Jesus was a political revolutionary, not a religious leader

[The Coup]

Not talking about the bible, or the Abrahamic theological interpretation of Jesus the Christ/Christus, Son of God.

But Jesus the person. The historical figure. A lot of people (incorrectly) claim that there's no evidence of Jesus, and by comparison to figures like Mohammad its true there is less to go on with the life of Jesus.

Academic Reza Aslan wrote a book about him recently from a historical point of view based off what the Romans recorded and did to Jesus.

The gist of the argument is thus:

Jesus was born in Palestine and crucified, as was his brother James
He and his followers attacked money changers and tax collectors violently due to their effect on the poor
Crucifixion at the time was reserved strictly for crimes against the state
The "thieves" he were crucified with, were actually "bandits" and at the time the term "bandit" meant "revolutionary" or "secessionist"

So by knowing that Jesus was born, that he attacked bankers, and he was killed via crucifixion (these are the only widely agreed upon facts we know about Jesus the figure) we get a picture of what is basically a socialist revolutionary or a modern day occupy movement leader.

 

[Gough]

I saw Crosby, Stills and Nash about twenty five years ago, David Crosby still had his orignal liver, and one of the things that stays with me was Stephen Stills, during For What it's Worth, describing Jesus Christ as the first non-violent revolutionary.

 

[Redalert]

Seems like a tenuous link at best. Not trying to be disrespectful here but this is what I mean by mixing history and politics, it seems more like revisionism to suit an agenda than actual verifiable history.

 

[The Coup]

Seems like a tenuous link at best. Not trying to be disrespectful here but this is what I mean by mixing history and politics, it seems more like revisionism to suit an agenda than actual verifiable history.

Well there simply isn't a lot of verifiable history around JC. We know he was born, he was a ratbag, and he was executed.

But the key thing is the crucifixion and the identity of the guys he was crucified with. As I said, if its reserved for political dissidents and revolutionaries it tells you a lot about how Jesus was actually seen at the time. Theres much more of a Spartacus/Ned Kelly element by the look of it - it also helps explain why his "religion" contains no actual quotes of his (the "J Document" has never been found - google it) and why Christianity took off hundreds of years after his death, in support of a rigidly class based hierarchy (which seems completely at odds with everything he preached).

 

[The Coup]

I saw Crosby, Stills and Nash about twenty five years ago, David Crosby still had his orignal liver, and one of the things that stays with me was Stephen Stills, during For What it's Worth, describing Jesus Christ as the first non-violent revolutionary.

The only hint/mention of violence attributed to JC is forcefully removing the bankers from the temple (and that is likely a metaphor to demonstrate that man can not be 'holy' or 'complete' with the presence of lending in society).

Yet he was brutally executed, and specifically singled out.

The Romans didn't do that to the thousands of other street preachers at the time - why JC?

And if crucifixion was reserved for dissidents, then the way he died really does challenge the notion of the Catholic Church itself.

 

[Redalert]

Of course he would have been crucified, he went around claiming he was the son of god, how else do you show someone's lack of divinity than by executing them? He would have been an incredibly unstable influence on the Empire, because unlike those street preachers he actually got popular.

 

[The Coup]

Of course he would have been crucified, he went around claiming he was the son of god, how else do you show someone's lack of divinity than by executing them? He would have been an incredibly unstable influence on the Empire, because unlike those street preachers he actually got popular.

I think that's the point though: there was heaps of people running around saying they were the son of god at the time, they didn't get crucified

There was clearly something "extra" about Jesus and James Christ that got them crucified alongside two known revolutionaries.

 

[Richard Pryor]

I think that's the point though: there was heaps of people running around saying they were the son of god at the time, they didn't get crucified

There was clearly something "extra" about Jesus and James Christ that got them crucified alongside two known revolutionaries.

He was obviously a very charismatic figure (or figurehead), some aspects of Christianity have a lot in common with a cult of personality centred around Jesus Christ.

 

[little graham]

JC was many things. Most notably a trained sorcerer. All sorcerers are socialists and pacifists. I doubt many here understand these people or know this of JC.

There is no evidence of an event in his life that sent him on a path of enlightenment, for him to be purely spiritual in nature, unless of course he was acutely aware of how the evil the system was that ruled his native Palestine. I doubt many here understand what is to occur before one can be enlightened.

More of a princess leah type of revolutionary.

 

[The Coup]

Oh wait the other thing totally confirmed known about him was that he was baptised by John the Baptist (this was a big deal apparently)

No idea what little graham is on about in relation to sorcery btw. First I've heard of it.

I do think it makes sense (the socialist thing) considering he disappeared from childhood to adulthood and was working as a chippie. Took him 15-20 years of working on job sites to realise capitalism was bullshit and interest on lending is evil.

Probably saw a few bad OH&S incidents, and started the world's first trade union and got mythologised.

 

[placebo]

Whenever people try to fit historical (or non-historical figures) into modern day political framework that didn't exist in any familiar way in the time they were from, it's always best to not take it seriously, because it's bullshit, and largely self-serving nonsense from self-righteous twit-Oh…oh…it's an rj thread…that explains it.

 

[The Coup]

Are you jelly that I know things placebo? That's what you're saying with that post anyway.

 

[little graham]

Whenever people try to fit historical (or non-historical figures) into modern day political framework that didn't exist in any familiar way in the time they were from, it's always best to not take it seriously, because it's bullshit, and largely self-serving nonsense from self-righteous twit.

Are you talking about Howard and Abbotts recent musings over Menzies?

