• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The politics of Jesus

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
In today's terms, where do you think Jesus would sit on the 'political spectrum' (if transferred into our secular thought) and how would you define his politics?

Here's my take on it (please provide your own with justifications!)

Scholarly reconstructions of the biblical data may assist us here:


"...Jesus' message was controversial and threatening to the established institutions of religious and political power in his society: the message carried with it a fundamental transvaluation of values, an exalting of the humble and a critique of the mighty. The theme of reversal seems to have been pervasive in his thought […] This reversal motif is built into the deep structure of Jesus' message, present in all layers of the tradition […] a foundational element of Jesus' teaching."

- Professor Richard Hays (Moral Vision of the New Testament, p. 164)​


"...a ‘revolutionary’ or ‘subversive’ attitude towards empire, wealth, and inequality is an integral part of the earliest [Jesus] tradition and a product of socio-economic changes in Palestine as Jesus was growing up...the Jesus movement interacted with the[se] social upheavals in Galilee and Judea, as well as the Roman empire more broadly. The earliest Palestinian tradition pitted the kingdom of God against Rome, attacked wealth and privilege, supported the poorest members of society, and saw Jesus as an agent of the kingdom in both present and future [in which] rich and poor would be reversed."

- Professor James G. Crossley (Jesus and the Chaos of History: Redirecting the Life of the Historical Jesus, p.163)


"...The kingdom of God is characterized by the active identification and critique of coercive relations of power, and the enactment of new, egalitarian modes of social life. This is seen, perhaps most acutely, in the recurrent, general motif of reversal which is typical of traditions associated with Jesus [....] The socio-political nature of much of this reversal is obvious to a modern reader without knowledge of the specific political, religious and cultural context of first-century Palestine – though such knowledge is necessary for a fuller exploration of its implications.

In Jesus' vision, the kingdom belonged to the poor, not the rich; to the hungry, not those who were full; to the tax-collectors and prostitutes not chiefs priests and the aristocrats; to children not adults; to sinners and not the righteous. Its values were exemplified by foreigners, beggars, and impoverished widows not the religiously, politically and economically powerful. We find this theme in aphorisms, commandments, and sayings ascribed to the historical Jesus, but, perhaps above all, in the parables [...] But perhaps the most compelling evidence of socio-political reversal in traditions associated with Jesus is the recurrent portrayal of his own praxis, as someone who lived with the outcasts and the socially marginal, and in an almost constant state of conflict with those who were not.

The theme of reversal functions not just to expose a number of inequitable relationships, but also to make visible and valorise the powerless within them, and their needs and their desires. In addition to the theme of reversal we can see a significant cluster of traditions in which exploitation, whether economic, legal, theocratic, military, or medical, is exposed and condemned, and responses advocated or made available that affirm both the agency of the oppressed and their capacity to resist such oppression
."

- Professor Justin Meggitt (Anachronism, anarchism and the historical Jesus, p.18-19)


For a comprehensive (and now classic) study of the theme of reversal in the ethics of Jesus see Allen Verhey, The Great Reversal: Ethics and the New Testament (Exeter: Paternoster, 1984)

Personally, in light of the clear evidence, I'd have to place Jesus firmly on the left-wing - at least economically and in terms of the social good - and if pushed to be more precise, probably somewhere between pacifist anarchism and revolutionary socialism.

My rationale runs as follows:

One of the things the majority of historical Jesus scholars can agree on (in spite of the myriad of competing and overlapping perspectives, ranging from apocalyptic prophet, prophet of social change, cynic philosopher, charismatic healer etc.), is that his entire worldview was anchored in the belief in something scholars call a "great reversal" of fortune.

This 'reversal', however conceptualised (and that depends on your paradigm of the historical Jesus), would see the traditional hierarchy of society upended and subverted, with those presently at the bottom of the social order - the poor, the dispossessed, the disabled, prostitutes, the socially marginalised - somehow placed at the top in the 'kingdom', whereas those presently at the highest rungs of society - the rich, the kings, rulers, nobility, priests, teachers of the law - would find themselves cast down to the bottom. (In simplistic terms).

There is basically no scholar trying to reconstruct the historical Jesus who doesn't accept this socio-political-moral belief as being paradigmatic of his worldview. This teaching, one might say basic assumption, is woven into so many disparate logia (sayings), parables and stories in the synoptic tradition, that it has to be accepted as a basic axiom of 'Jesusism'. If we can say at least one thing about what the historical Jesus might have taught, then we can would aver that he taught a great social reversal.

