typical views or beliefs of Jesus Christ from most Communist?

[More Fire for the People]

Jesus was most likely a kind of layman's pastor turned ‘radical’. However, he signifies the proper union of Judaism and pre-Chritsian pagan beliefs. Jesus himself* was progressive only in his historical epoch. His followers were thoroughly reactionary though, especially Paul seeing as Paul was the formalizer of Christ’s message. In many ways Christians rolled back women’s ‘rights’ as priestesses, goddesses, etc.

*There are no writings by Jesus only writings about Jesus from people who had brief or no encounters with him.

[which doctor]

Since most communist have been materialists, their views on Jesus Christ have been negative.

[violencia.Proletariat]

That he is a folklore and probably didn't exist. If he did, he would be opposed like all modern day lunatic preachers.

[Tommy-K]

There is substantial proof that Jesus existed. The only thing there is not proof for is that he was the son of God. The only thing we have to go on in that respect is the Bible, which obviously Christians have faith in. They believe it, but it cannot be proved, hence the term 'faith'.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 4 2006, 10:32 AM
There is substantial proof that Jesus existed.
I missed that documentry.

Anyway, assuming Jesus did exist (which isn't an assumption you should normally make) , he wasn't the only guy making the blind see, and walking on water. There were loads of 'magical people' documented, as impressing the scientifically uneducated and backward masses of Judea with their tricks - I guess it didn't take much back then. Like Apollonius (http://www.apollonius.net/bibliography.html)

[Whitten]

Jesus? WHo cares. If he existed, he was nothing special.

[Sadena Meti]

In historical context, there is enough evidence (from pre-christian roman and non-christian hebrew sources) to assume the "Historical Jesus" existed (Ravi Y'shua ben Yeoseph) But all that can be said historically was "there was some guy who was around at that time and that place and preached some alternate form of Judaism and probably was executed." That's about all that can be said with certainty.

The further you move away from that, the more conjecture is involved. But you can move a bit further without getting into fiction. From a communist view, one might say he was a utopian, though if you look more directly at the "actual statements" Y'shua made (which of course are all third hand), he was an apocalyptic. He believed that the kingdom of God was going to show up (glances at watch) any time now. In fact the early Christians had a tradition, that when they gathered for "mass" (not like it is now), during the service they would stop and send one person outside to look at the sky and see if the Second Coming was happening.

So the revolutionary teachings of Y'shua relied on all action being taken by a supernatural force. Thus, not highly compatible with revolutionary communism.

I guess in summary, I'd say the Jesus was a nice guy who preached against materialism and in favor of communal living and property, and advocated positive humanism, but taught supernatural apocalyptic revolution, which is why the Zealots (using that term in the historical context) hung out with him.

So, nice attitude, impractical plan.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by Love Underground+Sep 4 2006, 11:43 AM--> (Love Underground @ Sep 4 2006, 11:43 AM)
Tommy-[email protected] 4 2006, 10:32 AM
There is substantial proof that Jesus existed.
I missed that documentry.

Anyway, assuming Jesus did exist (which isn't an assumption you should normally make) , he wasn't the only guy making the blind see, and walking on water. There were loads of 'magical people' documented, as impressing the scientifically uneducated and backward masses of Judea with their tricks - I guess it didn't take much back then. Like Apollonius (http://www.apollonius.net/bibliography.html) [/b]
Tacitus is fairly good evidence that a man existed and riled up the people against Romans at about the time of "Jesus". Son of a god though? no evidence for that at all, nor for the miracles.


My view on him? he makes it too easy to control people so I don't like a lot of things about him for that reason. However, I do think some of his "teachings" could be of benefit to humans in much the same way as Tolstoy's short stories can contain decent morals even if you don't believe in the existence of a god.

[violencia.Proletariat]

There is substantial proof that Jesus existed.

Where? The christian jesus was somehow forgotten for 40 years until Paul. This person who did actually exist can not even be linked to the bible story since it was developed long after their demise.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 04:08 PM
Tacitus is fairly good evidence that a man existed and riled up the people against Romans at about the time of "Jesus". Son of a god though? no evidence for that at all, nor for the miracles.

Tacitus also lived after Jesus.

[Forward Union]

JESUS CHRIST!