 

[The Coup]

Of course he would have been crucified, he went around claiming he was the son of god, how else do you show someone's lack of divinity than by executing them? He would have been an incredibly unstable influence on the Empire, because unlike those street preachers he actually got popular.

Its a discussion about a book written by a widely respected and circulated academic - and his historical interpretation of Jesus the historical person, based on historical fact.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Whenever people try to fit historical (or non-historical figures) into modern day political framework that didn't exist in any familiar way in the time they were from, it's always best to not take it seriously, because it's bullshit, and largely self-serving nonsense from self-righteous twit-Oh…oh…it's an rj thread…that explains it.

This. The reality is that Jesus has been appropriated by plenty and the guy hasn't had a lot to say for himself and we should really leave it there.

 

[The Coup]

This. The reality is that Jesus has been appropriated by plenty and the guy hasn't had a lot to say for himself and we should really leave it there.

That is actually kind of the point of the thread though, its based on the only historical facts that we really know about Jesus

 

[little graham]

This. The reality is that Jesus has been appropriated by plenty and the guy hasn't had a lot to say for himself and we should really leave it there.

He's said plenty.

 

[Redalert]

Its a discussion about a book written by a widely respected and circulated academic - and his historical interpretation of Jesus the historical person, based on historical fact.

Very debatable. The author is an Associate Professor of Creative Writing and has no historical credentials whatsoever. But in any case, I'm out.

 

[The Coup]

Very debatable. The author is an Associate Professor of Creative Writing and has no historical credentials whatsoever. But in any case, I'm out.

He's got a masters in theological studies from Harvard, three other degrees and speaks biblical era ancient greek.

 

[placebo]

Are you talking about Howard and Abbotts recent musings over Menzies?

No.

I was talking about anyone who appropriates historical (Or, again, non-historical) figures for their own political ends, when the parallels between the two eras don't even exist in any logical form, and also people…who you know, know as much about history, theology, and philosophy as I do about pleasing a woman - very little.

 

[clogged]

He built my hot rod.

 

[little graham]

No.

I was talking about anyone who appropriates historical (Or, again, non-historical) figures for their own political ends, when the parallels between the two eras don't even exist in any logical form, and also people…who you know, know as much about history, theology, and philosophy as I do about pleasing a woman - very little.

 

[Slax]

JC was many things. Most notably a trained sorcerer. All sorcerers are socialists and pacifists. I doubt many here understand these people or know this of JC.

There is no evidence of an event in his life that sent him on a path of enlightenment, for him to be purely spiritual in nature, unless of course he was acutely aware of how the evil the system was that ruled his native Palestine. I doubt many here understand what is to occur before one can be enlightened.

More of a princess leah type of revolutionary.

Never heard of this one before in all my studies, would be interested in a link though.

I have come across numerous different papers on Jesus christ as a revolutionary figure, hence his punishment. Crucifixition was reserved for three types of people, enemies of the state - revolutionaries, spies, etc.; the most henious crimes and for slaves guilty of crimes. It was used to deter people from acting in a similar manner and as the OP says preachers were extremely common, especially in the more remote parts of the empire.

The fact he was singled out, flogged and forced to carry his cross (which would of actually only been the cross beam) to his execution was something done to make an example out of him. It is clear that they wanted to inflict servere pain on him before he died which would of been achieved.

Revolutionaries come in different ways, peaceful and non-peaceful, neither were tolerated. Take say a figure like Martin Luther-King, a revolutionary, but him into a Roman style society and it is easy to see how someone who speaks so well and quickly gather the support of the masses and why then the state would want to make sure they publicly executed and humiliated him.

 

[little graham]

Never heard of this one before in all my studies, would be interested in a link though.

I have come across numerous different papers on Jesus christ as a revolutionary figure, hence his punishment. Crucifixition was reserved for three types of people, enemies of the state - revolutionaries, spies, etc.; the most henious crimes and for slaves guilty of crimes. It was used to deter people from acting in a similar manner and as the OP says preachers were extremely common, especially in the more remote parts of the empire.

The fact he was singled out, flogged and forced to carry his cross (which would of actually only been the cross beam) to his execution was something done to make an example out of him. It is clear that they wanted to inflict servere pain on him before he died which would of been achieved.

Revolutionaries come in different ways, peaceful and non-peaceful, neither were tolerated. Take say a figure like Martin Luther-King, a revolutionary, but him into a Roman style society and it is easy to see how someone who speaks so well and quickly gather the support of the masses and why then the state would want to make sure they publicly executed and humiliated him.

Before burning witches at the stake was popular, there was crucifixition. Don't forget that paganism was still very strong then, its history couldn't be easily denied. Had to be dealt with abruptly, where it reared its head. It was more than a land and resourse grab , as common in the burning times holocaust.

I would suggest you study a bit about Egyptian carpenters around that time. a few things you know about JC should become familiar. There is no doubt, that whoever is responsible for his teachings, either used hallucinogenics as shamans/sorcerers/psychics did or survived the breakdown of a civilization like ours is at now.

 

[Troubadour]

Not talking about the bible, or the Abrahamic theological interpretation of Jesus the Christ/Christus, Son of God.

But Jesus the person. The historical figure. A lot of people (incorrectly) claim that there's no evidence of Jesus, and by comparison to figures like Mohammad its true there is less to go on with the life of Jesus.

Apart from the bible, what other mentions of him are there? I seem to remember an ossuary with "James, brother of Jesus" printed on it being found but that was the closest to any external reference I've heard of.