And whatever way you cut it, if transplanted to today, a modern-day Jesus would not be a conservative or defender of the status quo with such a radical ideological standpoint. He would be on the 'left': an opponent of the established institutions of privilege, unequal structures, distribution of resources and power relations / exploitative relationships that preyed on the weak in society. Certainly, if 'conservatism' is nowadays defined by capitalist economics, Jesus would not have supported it. I don't think that's seriously contestable.

Moving on to specifics - what kind of 'leftist' would he be in our contemporary, secular terms? (again just my opinion)

(continued....)
 
Last edited:

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
An 'anarchist' Jesus

This is trickier, as different scholars present views of Jesus that would shift our point-of-view quite subtly but substantially, on the one side closer to an anti-hierarchical anarchism and on the other closer to a more coercive socialism (in our modern terms). I think both raise compelling points, although I am more persuaded by the 'anarchist' exegesis.

Justin Meggitt, one of the scholars whom I quoted earlier, argues that "the historical Jesus can be usefully labeled an anarchist", despite the inherent anachronism in assigning such a term to an ancient, pre-modern person. Using the definition of 'anarchism' provided by Graeber, he contends that: "there is enough in what we can know about the historical Jesus, of the impressions of the man and his vision that have left their mark on our sources, to reveal someone not just intensely anti-authoritarian but also concerned with a prefigurative, non-coercive reality which would both confront existing inequity and be transformative of the lives of those oppressed by it. Alexander Berkman believed Jesus to be an anarchist. He was right." (Meggitt, p.28).

I think Meggit (and by implication Berkman too!) is right. There are a number of gospel traditions which strongly back up this argument, as for instance:


42 So Jesus called them and said to them, ‘You know that among the nations those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 43 But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

(Mark 10.42-44; see also Matthew 20.20-28, Luke 22.24-27)​


Jesus' decision to appoint "twelve" apostles can also be construed as a symbolic callback to the pre-monarchical Israel, when it existed as a confederation of twelve tribes, something that Ched Myers has claimed “bears some resemblance to 'anarcho-syndicalist' vision in modernity”, recalling a time before the people of Israel decided to become like other nations and have a king and reject God's direct rule.

Throughout the gospel traditions, Jesus is consistently depicted as rejecting coercive political power and condemning it as the domain of the devil. For example: "the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan"" (Matthew 4.1-11). This paragraph implies that all political sovereignty, kingdoms, hierarchies and political regimes are under the government of Satan, a metaphysical belief that is attributed directly to Jesus elsewhere, as in John 14:30 where Satan is described as "the ruler of this world"; John 12:31-33 where Jesus proclaims that: "now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself" and in the Pauline epistles, such as 1 Corinthians 15:24, where it is said that Jesus has destroyed "all rule and all authority and power" of the "the rulers of the darkness of this world" (Ephesians 6:12).

Meggitt and many other scholars have noted how, "the temptation narratives depict Jesus as someone who shows disdain for personal political power, a motif that recurs a number of times in our sources" (Dale C. Allison, ‘Behind the Temptations of Jesus : Q 4:1-13 and Mark 1:12-13’, in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, ed. by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 195–213). Another example of this theme: “Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself” (John 6:15).

It must be noted, however, that Jesus would not have endorsed any violent methods of revolutionary social reversal. As Professor Richard Hays states in his classic study (mentioned above):


"...Jesus spurned violence as the appropriate instrument of God's righteousness (see Mark 10:42-45). He taught love of enemies and rejected any suggestion of armed resistance to authority, even Roman authority. This combination of nonresistance with his inflammatory critique of those in power inevitably finds its consequence in the cross." (Richard Hays, p.164).

Meggit confirms the same:


"...the traditions about his death are consistent in presenting a figure who remained consistent in not using or endorsing violence against enemies and for whom physical violence by humans against humans was anathema. It was not a form of leadership in which authority was equated with a superior sense of personal value. Indeed, it appears to have been the opposite." (Meggitt, p.24)​


So we must qualify his 'anarchism' as being of a distinctly pacifist, non-violent resistance variety.

A 'Leninist' Jesus?

Professor Crossley (one of the main scholars I've been citing throughout this post) differs from his peers in casting Jesus in a less 'anarcho-pacifist' mould and more along the lines of what in modern thought we might term Leninism or 'revolutionary (statist) socialism' - the kind that would be willing to use the coercive structures of hierarchy or power, albeit inverted by a radical role reversal in favour of the poor and oppressed, against the "oppressors". In other words like the French Revolutionary Robespierre or Lenin, the 'idealism' of Jesus would (had it been implemented in the Judea/Galilee of his lifetime in a parallel history) have led to one imperial regime 'from above' being replaced by a grassroots one 'from below' justified on the basis of social justice for the oppressed but actually mimicking the very hierarchies it had resisted.

