Was Jesus a Socialist?

[Aru]

As Arnold Rimmer said: Jesus was a hippie; he had long hair and didn't have a job.

[justinius]

Really. And your evidence that this story is based on something Jesus actually said would be ... ?

So why didn't the priests also reject Simon bar Kokhba?

The stoning story was added later, so that doesn't help you when it comes to what the historical Jesus probably said. Jesus is depicted as taking the law on adultery further, by saying that only commiting adultery was a sin but even thinking about another woman is as well. He didn't reject the law on adultery, he took it further. Read Matthew 5:27-30.

You've yet to come up with a single Jewish law that Jesus disagreed with. He is depicted as stating that not one letter or word of the law would pass away.

I didn't say he supported the Zealots. Like other apocalypcists, he consdered that God would sweep the Romans away when he asserted his kingship in the coming cataclysm.

Again, you're relying on a very naive, face-value and largely Christian interpretation. The gospels distance Jesus from any overt opposition to the Romans because they were written in the wake of the First Jewish War, when Christians were trying to distance their new and increasingly non-Jewish sect from Judaism and from radical Jewish politics. That's why they make the priests the bad guys of the story and try to whitewash Pilate. But the gospel depiction of Pilate doesn't fit with what we know about the man from other sources and many other elements in the trial scenes in the gospels are unhistorical as well. We know for a fact that the Jewish leaders did have the power to execute people, for example. So that claim in the gospels is clearly wrong. They say that to explain why Jesus was executed by the Romans using a form of execution reserved for rebels. In other words, they are doing everything they can to distance Jesus from the politics of rebellion and religious resistance against Rome.

Where is your evidence on all you have said? Use your logic, read the Bible. I won't quote for you now
,don't have the time also, find something Jesus said about adultery(not the story). Now imagine a monk or someone taking Jesus' ideas and making a story out of it.Simple?Yes.Has it happened many times before?Yes.

Because at first they believed he was, it was probably not bar Kokhba who declared himself the Messiah and after they realized their error.

Jesus could not have taken it further because he did not make laws or force anyone to adhere to them. It was loose ideas.You do not understand the meaning of the verse. It was a sin (not major) but it was forgivable as almost every other sin,.Don't take it too literally.And for Jews this was also a considered a sin but not important enough to mark down.If Jesus came to uphold the precepts of the Jewish law in their entirety, he was nothing more than a scribe or a Pharisee. Scribes and Pharisees did precisely this: to observe all the rules set forth in the Torah.But Jesus said that their righteousness was nothing. And more than just nothing, it was a fatal impediment ! ''Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."Therefore, verse 19 cannot refer to the Jewish law and its multitudinous rules and precepts. ''What verse 19 refers to, I think, is the new commandments Jesus is about to set forth in his 'sermon': no oaths, no judgments, no anger, no resistance to evil, etc., etc. The least of this commandments is important and failure to observe it will mean a lesser degree of glory (not exclusion from !) in the Kingdom.The New Law, while containing the core of the Jewish law, goes beyond it. Some parts are definitively abandoned: for example the New Covenant no longer requires bloody animal sacrifices, which means that a huge portion of the Torah is now obsolete. Others need to be reinterpreted in the light of the overruling principle of Love and Mercy (adultery/ divorce/anger). Or of the primacy of the living Man over the written law (sabbath). Or of inner truthfulness (oaths).''There.

That's at the end of the world as with every other civilization and at the time he was known for not supporting the Zealots.He didn't really care about the Romans as long as they let the Jews practice.Your description of him corrresponds exactly to a zealot.

The priests DID not have the power to execute, it was a Roman province so Roman law ruled, no exceptions.The priests were granted some political and judicial power to appease the Jewish people but not execution.They were corrupt and as opposed to what you say they hated the Romans.A text that supports my arguments.

''Even before Jesus was brought to public trial following his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, the Sanhedrin had already assembled three times in secret and rendered decisions which prove, beyond a doubt, that the death-sentence of Christ was determined upon even before his public accusation. The first such meeting was held in September of the year preceding the crucifixion. This fact is made clear by St. John the Evangelist in his account of Jesus healing the man born blind, when he states “for the Jews had already agreed that if any man did confess that he was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.” (Jn. 9:22) For only a solemn assembly of the Sanhedrin had power to pronounce such a decree of excommunication. In excommunicating Jesus’ followers, they indirectly declared Jesus a false prophet, and hence subject to the death penalty. Is this not a proof, as Nicodemus had implied (Jn. 7:51), that they had already condemned him without having granted him a hearing or listened to a word in his defense?