"The Christian charity Breakfast Trust are upset because some switched-on, street-wise kid asked why Mary and Joseph named their baby after a swear word! So they have spent. £200,000 making a 30-minute animated film called “It’s A Boy!”, featuring the voices, of among others, Cannon and Ball, with music by the celestial Wanker Virgin Sir Cliff Richard! A copy is being sent to every primary school in Wales. Geraint Davies, secretary of the teachers’ union NASUWT thinks it’s a good resource and should be widely used in the run up to Christmas. The indoctrination of children with a fictitious story about the birth of Jesus (the Xmas story) is rather perverted and sick considering Jesus never actually existed as a person.

Yes, that’s right, he’s a construct. A myth! If you want proof check out Brian Flemming’s revealing film “The God Who wasn’t There” at www.thegodmovie.com. You will discover that the early founders of Christianity seem wholly unaware of the idea of a human Jesus. The Jesus of the Gospels bears a striking resemblance to other ancient heroes and figureheads of pagan saviour cults.

Christianity borrowed its central myths and ceremonies from ancient religions. The ancient world was rife with tales of virgin births, miracle working saviours, tripartite gods, gods taking human form, gods arising from the dead, heaven and hells, and days of judgement.

Many of the ceremonies of ancient religions match those of Christianity, e.g. consider Mithraism. Mithra, the saviour of the Mithraic religion and a god who took human form, was born of a virgin. He belonged to a holy trinity and was a link between heaven and earth. And he ascended into heaven after his death.

His followers believed in heaven and hell, looked forward to a day of judgement and referred to Mithra as “the light of the world”. They also practised baptism (for purification purposes) and ritual cannibalism - the eating of bread and the drinking of wine to symbolize the eating and drinking of he god’s body and blood. Given all this Mithra’s birthday should come as no surprise: December 25th. This event was celebrated by Mithra’s followers at midnight.

But Christians today aren’t obsessed with blood and violence, are they? Bush: “God Told Me to Invade Iraq”. Now this cruel and bloodthirsty religion is to be used to corrupt our children. Jesus Christ indeed!"

Afed's monthley bullitin "resistance" Issue 80

[Okocim]

Originally posted by Love Underground+Sep 4 2006, 05:36 PM--> (Love Underground @ Sep 4 2006, 05:36 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 04:08 PM
Tacitus is fairly good evidence that a man existed and riled up the people against Romans at about the time of "Jesus". Son of a god though? no evidence for that at all, nor for the miracles.

Tacitus also lived after Jesus. [/b]
regardless, he would have used imparticial primary Roman sources in his research which had no reason to lie in favour of christians.


ps. I love your avatar. :)

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 05:00 PM
regardless, he would have used imparticial primary Roman sources in his research which had no reason to lie in favour of christians.


Well, where are these sources today? he didn't mention any in his works, so one would assume the only resource he used was the bible, but this is a bit of an en passe really.


ps. I love your avatar. :)

thanks :)

[Okocim]

Originally posted by Love Underground+Sep 5 2006, 03:56 PM--> (Love Underground @ Sep 5 2006, 03:56 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 05:00 PM
regardless, he would have used imparticial primary Roman sources in his research which had no reason to lie in favour of christians.


Well, where are these sources today? he didn't mention any in his works, so one would assume the only resource he used was the bible, but this is a bit of an en passe really.


ps. I love your avatar. :)

thanks :)[/b]
Tacitus did mention a few of his sources by name - Pliny the elder, Fabius Rusticus and Cluvius Rufus off the top of my head. I seriously doubt that he will have read the bible, mainly because the bible's new testament was written between AD45 and AD140 and he probably started writing in his 20s so c.AD79 - ie. when half the new testament hadn't even been written yet. :P Secondly, he was a Roman, why the hell would he give a damn about Christians? He only mentioned a figure which could fit "Jesus" as a side thought and certainly not in any huge detail. Of course, none of this means Jesus was the son of a god or that his miracles happened or anything, but I definitely think he existed as a historical troublemaker.

(dylan moran = teh secks. :wub: )

[Umoja]

Jesus is something to be admired for a practical reason. He was able to change traditional jewish teachings (he taught nothing new per se) into a way that common people were able to relate to. That's why he was so influential in Palestine at the time, and that's why he's such an important figure. Maybe leftist should take the example from Jesus and learn how to change complicated concepts and apply them to the masses?

Take all the good parts, and throw away the shit.

[Clarksist]

There is substantial proof that Jesus existed.

Thanks for the sources.


Tacitus is fairly good evidence that a man existed and riled up the people against Romans at about the time of "Jesus". Son of a god though? no evidence for that at all, nor for the miracles.

I think not: http://www.bandoli.no/whyjesus.htm

Don't take that as it is alone, but think of it as, a crack in the foundation. ;)


He was able to change traditional jewish teachings (he taught nothing new per se) into a way that common people were able to relate to.