He doesn't dispute Jesus's strictly peaceful, non-violent means for achieving this eschatological, egalitarian role reversal (i.e. "love your enemies, turn the other cheek, do not resist an evildoer") but rather believes that, in the peasant social-cultural milieu of ancient Roman-occupied Palestine of Jesus and his disciples "their historical constraints meant that they probably could not have provided a sufficient challenge to deeply embedded power structures [...] Domination, subjugation, imperialism, and theocracy are part of both the Synoptic tradition and the relevant contextualizing sources, and are perhaps the only way people could realistically conceive an alternative to the present world powers" (Crossley, p.76).

As he writes at more length in the third chapter of his book: "The Dictatorship of God?":



"...In this sense, [my study] is an extended presentation of the popular argument that the revolution and the revolutionary can lay the ideological foundations for the totalitarian state; or, in the case of this book, how a Galilean protest movement could lay the foundations for its own brand of imperial rule...Peace, prosperity, egalitarianism, force, power, and dominance are claims we might associate with any number of [...] totalitarian regimes, as well as any number of revolutionaries who were involved in the process.

The Gospel kingdom tradition has all the key elements: challenging the dominant world power from below while implicitly or explicitly putting in place a system that likewise uses imperial language in its replacement of kingdom with kingdom, or empire with empire...

The expected rewards may be reversed but, ultimately, the same hierarchical structure of privilege remains and is not, ultimately, dismantled. Mark 10.17–31 is more explicit. Rich people may have about as much chance of entering the kingdom of God as a camel has of passing through the eye of a needle but the system of reward replicates the existing system, even in ‘this age’ and not just ‘the age to come’.

The perceptions of socio-economic change in Galilee and Judea contributed to the rise of a ‘protest’, anti-imperial, or even ‘revolutionary’ [Jesus] movement while simultaneously reinscribing the language of empire and dominance.
" (ibid.)

But in his analysis, Crossley does not pay much, if any, real attention to the synoptic traditions cited above, where Jesus disavows his movement of all hierarchical power structures like the "kings/rulers of the nations who lord it over" their subjects and commends a subverted order of 'rank' being transmuted by leadership becoming service to others, rather than being served, or to the associations of political power with Satan.

In this way, Tom Thatcher, a scholar who has written extensively on the implications of anti-imperialism in the Jesus tradition, has rightly noted:


"...Time and again—so often that it seems to be the rule rather than the exception—rebel leaders with high ideals become oppressive dictators once their movement has disposed the old regime. This observable fact of history is a surface manifestation of the many hidden hierarchies of power that operate within the communities of the oppressed before the revolution begins—the rebel leader was already a king of sorts and simply begins to act like one once.

Viewed in this light, the genius of the footwashing lies in the fact that Jesus anticipates and precludes the emergence of anything like a new imperial order within his eschatological community. No one steps in to take the throne once the ruler of this world is cast out. In fact, there are no thrones, only footstools, and masters find themselves in place of slaves, washing the filthy feet of the people over whom they have authority."

(Thatcher, Greater than Caesar, p. 138)​


So in this respect, I must side more with the "anarchist" reading of Meggit. Crossley himself admitted, one might say conceded, in a 2015 symposium on his scholarship that: "I find some of the arguments (e.g. by Justin Meggitt) for Jesus in a general anarchist tradition challenging and potentially persuasive."
 
Last edited:

julianalexander745

Active Member
Jesus was a lot like Trump:

Helping those who need help (poverty stricken, unemployed).

Confronting the wicked and old from the prior status quo (Crooked Hillary).

Sacrificing himself for the good of mankind (had he stayed out of politics, his legacy would have been less polarizing).

And all round making the world a better place.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Jesus was a lot like Trump:

Helping those who need help (poverty stricken, unemployed).

Confronting the wicked and old from the prior status quo (Crooked Hillary).

Sacrificing himself for the good of mankind (had he stayed out of politics, his legacy would have been less polarizing).

And all round making the world a better place.
Hah hah hah.

Screwing those who need help.

Admiring the wicked - Putin and other dictators. Attacking honorable people including Hillary as well as anyone else that stands in his way.

Putting himself ahead of all others for his own good.