The second such session of the Sanhedrin took place in the month of February, about four and a half months after the first session. The resurrection of Lazarus was the occasion that called the Sanhedrin into council at this time.(from Jn. 11:47-53)

So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council, and said, "What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation." But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish”. So from that day on they took counsel how to put him to death.

We see then, that at this second council the death of Christ was decided upon. In the September session his death was proposed only indirectly, but this time the sentence is passed, the high-priest having himself declared that it were better for one man to die! This sentence was pronounced without summoning the accused into council, without witnesses, and without making any investigation of his doctrines or his miracles. Neither was it pronounced because Jesus was found to be seditious or revolutionary, but because it was necessary to put a stop to his miracles, and thus destroy the peoples’ belief in him. The sentence having been pronounced by the high-priest, it was ratified by the whole assembly “From that day on they took counsel how to put him to death.” It is a settled question; there remains to be determined only the time and the manner of executing the sentence. Have we not here ample evidence that the condemnation of Jesus preceded is arrest and trial?

The third session was held about three weeks after the second, just two days before the Passion.

Now the feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to put him to death; for they feared the people. Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and took counsel together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. But they said, "Not during the feast, lest there be a tumult among the people."(Lk. 22:1-2, Mt. 26:3-5)

We notice that at this gathering the question of the sentence of Christ is no longer debated. His death had already been determined upon at the second session. The only things that now remain to be settled are the manner of his death and the proper time for its execution.

Now let us sum up the decisions of the three councils. The first council, in excommunicating the partisans of Christ, denounced him as a false prophet, and consequently guilty of death. In the second council the question of whether he should die was proposed, and unanimously decided in the affirmative. In the third council his arrest and execution were appointed to take place at the first favorable opportunity. We now ask of every sincere Israelite if the trial of Christ was not a fearful mockery and a lie.

The subsequent trial of Jesus on the eve of the Passion entailed no less than 27 violations of Jewish law, any single one of which would be sufficient to nullify the verdict of the Sanhedrin.''

Very sorry for this double posting still a noob on this site.(3 days) I'll try not to make it happen again.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Where is your evidence on all you have said?

My evidence is in about 25+ years of reading historical analysis of Jesus and his place in the Judaism and politics of the time. Something that is rather difficult to do more than very briefly summarise in some posts on a topic to which it's only peripherally related.

,don't have the time also, find something Jesus said about adultery(not the story). Now imagine a monk or someone taking Jesus' ideas and making a story out of it.Simple?Yes.Has it happened many times before?Yes.

That's great, but that's little more than a "maybe". What we know is (i) that story is most likely a later addition and (ii) it doesn't fit with other, earlier depictions of Jesus' approach to the Jewish law. Simply assuming that its based on something historical doesn't cut it.

Jesus could not have taken it further because he did not make laws or force anyone to adhere to them.

Jesus was addressed as "rabbi" and was a recognised interpreter of the Law, just as any other learned Jewish man of his time was.

It was loose ideas.You do not understand the meaning of the verse. It was a sin (not major) but it was forgivable as almost every other sin,.Don't take it too literally.And for Jews this was also a considered a sin but not important enough to mark down.

I understand the meaning of the verse just fine thanks. The point is that he didn't simply uphold the traditional teaching on adultery, he went beyond the letter of the law and extrapolated further based on its spirit. That is another consistent theme in his teaching on the law.

If Jesus came to uphold the precepts of the Jewish law in their entirety, he was nothing more than a scribe or a Pharisee.

As Jewish scholars have ably demonstrated in careful studies in recent years, Jesus actually had far more in common with the Pharisees than any other group. That's why we see Pharisees amongst his followers in many sequences, a Pharisee defending him in Acts and Pharisees in the Jerusalem community of Christians opposing Paul. Again, you're accepting the traditional Christian idea that "the Scribes and Pharisees" were consistently opposed to him, but more careful analysis shows this isn't the case. They get cast as the bad guys in the gospels largely because they were the main rivals for the early Christian sect when the gospels were being written.

