Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JonA · 06-22-2011, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blkgayatheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The strongest argument for Jesus as a political rebel is the crucifixion. Crucifixion was a punishment used by the Romans for those who rebelled against Roman rule.

Yet the only source we have re the crucifixion does not make the association between the act and any political agitation on Jesus' part.

The gospels do make such associations; just read some of these passages:

Quote:

Luke 23:1–5 (NRSV):

Then the assembly rose as a body and brought Jesus before Pilate. They began to accuse him, saying, 'We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king.' Then Pilate asked him, 'Are you the king of the Jews?' He answered, 'You say so.' Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, 'I find no basis for an accusation against this man.' But they were insistent and said, 'He stirs up the people by teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to this place.'

Quote:

John 19:12–16 (NRSV):

From then on Pilate tried to release him, but the Jews cried out, 'If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor.'

When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside and sat on the judge's bench at a place called The Stone Pavement, or in Hebrew Gabbatha. Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon. He said to the Jews, 'Here is your King!' They cried out, 'Away with him! Away with him! Crucify him!' Pilate asked them, 'Shall I crucify your King?' The chief priests answered, 'We have no king but the emperor.' Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.
The Crucifixion of Jesus

So they took Jesus;

Quote:

Mark 11:15–19 (NRSV):

Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, 'Is it not written,
"My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations"?
But you have made it a den of robbers.'
And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him; for they were afraid of him, because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching. And when evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.

If we set the theology aside and simply read the narrative of the gospels, they do—however weakly—associate Jesus' execution to accusations of insurrection.

Jesus being executed as a political rebel, of course, is evidence of Jesus being a political rebel. The charge may have been false, and so other evidence will be helpful, but it is a start to understanding the political nature of Jesus and his movement.

Jon

aa5874 · 06-22-2011, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

...Jesus being executed as a political rebel, of course, is evidence of Jesus being a political rebel. The charge may have been false, and so other evidence will be helpful, but it is a start to understanding the political nature of Jesus and his movement.

Jon

What nonsense!!! A man who was EXONERATED of ALL CHARGES and was FALSELY accused cannot also be guilty at the same time.

The very stories of Jesus BEFORE the trial do NOT depict Jesus as a rebel Against Roman power.

DrZoidberg · 06-23-2011, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blkgayatheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg

Before the European Enlightenment religion and politics was the same thing. A prophet back then, by definition, is a political rebel. The concept of separating church and state back then was an absurd concept. There was no such thing as a personal faith. If you don't understand this church history becomes nonsensical. Some of the nit-picking on theology within early Christianity was to a large extent pure power politics.

The Roman authority had given Judism special status in Palestine. But only if they could keep the Jews in line and accept Roman rule. Niether the rabbis nor Roman's had any wish to rock the boat.

So the narrative actually fits the political history. The only major historical error in the Jesus narrative, (as far as I know) is that the pharisees are chronologically off. They didn't rise to prominence in Palestine until after the fall of Madada in AD 70, which is 37 years too late for the Jesus story. But that doesn't mean that in reality it couldn't have been some other rabinical authority who did it.

But again, there is nothing in the only sources we have about Jesus that suggest him making any political statements against Roman rule. His statements were directed towards the Jews and the practice of their own religion. If the Romans executed him for making trouble for the Jewish religious elite, that still doesnt neatly fit the narrative that seems to have been spun out of whole cloth with Jesus as Jewish rebel against the authority of Rome

I don't think I'm being clear enough. Personal religious beliefs was very much seen as a public matter. Even saying unorthodox things about one's personal beliefs and faith was at that time seen as an attack on the political authority, both Roman and Jewish. Don't confuse Roman polytheism with any kind of notions of freedom of religion. It was a very rigid system that demanded that everybody kept in their place, whatever that place may be. Every religious ritual in the empire was regulated in detail.

Attacking or even questioning Jewish practices would automatically imply an attack on Roman authority. It doesn't need to be explicit in the Bible for us to know this. Everybody hearing the Bible at that time would assume it. Stating it anyway would be on par with saying that rain is wet. The Bible has a context and we need to learn it for the Bible to make sense. This is true no matter if Jesus is a fictional character or not.

aa5874 · 06-23-2011, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg

....Attacking or even questioning Jewish practices would automatically imply an attack on Roman authority....