Making the world a much worse place.

Promoting the deadly sins and creating a personality cult around himself.
 

leov

Well-Known Member
In today's terms, where do you think Jesus would sit on the 'political spectrum' (if transferred into our secular thought) and how would you define his politics?

Here's my take on it (please provide your own with justifications!)

Scholarly reconstructions of the biblical data may assist us here:


"...Jesus' message was controversial and threatening to the established institutions of religious and political power in his society: the message carried with it a fundamental transvaluation of values, an exalting of the humble and a critique of the mighty. The theme of reversal seems to have been pervasive in his thought […] This reversal motif is built into the deep structure of Jesus' message, present in all layers of the tradition […] a foundational element of Jesus' teaching."

- Professor Richard Hays (Moral Vision of the New Testament, p. 164)​


"...a ‘revolutionary’ or ‘subversive’ attitude towards empire, wealth, and inequality is an integral part of the earliest [Jesus] tradition and a product of socio-economic changes in Palestine as Jesus was growing up...the Jesus movement interacted with the[se] social upheavals in Galilee and Judea, as well as the Roman empire more broadly. The earliest Palestinian tradition pitted the kingdom of God against Rome, attacked wealth and privilege, supported the poorest members of society, and saw Jesus as an agent of the kingdom in both present and future [in which] rich and poor would be reversed."

- Professor James G. Crossley (Jesus and the Chaos of History: Redirecting the Life of the Historical Jesus, p.163)


"...The kingdom of God is characterized by the active identification and critique of coercive relations of power, and the enactment of new, egalitarian modes of social life. This is seen, perhaps most acutely, in the recurrent, general motif of reversal which is typical of traditions associated with Jesus [....] The socio-political nature of much of this reversal is obvious to a modern reader without knowledge of the specific political, religious and cultural context of first-century Palestine – though such knowledge is necessary for a fuller exploration of its implications.

In Jesus' vision, the kingdom belonged to the poor, not the rich; to the hungry, not those who were full; to the tax-collectors and prostitutes not chiefs priests and the aristocrats; to children not adults; to sinners and not the righteous. Its values were exemplified by foreigners, beggars, and impoverished widows not the religiously, politically and economically powerful. We find this theme in aphorisms, commandments, and sayings ascribed to the historical Jesus, but, perhaps above all, in the parables [...] But perhaps the most compelling evidence of socio-political reversal in traditions associated with Jesus is the recurrent portrayal of his own praxis, as someone who lived with the outcasts and the socially marginal, and in an almost constant state of conflict with those who were not.

The theme of reversal functions not just to expose a number of inequitable relationships, but also to make visible and valorise the powerless within them, and their needs and their desires. In addition to the theme of reversal we can see a significant cluster of traditions in which exploitation, whether economic, legal, theocratic, military, or medical, is exposed and condemned, and responses advocated or made available that affirm both the agency of the oppressed and their capacity to resist such oppression
."

- Professor Justin Meggitt (Anachronism, anarchism and the historical Jesus, p.18-19)


For a comprehensive (and now classic) study of the theme of reversal in the ethics of Jesus see Allen Verhey, The Great Reversal: Ethics and the New Testament (Exeter: Paternoster, 1984)

Personally, in light of the clear evidence, I'd have to place Jesus firmly on the left-wing - at least economically and in terms of the social good - and if pushed to be more precise, probably somewhere between pacifist anarchism and revolutionary socialism.

My rationale runs as follows:

One of the things the majority of historical Jesus scholars can agree on (in spite of the myriad of competing and overlapping perspectives, ranging from apocalyptic prophet, prophet of social change, cynic philosopher, charismatic healer etc.), is that his entire worldview was anchored in the belief in something scholars call a "great reversal" of fortune.

This 'reversal', however conceptualised (and that depends on your paradigm of the historical Jesus), would see the traditional hierarchy of society upended and subverted, with those presently at the bottom of the social order - the poor, the dispossessed, the disabled, prostitutes, the socially marginalised - somehow placed at the top in the 'kingdom', whereas those presently at the highest rungs of society - the rich, the kings, rulers, nobility, priests, teachers of the law - would find themselves cast down to the bottom. (In simplistic terms).

There is basically no scholar trying to reconstruct the historical Jesus who doesn't accept this socio-political-moral belief as being paradigmatic of his worldview. This teaching, one might say basic assumption, is woven into so many disparate logia (sayings), parables and stories in the synoptic tradition, that it has to be accepted as a basic axiom of 'Jesusism'. If we can say at least one thing about what the historical Jesus might have taught, then we can would aver that he taught a great social reversal.