Scribes and Pharisees did precisely this: to observe all the rules set forth in the Torah.But Jesus said that their righteousness was nothing. And more than just nothing, it was a fatal impediment ! ''Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Yes - see above about his teaching about upholding the spirit of the law and not mindlessly adhering to its letter. But the point is he is still focused on upholding the law.

Therefore, verse 19 cannot refer to the Jewish law and its multitudinous rules and precepts. ''What verse 19 refers to, I think, is the new commandments Jesus is about to set forth in his 'sermon': no oaths, no judgments, no anger, no resistance to evil, etc., etc. The least of this commandments is important and failure to observe it will mean a lesser degree of glory (not exclusion from !) in the Kingdom.The New Law, while containing the core of the Jewish law, goes beyond it. Some parts are definitively abandoned: for example the New Covenant no longer requires bloody animal sacrifices, which means that a huge portion of the Torah is now obsolete. Others need to be reinterpreted in the light of the overruling principle of Love and Mercy (adultery/ divorce/anger). Or of the primacy of the living Man over the written law (sabbath). Or of inner truthfulness (oaths).''There.

That's all reading later Christian ideas back into the text. Where did Jesus say anything about abolishing blood sacrifices, for example? Nowhere.

That's at the end of the world as with every other civilization and at the time he was known for not supporting the Zealots.He didn't really care about the Romans as long as they let the Jews practice.Your description of him corrresponds exactly to a zealot.

No it doesn't. You can be opposed to the Romans and not believe you need to take up arms against them. Apocalypcists in Jesus time generally didn't believe taking up arms was necessary - God was going to sort them out when the apocalypse came.

The priests DID not have the power to execute, it was a Roman province so Roman law ruled, no exceptions.

Wrong. Again, you're taking the gospels at face value. The Jews DID have the power to execute and the evidence for this is clear. We have the inscriptions from the Second Temple from above the inner gate warning non-Jews and unclean people with death by execution - execution by the Temple priesthood. We have various references in Josephus to the priests executing transgressors. We have the account of the execution of Jesus' brother James by the High Priest Ananus. And we have, in Acts, the description of the execution of Stephen. It was well within the powers of the Sanhedrin to execute a man who had caused a riot in the Temple. But they handed him over the Romans because it was the Romans who wanted to execute him for sedition. They did so to show they were good collaborators and to distance themselves from him. That's why he was given a Roman form of execution; a form reserved for rebels against Rome.

The fact that Jesus almost certainly wasn't preaching any kind of military uprising was a theological nicety that didn't interest the Romans. A guy ranting about how God was coming to overthrow them, especially at the politically sensitive Passover festival, was more than enough reason for them to nail him up.

[justinius]

My evidence is in about 25+ years of reading historical analysis of Jesus and his place in the Judaism and politics of the time. Something that is rather difficult to do more than very briefly summarise in some posts on a topic to which it's only peripherally related.

That's great, but that's little more than a "maybe". What we know is (i) that story is most likely a later addition and (ii) it doesn't fit with other, earlier depictions of Jesus' approach to the Jewish law. Simply assuming that its based on something historical doesn't cut it.

Jesus was addressed as "rabbi" and was a recognised interpreter of the Law, just as any other learned Jewish man of his time was.

I understand the meaning of the verse just fine thanks. The point is that he didn't simply uphold the traditional teaching on adultery, he went beyond the letter of the law and extrapolated further based on its spirit. That is another consistent theme in his teaching on the law.

As Jewish scholars have ably demonstrated in careful studies in recent years, Jesus actually had far more in common with the Pharisees than any other group. That's why we see Pharisees amongst his followers in many sequences, a Pharisee defending him in Acts and Pharisees in the Jerusalem community of Christians opposing Paul. Again, you're accepting the traditional Christian idea that "the Scribes and Pharisees" were consistently opposed to him, but more careful analysis shows this isn't the case. They get cast as the bad guys in the gospels largely because they were the main rivals for the early Christian sect when the gospels were being written.

Yes - see above about his teaching about upholding the spirit of the law and not mindlessly adhering to its letter. But the point is he is still focused on upholding the law.

That's all reading later Christian ideas back into the text. Where did Jesus say anything about abolishing blood sacrifices, for example? Nowhere.

No it doesn't. You can be opposed to the Romans and not believe you need to take up arms against them. Apocalypcists in Jesus time generally didn't believe taking up arms was necessary - God was going to sort them out when the apocalypse came.