Your statement is CLEARLY erroneous.

Examine "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.1

Quote:

...1. BUT now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws.

So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images...

blkgayatheist · 06-23-2011, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by blkgayatheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg

Before the European Enlightenment religion and politics was the same thing. A prophet back then, by definition, is a political rebel. The concept of separating church and state back then was an absurd concept. There was no such thing as a personal faith. If you don't understand this church history becomes nonsensical. Some of the nit-picking on theology within early Christianity was to a large extent pure power politics.

The Roman authority had given Judism special status in Palestine. But only if they could keep the Jews in line and accept Roman rule. Niether the rabbis nor Roman's had any wish to rock the boat.

So the narrative actually fits the political history. The only major historical error in the Jesus narrative, (as far as I know) is that the pharisees are chronologically off. They didn't rise to prominence in Palestine until after the fall of Madada in AD 70, which is 37 years too late for the Jesus story. But that doesn't mean that in reality it couldn't have been some other rabinical authority who did it.

But again, there is nothing in the only sources we have about Jesus that suggest him making any political statements against Roman rule. His statements were directed towards the Jews and the practice of their own religion. If the Romans executed him for making trouble for the Jewish religious elite, that still doesnt neatly fit the narrative that seems to have been spun out of whole cloth with Jesus as Jewish rebel against the authority of Rome

I don't think I'm being clear enough. Personal religious beliefs was very much seen as a public matter. Even saying unorthodox things about one's personal beliefs and faith was at that time seen as an attack on the political authority, both Roman and Jewish. Don't confuse Roman polytheism with any kind of notions of freedom of religion. It was a very rigid system that demanded that everybody kept in their place, whatever that place may be. Every religious ritual in the empire was regulated in detail.

Attacking or even questioning Jewish practices would automatically imply an attack on Roman authority. It doesn't need to be explicit in the Bible for us to know this. Everybody hearing the Bible at that time would assume it. Stating it anyway would be on par with saying that rain is wet. The Bible has a context and we need to learn it for the Bible to make sense. This is true no matter if Jesus is a fictional character or not.

It's not a matter of you not making yourself clear enough. It is a matter of interpretation. I am talking about the narrative that has been spun around Jesus standing up to the power and authority of Rome and their rule over the Jewish people. That is not the same as saying that the Romans used to Jewish leaders to keep the Jewish people in line, and therefore when Jesus challenged the Jewish establishment he indirectly challenged Rome. Those are two very different assertions.

blkgayatheist · 06-23-2011, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by blkgayatheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The strongest argument for Jesus as a political rebel is the crucifixion. Crucifixion was a punishment used by the Romans for those who rebelled against Roman rule.

Yet the only source we have re the crucifixion does not make the association between the act and any political agitation on Jesus' part.

The gospels do make such associations; just read some of these passages:

Quote:

Luke 23:1–5 (NRSV):

Then the assembly rose as a body and brought Jesus before Pilate. They began to accuse him, saying, 'We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king.' Then Pilate asked him, 'Are you the king of the Jews?' He answered, 'You say so.' Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, 'I find no basis for an accusation against this man.' But they were insistent and said, 'He stirs up the people by teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to this place.'

Quote:

John 19:12–16 (NRSV):

From then on Pilate tried to release him, but the Jews cried out, 'If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor.'

When Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus outside and sat on the judge's bench at a place called The Stone Pavement, or in Hebrew Gabbatha. Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon. He said to the Jews, 'Here is your King!' They cried out, 'Away with him! Away with him! Crucify him!' Pilate asked them, 'Shall I crucify your King?' The chief priests answered, 'We have no king but the emperor.' Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.
The Crucifixion of Jesus

So they took Jesus;

Quote:

Mark 11:15–19 (NRSV):

Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, 'Is it not written,
"My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations"?
But you have made it a den of robbers.'
And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him; for they were afraid of him, because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching. And when evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.

If we set the theology aside and simply read the narrative of the gospels, they do—however weakly—associate Jesus' execution to accusations of insurrection.

Jesus being executed as a political rebel, of course, is evidence of Jesus being a political rebel. The charge may have been false, and so other evidence will be helpful, but it is a start to understanding the political nature of Jesus and his movement.