And whatever way you cut it, if transplanted to today, a modern-day Jesus would not be a conservative or defender of the status quo with such a radical ideological standpoint. He would be on the 'left': an opponent of the established institutions of privilege, unequal structures, distribution of resources and power relations / exploitative relationships that preyed on the weak in society. Certainly, if 'conservatism' is nowadays defined by capitalist economics, Jesus would not have supported it. I don't think that's seriously contestable.

Moving on to specifics - what kind of 'leftist' would he be in our contemporary, secular terms? (again just my opinion)

(continued....)
i do not see Jesus fitting well in modern materialistic world.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
But in his analysis, Crossley does not pay much, if any, real attention to the synoptic traditions cited above, where Jesus disavows his movement of all hierarchical power structures like the "kings/rulers of the nations who lord it over" their subjects and commends a subverted order of 'rank' being transmuted by leadership becoming service to others, rather than being served, or to the associations of political power with Satan.
This is pretty much my position. It seems to me that the Gospels describe a Jesus that tries to generally exclude himself from the political spectrum altogether.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
All nations have rebels, who think they have a better scheme than the others; and the old should be discarded or dismantled. They create problems for themselves and for others (Masada, for example). Generally, nobody cares about them.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
In today's terms, where do you think Jesus would sit on the 'political spectrum' (if transferred into our secular thought) and how would you define his politics?

As another has said, I don’t believe Jesus would involve Himself in politics at all, rather focus on much needed reform of the prevailing religious institutions. In Jesus’s day Judasim was corrupt and divided. It was too far gone and a New Revelation was necessary.

The strongest criticisms were not levelled at the Romans but at the most powerful and influential Jewish sects. Ironically it was an unholy alliance of Jewish leaders and the Romans that orchestrated Jesus’s execution.

So if Jesus were to step into the world today He would bring religious not political reform. I doubt if He would care too much for the state of the Church that bears His name, yet is divided and unable to care for its flick let alone minister to the urgent spiritual needs of society around them.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I thought Bahais maintain that Bab was the Mahdi, the returning Jesus. How come that you write, "If Jesus were to step into the world ..". Has he not already come and gone in form of Bab (though there was no 'Immaculate Conception' in Bab's case)?
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
How come that you write, "If Jesus were to step into the world ..".

To be fair, I think @adrian009 was simply working within my thought experiment in the OP of the actual, original Jesus being transplanted into the modern world (as a modern person).

Baha'is, from what I understand, regard the Bab as the return of the archetype of Jesus (and John the Baptist, this time as forerunner of Baha'u'llah), spiritually, much like Christians understand John the Baptist to have been the "return" of the prophet Elijah without being a reincarnation of him.

This is distinct from the individual historical person of Christ, who is still understood to have been his own individual (so Baha'is see two dimensions to Manifestations of God, a sense in which they are all the same station and another in which they are their own person.)
 
Last edited:

sooda

Veteran Member
Jesus was a lot like Trump:

Helping those who need help (poverty stricken, unemployed).

Confronting the wicked and old from the prior status quo (Crooked Hillary).

Sacrificing himself for the good of mankind (had he stayed out of politics, his legacy would have been less polarizing).

And all round making the world a better place.

Like Trump? God, that's a horrible thought.

The Sermon on the Mount is very revealing of Jesus political beliefs. He was all for non violent liberation and shaming your oppressors.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Jesus was a lot like Trump:

Helping those who need help (poverty stricken, unemployed).

Confronting the wicked and old from the prior status quo (Crooked Hillary).

Sacrificing himself for the good of mankind (had he stayed out of politics, his legacy would have been less polarizing).

And all round making the world a better place.

trumpthemessiah.jpg

"And on the seventh day god built a wall, a beautiful wall, a tremendous wall, you would not believe! And Satan is going to pay for it! And it was so." (Trump 13:23)
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Jesus was a lot like Trump:

Helping those who need help (poverty stricken, unemployed).

Confronting the wicked and old from the prior status quo (Crooked Hillary).

Sacrificing himself for the good of mankind (had he stayed out of politics, his legacy would have been less polarizing).

And all round making the world a better place.
You're just joking, right?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Personally, in light of the clear evidence, I'd have to place Jesus firmly on the left-wing - at least economically and in terms of the social good - and if pushed to be more precise, probably somewhere between pacifist anarchism and revolutionary socialism.
I completely agree based on what he said according to the scriptures, plus his position vis-a-vis Jewish law. And according to Acts, the apostles shared their necessities, which helps to reinforce this position.