Wrong. Again, you're taking the gospels at face value. The Jews DID have the power to execute and the evidence for this is clear. We have the inscriptions from the Second Temple from above the inner gate warning non-Jews and unclean people with death by execution - execution by the Temple priesthood. We have various references in Josephus to the priests executing transgressors. We have the account of the execution of Jesus' brother James by the High Priest Ananus. And we have, in Acts, the description of the execution of Stephen. It was well within the powers of the Sanhedrin to execute a man who had caused a riot in the Temple. But they handed him over the Romans because it was the Romans who wanted to execute him for sedition. They did so to show they were good collaborators and to distance themselves from him. That's why he was given a Roman form of execution; a form reserved for rebels against Rome.

The fact that Jesus almost certainly wasn't preaching any kind of military uprising was a theological nicety that didn't interest the Romans. A guy ranting about how God was coming to overthrow them, especially at the politically sensitive Passover festival, was more than enough reason for them to nail him up.

Wow that's almost twice my age!(seriously)You don't always need to read or know a lot (excessive) to present your arguments though, but it helps. I guess I'm impressed. And I was not the first one to go off-topic in the first place after you argued against one of my sensible comments (no offense).

And to completely know if your ''evidence'' is correct you would have to be a philologist and they would say that in every lie there is truth. So do not say the story was not true or never happened so it should be thrown in the garbage (I know you didn't a=say it in those exact words).It obviously had a purpose and that was to give a more colourful look on Jesus' view on women. Why would he stop a woman from being slaughtered and say that thinking about other women is wrong? Because he thought that he should show almost all the sins but also all the virtues to forgive someone. That's why he let himself die at the cross...

Yes Jesus was in a way, a scholar, but we obviously know the High Priests didn't like him. So besides the fact that he was not a warrior Messiah, there must of been some misunderstandings between them on the Jewish Law. I think he considered God's law vastly more superior to the Jewish one than the Jews themselves and that angered the Priests when he said ''I answer to no one but God.''and ''What right have thou to talk to the Son of God in such a way?''(They probably thought He was very arrogant.)

And the Pharisians were not that overportrayed as bad guys (though a bit but nooooot that much).Think about if you were a Pharisian who followed the Torah by the word, what would you think of Jesus?

And yes Jesus did talk about condemning animal sacrifices to Yahwe and in a way stating ''it is unnecessary'' please find where this passage is from though. I know it's somewhere...

That's because Jesus didn't recognise any authority(government,High Priests,Romans,Parthians etc.) on Earth except God's.He did not ever state he was against Rome directly and so he was deemed innocent by the Romans anyway.

He was given this execution only because people said he was the King of the Jews, which could be a threat to Rome or cause an uproar and it was the High Priest who did not want to see any such king rise to power and take power away from them so they pushed the Roman Governor very hard for the execution.But Ponce Pilate not liking the High Priests very much decided without their consent to do a vote on whether Barabas the Zealot or Jesus should be crucified but the High Priests bribed guards to shut people up who were voting for Barabas and sent hooligans also.And so he took Barabas' place on the cross.And the High Priests were only able to execute people on their own property and the reason must be looked at by the Governor( a right Rome gave to them) and your argument above actually supports me in saying so, other than that it was all Rome that decided.( Proof that the High Priests did not collaborate is that they secretly founded the Zealots (many of them being Zealots)

Oh and please could we stop this argument , we're already way off topic and people find this boring.Also we're wasting a lot of thread space .So can we at least agree on some points, because I certainly agree on some your points...

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Wow that's almost twice my age!(seriously)You don't always need to read or know a lot (excessive) to present your arguments though, but it helps. I guess I'm impressed. And I was not the first one to go off-topic in the first place after you argued against one of my sensible comments (no offense).

And to completely know if your ''evidence'' is correct you would have to be a philologist and they would say that in every lie there is truth.

That's why I don't just examine the evidence for myself but also read analysis by scholars who are far better versed in all aspects of these subjects than I am.

So do not say the story was not true or never happened so it should be thrown in the garbage (I know you didn't a=say it in those exact words).It obviously had a purpose and that was to give a more colourful look on Jesus' view on women. Why would he stop a woman from being slaughtered and say that thinking about other women is wrong? Because he thought that he should show almost all the sins but also all the virtues to forgive someone. That's why he let himself die at the cross...