Nothing new? I would say changing "an eye for an eye" to turning to the other cheek is a pretty big fucking difference.

Unless your saying nothing new, in the context of the entire history of the world up to that time, in which the Asian sages had covered all that ground and more before then.


Maybe leftist should take the example from Jesus and learn how to change complicated concepts and apply them to the masses?

Hardly a reason to "admire" Jesus. I mean, maybe we should "admire" actual leftist revolutionaries who did bring the concepts to the masses.

[Umoja]

Clark,

All I meant was that Jewish teachers at the time were saying similar things as Jesus, they aren't nearly as famous.

And going with my previous statements, the figure of Jesus is only worthwhile for his positive elements. There is no reason to throw him away as complete trash, when we can take aspects of his character that are positive, and just disassociate the negative. It's similar to people calling Jung anti-semetic, but we still acknowledge he created a lot of useful psychological work (or maybe not, I'm trying to be illustrative.).

[Revulero]

who cares???He is just some freaky hippy radical that the cappies worship

[Umoja]

Look I'm an atheist, I'm just saying, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you can find something positive, just focus on that, and throw away the negative. Besides, it's not like hippies are exactly 'friends' of capitalist society, so I don't see a problem with people taking an example from some aspects of Jesus personality.

[Cobber]

I cannot take credit for this piece of writing although I wish I could, as it sums up the paradox of my beliefs. The following are the lyrics to the song "Comrade Jesus Christ” by an indigenous Australian singer/songwriter Kev Carmody.

He was born in Asia Minor,
a colonized Jewish man.
His father the village carpenter,
worked wood in his occupied land.
He was apprenticed to his father's trade.
His country paid it's dues;
to the colonial Roman conquerors,
He was a working-class Jew.
Though conceived three months out of wedlock
the stigma never stuck.
He began a three year public life
but he never made a buck
because he spoke out against injustice;
saw that capitalism bled the poor.
He attacked self-righteous hypocrites
and he condemned the lawyers' law.
But they've commercialised his birthday now;
the very people he defied,
and they've sanctified their system
and claim he's on their side!
But if he appeared tomorrow,
He'd still pay the highest cost,
being a 'radical agitator'
they'd still nail him to a cross.
You see He'd stand with the down trodden masses,
identify with the weak and oppressed.
He'd condemn the hypocrites in church pews,
and the affluent, arrogant West.
He'd oppose Stalinist totalitarianism;
the exploitation of millions by one,
and 'peace' through mutual terror,
and diplomacy from the barrel of a gun.
He'd fight with Joe Hill and Walesa,
Mandela and Friere;
Try to free the third world's millions
from hunger and despair.
He'd stand with the peasants
at the pock-marked walls;
They'd haul him in on bail.
He'd condemn all forms of apartheid,
and he'd rot in their stinking jails.
He'd denounce all dictatorships
and Mammon's greed,
and the exploitation of others for gain.
He'd oppose the nuclear madness,
and the waging of wars in His name.
He'd mix with prostitutes and sinners,
challenge all to cast the first stone.
A compassionate agitator,
one of the greatest the world has known.
He'd condemn all corrupt law and order,
tear man made hierarchies down.
He'd see status and titles as dominance
and the politics of greed he'd hound.
He'd fight against the leagues of the Ku Klux Klan,
and the radical, racist right.
One of the greatest humanitarian socialists
was comrade, Jesus Christ.

If you want to know more about Kev Carmody, check out his website http://www.kevcarmody.com.au/ for details about the man and his music.

[Goatse]

Some Christians might tell you there's evidence for Jesus Christ's existence, but the evidence is actually very obscure and Jesus is likely to never have existed, certainly not in the form most people picture him.

[Umoja]

It's pretty ridiculous to claim Jesus didn't exist, and claim that someone like Socrates existed. They both had followers who wrote about them, and neither of them left writtings. Clearly Jesus was exagerrated, but was Socrates?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 10:36 PM
It's pretty ridiculous to claim Jesus didn't exist, and claim that someone like Socrates existed. They both had followers who wrote about them, and neither of them left writtings. Clearly Jesus was exagerrated, but was Socrates?
There are many contemporary sources that mention his existence. The same cannot be said about Jesus.

There is not one contemporary source on Jesus. Not one. The best you have is a religious document started several decades after his death and similarly timed Tacitus in Rome on the new cult springing up.

To be honest though its not really an issue for me. Whether this rabbi existed or not has very little to do with the religion that Paul of Tarsus would dream up.