I got in a fight with someone recently over the subject of who Jesus.
I argued that Jesus was more against the Jews and he argued Jesus was against the Romans.
Someone else then joined the discussion and took the middle position and argued that we were both kinda right.
Help settle this, please?
Most of Jesus's diatribes seem to be delivered at the priesthood in Jerusalem and the Sadducees in general. They were something of the collaborationist party in 1st century Judea. So my vote would be with the guy in the middle; he was more against the conventional religious establishment of his day, which was viewed as abnegating to the Romans.
I don't think Jesus was anti-Jewish or anti-Roman. Like the other poster said, he was against their religious authorities mostly.
Jesus never took a stance against the Romans. The Romans weren't the ones God tasked with waiting for, and identifying, the Messiah.
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"
He wasn't for or directly against either. He was very critical of the Jewish religious establishment. He never said boo about Rome to my knowledge, except pay your taxes.
It depends entirely on which gospel you read.
Generally the later the more anti-Jew they get.
Jesus don´t seems like a nationalist to me, however some of his disciples were zealots and he could easily have chosen to lead a zealot movement. I conclude his beef was first against priests in general and second against the foreign occupation
Well...okay. That was part of my argument. I agreed with the middle guy that, yes, he was against the religious establishment, in general, but that most of his direct words and actions were against the Jews. Therefore, we have to assume that the Jews were who he was largely against. Or, at least, attempting to reform. Am I wrong to say that? In a similar way that Martin Luther was against the Catholic Church, in a sense. Is this not correct?
And no, this has nothing to do with a /pol/ thing. This was an honest discussion about Jesus' teachings and leadership.
Jesus was absolutely against both, but obviously for different reasons. The corruption inside Judaism from the Sadducees and Pharisees was more important because the Hebrew religion had become compromised. So it was a higher priority for God. And when consider the fact that all of the Aramaic New Testament scrolls were destroyed (all we have are Greek translations), you can see why Jesus was more fixed on changing their ways than the Romans. These people obviously had a role in muddying the legacy of God and making it far more difficult to trust the veracity of the NT scriptures, compared to the dutiful preservation of the OT for example. Since the Hebrew faith is the narrow path to eternal life, the scriptures from the sects Jesus spoke too would be invaluable, but they unfortunately have been destroyed.
Rome on the other hand, was the literal seat of Satan. If the Pharisees and Saducees represented all spiritual corruption, Rome represented worldly corruption. It was a brutal, politically corrupt ear machine that ran on blood and entertainments, and often the two were one and the same. But Rome was a gentile land, as was Greece, and the message wasn't going to get to them through anyone other than the Jews, so sorting out the corruption without the house of God was more imperative at this time.
And it stands as a powerful example for a Rome to come, not to let man's traditions supersede the commandments of God, which, as we know, would lead to a massive schism over 1500 years later.
He wasn't really anti roman, though Simon was a Zealot. He was much more about the kingdom of God rather than the kingdom of man.
As the other Anons have said, he primarily spoke against the Pharisees and Sadducees and their interpretations of God. I'm sure he wasn't pleased with certain Roman things, but it's not like he was going to go join the PFJ.l
>And no, this has nothing to do with a /pol/ thing. This was an honest discussion about Jesus' teachings and leadership.
The problem is, that we really have very little reliable information about what Jesus's teachings and leadership was actually like. The only informaiton we have that even purports to be a record of his teachings are the Gospels, and they are contradictory documents written decades after the fact by anonymous authors, who probably have axes to grind, vis a vis the Jews, and rival Christian sects.
So for instance, we have a lot of stuff about "The Jews" (mostly in John), but we also have what seems to be a great deal of confusion between sects. "Pharisees" plot to kill Jesus immediately afterwards, and certainly by implication because of, him healing a man on the Sabbath. That was a Sadducee position, not a Pharisee one, and the two groups had a rather sharp divide over it. It seems likely that the gospel authors either weren't too clear on the different sects in Judea, or were trying to play politics games.
Trying to derive specific teachings of Jesus like that is almost impossible.
I would agree with that, but know that Jesus was telling the Jews that their system of Pharisaical Judaism designed in Babylon to prevent a repeat violation of the Law of Moses had utterly failed. That their myriad of laws designed to prevent anyone from being close enough to breaking a commandment was faulty and futile. That sin began in the heart, and it didn't matter if your hands were washed a dozen times a day, they were still bloody.
When Jesus did interact with a centurion or two, he remarked that their faith was stronger than the faith of the Jews; that by being men under authority, they understood how things worked not only on earth, but in the heavens.
I'm absolutely sure you meant the JPF.
I usually don't engage in these discussions but...
John 12:48-The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.
Splitters!
Jesus never existed, you bum
Jesus was against any worldly or religious power that failed to be righteous. But He was also able to forgive anyone who failed to be righteous for He knew that everyone was able enough to come back to their senses
Jesus was a Jew
Jesus loved his Jewish mother. He was a good Jewish boy.
A good Jewish boy would have married a nice Jewish girl, and settled down and become a doctor so he could heal people or a lawyer so he could make laws.
Jesus was the son of god, so he could heal people AND make laws. I also think he would have married a nice jewish girl (Catholic revisionists leave) if it wasn't for the whole crucifixion thing.
He never existed, you're talking about a fictional character
Good post
He wasn't against anybody. He wanted to reform Judaism. But they didn't want any.
Most scholarship agrees that he probably existed, my friend.
He was against nobody stupid, love for all
Jesus was against the Jewish establishment, not the Roman. Your friend doesn't know his gospels.
Most scholarship CAN'T be wrong, bro
At one point most scholarship agreed Moses existed
If you're going against what is widely accepted, with no real argument of your own, then I don't know what to tell you. I guess we have to agree to disagree, but this thread presupposes Jesus existing, so you have no point in posting here if you believe otherwise.
I'm going with the theory that he was a revelatory celestial being since Paul never talked about a Jesus being on Earth and people import the Gospels into the text
I personally believe he reached an understanding of reality which allowed him to manipulate the world we perceive, similar to Taoist immortals. He additionally is a shadow body of God, to use Buddhist terminology.
But I'm pretty screwed up and shift in and out of different frameworks pretty easily.