However, whether he would have affiliated with a political party in a democratic society is not as likely, imo.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
"...Jesus spurned violence as the appropriate instrument of God's righteousness (see Mark 10:42-45). He taught love of enemies and rejected any suggestion of armed resistance to authority, even Roman authority. This combination of nonresistance with his inflammatory critique of those in power inevitably finds its consequence in the cross." (Richard Hays, p.164).

Jesus rejected 'armed' resistance but offered an alternative form of resistance one that rejected both fight and flight. A new understanding of 'turn the other cheek' etc presented by scholars lend us the historical meaning these gestures had for established powers.
Walter Wink on Jesus
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
The strongest criticisms were not levelled at the Romans but at the most powerful and influential Jewish sects. Ironically it was an unholy alliance of Jewish leaders and the Romans that orchestrated Jesus’s execution.
Nobody, including you, has any way of knowing who or what Jesus's strongest criticism was leveled against.
All you know is what got included in the Bible centuries later. Had Jesus been an anti-Roman extremist, just having a copy of His Message in your possession would be enough evidence to get you crucified. Of course nobody wrote that down. So it couldn't have been amongst the writings included in the Bible by Constantine's bishops, centuries later. Because it didn't exist.

Jesus's criticism of Jewish authorities of the day did survive, unsurprisingly. It worked for the Romans. So of course there were multiple copies. And the Roman bishops "canonized" that part, also unsurprisingly. They knew which side of their host was buttered.
Tom
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Nobody, including you, has any way of knowing who or what Jesus's strongest criticism was leveled against.
All you know is what got included in the Bible centuries later. Had Jesus been an anti-Roman extremist, just having a copy of His Message in your possession would be enough evidence to get you crucified. Of course nobody wrote that down. So it couldn't have been amongst the writings included in the Bible by Constantine's bishops, centuries later. Because it didn't exist.

Jesus's criticism of Jewish authorities of the day did survive, unsurprisingly. It worked for the Romans. So of course there were multiple copies. And the Roman bishops "canonized" that part, also unsurprisingly. They knew which side of their host was buttered.
Tom

It might be a stretch to assume it was Constantine's bishop's and not pope Sylvester's.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Nobody, including you, has any way of knowing who or what Jesus's strongest criticism was leveled against.
All you know is what got included in the Bible centuries later. Had Jesus been an anti-Roman extremist, just having a copy of His Message in your possession would be enough evidence to get you crucified. Of course nobody wrote that down. So it couldn't have been amongst the writings included in the Bible by Constantine's bishops, centuries later. Because it didn't exist.

Jesus's criticism of Jewish authorities of the day did survive, unsurprisingly. It worked for the Romans. So of course there were multiple copies. And the Roman bishops "canonized" that part, also unsurprisingly. They knew which side of their host was buttered.
Tom

If we were to rely entirely on historical knowledge and analysis I agree. My position is largely Faith based that sees the Gospels under Divine Protection. Although we can’t be sure if they contain the exact Words spoken by Jesus the Gospels having communicated through Jesus all God wanted. Is I were to rely solely on historical methods there is certainly the possibility of a very different Jesus from the one presented in the New Testament.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Nobody, including you, has any way of knowing who or what Jesus's strongest criticism was leveled against.
All you know is what got included in the Bible centuries later. Had Jesus been an anti-Roman extremist, just having a copy of His Message in your possession would be enough evidence to get you crucified. Of course nobody wrote that down. So it couldn't have been amongst the writings included in the Bible by Constantine's bishops, centuries later. Because it didn't exist.

Jesus's criticism of Jewish authorities of the day did survive, unsurprisingly. It worked for the Romans. So of course there were multiple copies. And the Roman bishops "canonized" that part, also unsurprisingly. They knew which side of their host was buttered.
Tom

The burning issue of the times for the Jews was Roman oppression. Why would Jesus have been separate and apart from that?

Depending on how you read Sermon on the Mount there is lots of evidence that he was teaching his followers how to respond to that oppression.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
The burning issue of the times for the Jews was Roman oppression. Why would Jesus have been separate and apart from that?

Depending on how you read Sermon on the Mount there is lots of evidence that he was teaching his followers how to respond to that oppression.

Well, there's also a lot of evidence of Jesus chastising the Jewish proesthood... So I would say, Jesus had no problem speaking his mind from his own authority, exclusive from politics.
 
Top