As I said above, the reasons for the addition of this story is a subject of some debate. The point is that the evidence seems to indicate clearly that it is a later addition. And that argues against it being historical.

And the Pharisians were not that overportrayed as bad guys (though a bit but nooooot that much).Think about if you were a Pharisian who followed the Torah by the word, what would you think of Jesus?

As the evidence indicates clearly, some Pharisees thought he was a great guy. Others probably didn't.

And yes Jesus did talk about condemning animal sacrifices to Yahwe and in a way stating ''it is unnecessary'' please find where this passage is from though. I know it's somewhere...

There are rejections of the worth of animal sacrifice elsewhere in the NT (eg Hebrews 10:4-6) but not by Jesus in the gospels.

That's because Jesus didn't recognise any authority(government,High Priests,Romans,Parthians etc.) on Earth except God's.He did not ever state he was against Rome directly and so he was deemed innocent by the Romans anyway.

That's how he's depicted in the gospels. But the gospel writers had political incentives to distance Jesus from any anti-Roman sentiments. The fact remains that he was executed by the Romans using a Roman form of execution reserved for rebels. The gospel writers couldn't whitewash that fact.

He was given this execution only because people said he was the King of the Jews, which could be a threat to Rome or cause an uproar and it was the High Priest who did not want to see any such king rise to power and take power away from them so they pushed the Roman Governor very hard for the execution.But Ponce Pilate not liking the High Priests very much decided without their consent to do a vote on whether Barabas the Zealot or Jesus should be crucified but the High Priests bribed guards to shut people up who were voting for Barabas and sent hooligans also.And so he took Barabas' place on the cross.And the High Priests were only able to execute people on their own property and the reason must be looked at by the Governor( a right Rome gave to them) and your argument above actually supports me in saying so, other than that it was all Rome that decided.( Proof that the High Priests did not collaborate is that they secretly founded the Zealots (many of them being Zealots)

Again, you're taking the gospels at face value. The "Barabas" story, for example, is almost certainly fictional. And the Priests could execute anyone within their jurisdiction - Jerusalem - so you're simply making things up now when you claim they could "only execute people on their own property". The evidence clearly shows this is not the case.

Oh and please could we stop this argument , we're already way off topic and people find this boring.Also we're wasting a lot of thread space .So can we at least agree on some points, because I certainly agree on some your points...

Okay.

[Fight!]

Chances of any other people joining in the debate without being crushed: 0.5%

[Georgy Zhukov]

Jesus was totally the enemy of capitalism. No wonder he got killed. Imagine how many doctors throughout Israel were put out of job because of him?

Israel has socialized healthcare . . .

[Lost Sultan]

Those "theories" are largely internet garbage that no scholar would touch with a bargepole.

I wanted a more thorough answer. I would be really happy if you Pm'ed me how Jesus is mentioned in the Roman historical archives or any other credible source that we can rely on. Links would definitely be fine.

[jankren]

Israel has socialized healthcare . . .

The legacy of Jesus the free healer.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Many people (myself included) believe that Jesus was a Socialist or at least shared many of the same ideals as a Socialist anyone wish to share their views on this subject?

Jesus set up the Church to care for the poor, not the government. And he wouldn't support gay marriage, so I doubt he would be a leftie

[Keravnos]

that's because the priests were right-wing(Franco) in Spain (Spanish Inquisition)

So, if the priests of the Lord are right wing that gives the opposition the right to kill them? Is that what you are saying?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_terror_%28Spain%29

In the course of the Red Terror, 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy, 20% percent of the nation's clergy[26], were killed.[4] The figures break down the as follows: Some 283 women religious were killed. Some of them were badly tortured.[6] 13 bishops were killed from the dioceses of Siguenza Lleida, Cuenca, Barbastro, Segorbe,Jaen, Ciudad Real, Almeria, Guadix, Barcelona, Teruel and the auxiliary of Tarragona.[6] Aware of the dangers, they all decided to remain in their cities. I cannot go, only here is my responsibility, whatever may happen, so said the Bishop of Cuenca.[6] In addition 4,172 diocesan priests, 2,364 monks and friars, among them 259 Claretians, 226 Franciscans, 204 Piarists, 176 Brothers of Mary, 165 Christian Brothers, 155 Augustinians, 132 Dominicans, and 114 Jesuits were killed.[27] In some dioceses, the number of secular priests killed are overwhelming:

• In Barbastro 123 of 140 priests were killed[6], about 88 percent of the secular clergy were murdered, 66 percent
• In Lleida, 270 of 410 priests were killed.[6] about 62 percent
• In Tortosa, 44 percent of the secular priests were killed.[4]
• In Toledo 286 of 600 priests were killed.[6]
• In the dioceses of Malaga, Menorca and Segorbe, about half of the priests were killed"[4] [6]

In 2001 the Catholic Church beatified hundreds of Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War[28] and beatified 498 more on October 28, 2007.[29]
In October 2008, the Spanish newspaper La Razon published an article on the number of people murdered for practicing Catholicism."[30]
May 1931: 100 church buildings are burned while firefighters refuse to extinguish the flames.
1932: 3000 Jesuits expelled. Church buildings burned with impunity in 7 cities.
1934: 33 priests murdered in the Asturias Revolution.
1936: just a day before July 18, the day the war started, there already have been 17 clergymen murdered.
From July 18 to August 1: 861 clergymen murdered in 2 weeks.
August 1936: 2077 clergymen murdered, more than 70 a day. 10 of them bishops.
Septiembre 14: 3400 clergymen murdered during the first stages of the war.
1939: end of the war; a total of 7000 clergymen and 3000 religious people murdered for practicing Catholicism.

I don't forget the "White Terror" too,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_ter..._White_Terrors

but the Red terror did turn against the Priests, the servants of the Lord.
There was also another argument. That, somehow, by supporting the landlords of that time, they were to blame, therefore they deserved to die. FALSE BEYOND BELIEF.

My paternal great-grandfather also took part in a struggle against the landlords of the time and some land re-distribution was achieved. No one even considered touching a hair of a Cleric.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kileler

This isn't about me however, or my family. This is about Priests being killed and falsely accused as fronting up for anyone. Tell you what. That's a failure. Priests serve God. Spanish inquisition being used as an excuse, that's another phail as well. It was dismantled in 1834. 100 years prior then the Spanish civil war. However harm and pain Spanish inquisition might have caused (deviating from its original function, which was to fight heresy), its existence ended 100 years in the past, therefore it couldn't be used as an excuse for allowing the priests to be slaughtered.

There is nothing good about a Civil war. We had one over here in Greece and I have known for ages what it felt like for people to be caught in the crossfire, when my late father had to be hidden in a hole and having stacks of hay over his head as the reds wanted to take him away for "re-education". He almost choked to death.

However, there are some lines that CANNOT be crossed. Clergy is out or should be out of any violent confrontation. Period. That is not negotiable, it isn't up for debate, it is NOT a point of discussion. If a priest breaks the law they must be judged for it, but NOT killed for being priests. How wrong is that? How can anyone justify putting the Lord on a side which has systematically killed Priests?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...nion#Orthodoxy

As for the Russian Orthodox Church, Soviet authorities sought to control it and, in times of national crisis, to exploit it for the regime's own purposes; but their ultimate goal was to eliminate it. During the first five years of Soviet power, the Bolsheviks executed 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and over 1,200 Russian Orthodox priests. Many others were imprisoned or exiled. Believers were harassed and persecuted. Most seminaries were closed, and publication of most religious material was prohibited. By 1941 only 500 churches remained open out of about 54,000 in existence prior to World War I.
Such crackdowns occurred in the context of many people's dissatisfaction with the Church in pre-revolutionary Russia. The close tie of the Church and the state led to the perception of the Church as corrupt and greedy by many members of intelligentsia. Many peasants, while highly religious, also did not view the institution of the church favorably. The respect for religion did not extend to the local priests. The Church owned a significant portion of Russia's land which was a point of contention (land ownership was a big factor in the Russian Revolution of 1917).

How can anyone put Jesus Christ on any side that kills His own?
Hitler wanted to claim himself as a Champion of Jesus Christ and now Reds?
Even after they killed, burned and committed all sorts of sacrilege?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I wanted a more thorough answer.

You didn't get one because we've been over this in vast detail many times before.

I would be really happy if you Pm'ed me how Jesus is mentioned in the Roman historical archives or any other credible source that we can rely on.

Tacitus' mention and Josephus' account of the execution of his brother James are sufficient evidence for his existence.