Jon

again, the charges of insurrection had nothing to do with what Jesus actually said or did; those charges were leveled by the Jewish religious leadership to spur Rome to execute him. So the narrative that Jesus was 'really' executed because he challenged the authority of Rome is neither backed up by Jesus words or actions in the gospels. And they are the only source we have regarding his activities.

The argument that he was crucified so therefore he mustve been a political rebel is a weak on in my opinion.

blkgayatheist · 06-23-2011, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You make an EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT observation. The very HJers who claim Jesus could NOT have been INVENTED from "whole cloth" have themselves INVENTED from "WHOLE CLOTH" and CONTRARY to the ACTUAL written evidence, that Jesus was a rebel AGAINST Roman Rule.

Yes, a myth built on top of a myth.

bacht · 06-24-2011, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blkgayatheist

I guess this bleeds over into the inevitable Mythical Jesus discussion, but what evidence is there that Jesus was 'really' a political rebel executed by Rome because he stirred up trouble? Ive known many secularist who have made this assertion.

Notwithstanding the ugliness of antisemitism, the gospels are consistent in describing Jesus death as being instigated by a group of Jewish religious leaders who then went to the Romans to carry out the execution. There is no suggestion that the Romans came up with the idea of executing Jesus for his politicizing.

Since there is very little (or no) extrabiblical evidence speaking to the Jesus story as political rebel, and the only political commentary addressing the Romans that we get from Jesus in the gospels is "Render unto Caesar", how exactly has this narrative of Jesus as political rebel been constructed?

Don't forget that the first gospel we have (Mark) was probably written in part as a reaction to the first Jewish revolt in the 60s. The failure of the political rebels was the backdrop for Mark's presentation of a different messiah, one who was misunderstood by Jewish contemporaries (or so the story goes).

Mark presents Jesus as a 'moderate' between rebels (Zealots) and recluses (Essenes).

aa5874 · 06-24-2011, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Don't forget that the first gospel we have (Mark) was probably written in part as a reaction to the first Jewish revolt in the 60s. The failure of the political rebels was the backdrop for Mark's presentation of a different messiah, one who was misunderstood by Jewish contemporaries (or so the story goes).

Mark presents Jesus as a 'moderate' between rebels (Zealots) and recluses (Essenes).

It is time to use what is ACTUALLY written in gMark and stop using "opinion".

The Jesus in gMark wanted the Jews to REMAIN in Sin so that God would destroy them.

Let us look at the supposed ACTUAL written statement of the Markan Jesus.

Mark 4

Quote:

...11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables

12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive.

and hearing they may hear, and not understand,

lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

And now, look at Mark 4.34

Quote:

But without a parable spake he not unto them, and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

The Markan Jesus was No rebel against Roman Rule.

The Markan Jesus came to make sure that the Jews REMAINED in Sin and NOT be converted so that so-called prophecy would be fulfilled as found in Isaiah 6.8-12.

Examine Isaiah 6.

Quote:

8Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

9And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

11Then said I, Lord, how long?

And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate......

It is extremely clear that the Markan Jesus was NO rebel against Roman rule the Markan Jesus was "sent" (invented) to make sure that the so-called prophecies in Isaiah 6 was fulfilled.

The Jewish Temple and Jerusalem was destroyed.

1. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes.

2. How long?

3. Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man.

The Markan Jesus was NO rebel against Roman rule. He just wanted prophecy to be fulfilled when the Jews would be destroyed and the Temple would fall.

bacht · 06-24-2011, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Jesus in gMark wanted the Jews to REMAIN in Sin so that God would destroy them.

The Markan Jesus came to make sure that the Jews REMAINED in Sin and NOT be converted so that so-called prophecy would be fulfilled as found in Isaiah 6.8-12.

It is extremely clear that the Markan Jesus was NO rebel against Roman rule the Markan Jesus was "sent" (invented) to make sure that the so-called prophecies in Isaiah 6 was fulfilled.

The Jewish Temple and Jerusalem was destroyed.

1. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes.

2. How long?

3. Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man.

The Markan Jesus was NO rebel against Roman rule. He just wanted prophecy to be fulfilled when the Jews would be destroyed and the Temple would fall.

thanks aa

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.