Links would definitely be fine.

Try this thread then. If you want to try to argue the evidence isn't sufficient, feel free to start your own thread and make your case. But you'd better make it good - I've been over this stuff before.

[Angrychris]

Socialist

[MaximiIian]

Judging religion by modern-day standards is not sensible.

We're not. Some of Jesus' contemporaries thought he was out of his damn mind. Like, oh...the Romans?

In any case, crazy is crazy, regardless of time period.

[Keravnos]

We're not. Some of Jesus' contemporaries thought he was out of his damn mind. Like, oh...the Romans?

In any case, crazy is crazy, regardless of time period.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. 2.1 billion Christians think otherwise. I side with them. If you really think that a madman could create such a magnificent tree that Christianity is, then your perception of reality might be a bit off.

[iudas]

In any case, crazy is crazy, regardless of time period.

Some things may seem crazy now that seemed normal 2,000 years ago. Like... Christianity for example? Do you think Christ would be as successful in our time?

I doubt Jesus had any sort of mental insanity... Though that would mean he was a liar. Bit of a dilemma here.

[MaximiIian]

If you really think that a madman could create such a magnificent tree that Christianity is, then your perception of reality might be a bit off.

It's not like he built the religion. His followers and their secretaries, who were markedly more sane, did.
As later messianic ideologies, like Nazism, proved: you don't have to be crazy to follow a madman. All it takes is extraordinary circumstances.

Do you think Christ would be as successful in our time?

No, I do not. For good reason. The advent of modern psychology has allowed us far better insight into the human mind, and the myriad conditions and afflictions which may wreak themselves upon it. No such thing existed in the ancient world, so prophets were taken at face value.

I doubt Jesus had any sort of mental insanity...Though that would mean he was a liar.

So he was a liar. Big freaking deal.
Or, rather, in the long term, he was a liar. I'm sure he believed every word of his own apocalyptic ramblings. But when the world didn't end soon after his death, his followers tweaked his message so that it would still make some sense.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

It's not like he built the religion. His followers and their secretaries, who were markedly more sane, did.
As later messianic ideologies, like Nazism, proved: you don't have to be crazy to follow a madman. All it takes is extraordinary circumstances.

Exactly. If history had gone slightly differently, Jesus would be an obscure footnote known to a few specialists in ancient history. How many people know about Theudas? Or the Egyptian prophet? In their time they had much bigger followings than Jesus, yet now they are almost unknown. History is a funny thing.

So he was a liar. Big freaking deal.
Or, rather, in the long term, he was a liar. I'm sure he believed every word of his own apocalyptic ramblings. But when the world didn't end soon after his death, his followers tweaked his message so that it would still make some sense.

Precisely. Jesus was probably not insane by any means. Nor is it likely he was simply a liar. All kinds of people become convinced that their ideas, however odd, are correct. Sometimes they gain a following and sometimes they don't. And sometimes those followings, thanks to some historical accidents, turn into mass movements and sometimes they don't. Just because the mass movement triggered by this guy is now considered by many to be the truth doesn't mean it is.

[Keravnos]

I respectfully disagree with both of you. I believe that the fact that Christianity succeeded where other religions failed, doesn't mean that it was the "lucky" one, but the right one. Like a needle in a haystack.
Anyways, your links were a good read. Thanks for them.
They also show just how many False Messiahs there were out there. How can anyone blame the Jews for Jesus Christ and His fate when they had all those pretenders to deal with?
How can anyone claim this as a basis for anti-Semitism?

[Flavius Nevitta]

For the "right" one, its performance is rather weak don't you think?

It arrived quite late compared to other religions
didn't really get much support or following for the first 300 years of its existance
then quite some force was needed to spread it
and still it hasn't convinced the majority of the world's population

it's more like Scientology with more favourable historical circumstances.
(and I don't want to start discussing things like why the "omnipotent creator of the universe" likes to disguise himself as a minor Middle Eastern god for several centuries with a relatively small following and without the majority of the world never even hearing anything about him in the meantime...ah well...)

Like Thiud said...many people THINK it is right nowadays. but that doesn't mean it is right.

They WANT it to be right and therefore twist and turn to bring some logic into that religion's strange development and at the same time calling everything they accept in their own religion a miracle of god, while similar things in other religions are seen as "stupid", wrong, a.s.o.