Was "Jesus" a "Zealot' who led an Armed Rebellion on the 100th Anniv of the Occupation?

Was "Jesus" aligned with "Zealots" & led an Armed Rebellion on the 100th Anniversary of the Roman Occupation of Judaea?

Attention all ATSers - again, I must remind you all kindly to keep a civil keyboard under your fingertips - this topic is highly explosive and may set certain persons off...and then some.

Dr. Reza Aslan's new book ZEALOT : The Life & Times of Jesus of Nazareth [ISBN 978-0-8129-8148-3 Random House, LLC NY] came out a couple of years ago and brings to a head many of the tantalising clues found in the 'canonical' (council-approved) Greek Gospels that the so-called 'Prince of Peace' wasn't always so peaceful after all...

His thesis, briefly stated, is that "Jesus" as a historical personage bears little resemblance to the Christ of Faith (promulgated by persons such as Saul of Tarsus aka Paul, who never met 'Jesus' in the flesh, only in dreams and visions) and that the violent seditionist Tendenz in some of his actions as portrayed in the Gospels (especially the Riot in the Temple) were utterly 'toned down' by their authors - after all, they made their appearance AFTER the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome (c. 66-72 CE) and Greek speaking Jewish-Christians (i.e. the group who penned the canonical 4 Council Approved Gospels when all is said and done) were evading suspicion of sedition against Rome since they ultimately were promoting Another King Besides Caesar...

In a nutshell, Dr Aslan's thesis is as follows:

l. The very type of execution of 'Jesus' by crucifixion shows that Rome saw him as an armed Seditionist against the Roman Maiestas (it was a punishment soley reserved for insurrectionists especially those 'with Royal aspirations' and was considered a breach of Lex Maiestatis, the No King but Caesar Law)

2. The arming of his disciples with swords (see Luke 22:36 - ('Let him who does not have a purse, sell his outer tunic and buy a sword immediately' ) on the Mount of Olives suggest that he was hoping for some kind of Apocalyptic intervention in accordance with Zechariah 14:4

"On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south."

3. The timing of his execution seems to have co=incided with 'The Insurrection' mentioned by the earliest 'canonical' Greek Gospel 'according to Mark' whoever he was - see Mark 15:7

'And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the Insurrection, there was a man called Jesus Barabbas' - which seems to point to a violent outbreak in Judaea around the time of the arrest of 'Jesus who was called Messiah' -

The fact that The Insurrection (c. 36 CE) took place at the 100th Anniversary of the Roman Invasion of Judaea by Pompey (BCE 63) means that hopes were high among all Jewish rebels in Palestine for the overthrow of Rome's Maiestas and the Innauguration of the 'Kingdom of God' free of the shackles of Roman rule - they had 100 years of freedom from direct foreign rule during the time of the Macabees and afterwards (c. 163 BCE to 63 BCE)

4. The naming of certain disciples by overt proto-Zealot names is telling in this context: there are the two 'sons of Thunder' (benei Regesh); there was Simon Peter ('ha Kephah' i.e. the Rock); there was another Simon who was overtly called a Zealot (Gk. Simon Zelotes, Aram. HaQana, or "Canaanite' which means Zealot)

5. The Riot in the court of the Gentiles which is attested in all four canonical Greek gospels e.g. (John 2:15 = Matthew 21:12 = Luke 19:45 = Mark 11:16) was surely an 'historical event' not likely to have been the invention of the Gospel Writers (see the Theory of Embarassment) and shows a violent Tendenz in the ministry of 'Jesus' which many Christians don't tend to focus on or even think about.

6. The fact that 'Jesus' was a Galilean (a hotbed of Insurrection and rebel activity for 30 years since the armed revolt of Judah the Galillean in 6 CE triggered by the enforcement of the 'census' (meaning that after 6 CE Judaea was now a province of Rome, and owned by the Romans)

7. Words placed into the mouth of a Greek-speaking 'Jesus' in the canonical Gospels include such dangerous and seditious language as 'Think you that the bar Enasha (son of man) was sent to bring Peace upon the land (or Yisro'el)? Nay, I say to you, not Peace, but the Sword. Not harmony, but rather division...so that a man's enemies be they of his own household...' (see Matthew 10:34 etc)

or 'I will destroy this Temple made with hands (i.e. idolatrous) and in three days build another one in its place not made with hands...' in Mark 14:58 and John 2:19

The overall picture is that the man who flouted Rome's Maiestas by riding into Jerusalem on the white she-ass of Solomon and allowing him to be presented as King of the Jews (Hosanna to the Son of David) in full view of the Roman cohorts atop the Fortress Antonia on Temple Mount was seen as a dangerous rebel-instigator of insurrection against the Maistas of Rome, which ultimately led to his execution as an armed seditionist.

Not surprisingly this more violent image of Dr Aslan's 'Jesus' is at odds with what modern day priests and ministers try to portray him when they use terms like 'Prince of Peace' to their congregations on Sundays.

Is there a conspiracy of silence on this subject?

a reply to: Sigismundus

No.


Is it lawful to give head tax to Caesar or not? Should we give or should we not give?”

But he knew their treachery and he said to them, “Why are you testing me? Bring me a penny that I may see it.”

And they brought it; he said to them: “Whose is this image and writing?” They said, “Caesar's.”

Yeshua said to them, “Give what is Caesar's to Caesar and what is God's to God.” And they marveled at him.

Hmm if he was right then why is the prince of peace not as big as the other guy from the religion of peace??? IDK I am not religious why people nit pick on the bearded man in the sky theories is beyond me. Interesting read though.

a reply to: Sigismundus

sorry man, can't see it...

Too much speculation based on very few passages...

Aside from the incident in the temple Jesus seemed to be a pacifist

a reply to: Sigismundus

The only "arms" that Jesus used in battle were TRUTH, Honor, Compassion, and Righteousness, and he never did lose a single battle. He even won the war for all men's souls.

a reply to: Sigismundus

Many cases can be made by balancing, or juggling ancient scriptures. This one is compelling, not that it is proven, but rather that it can be asked as a thought experiment. What if. Just thinking about it loosens our whole western culture to the bone. Can it be proven? Doesn't matter. None of it has been proven, really. About the best any of these scriptural theories achieve is circumstantial speculation with a sprinkling of faith thrown in and the amount that is hotly debated.

if he was leading a armed insurrection why would pilate , who dxed and executed many jews for so much as protesting levies for the aquaducts to jerusalem say that he had found no fault with him. why did Jesus tell peter to put his sword away (before he (peter) got the whole early church killed.)

you know what? i am tired of this crap. some people make any damned accusation out of whole cloth for what ends no one knows.

Various consipira-kook theories: Jesus was gay! Jesus was banging a prostitute! Jesus was the che guevera of the ancient realm. Jesus was an alien! jesus was satan. Jesus was al bundy! (married with children) Jesus faked the moon landing. Jesus shot JR and JFK.

give it a rest and read the Gospel to find out what Christ was really about.

I wont try to tackle all of them cause I need to go to bed but here are my thoughts on a few of them anyway.


l. The very type of execution of 'Jesus' by crucifixion shows that Rome saw him as an armed Seditionist against the Roman Maiestas (it was a punishment soley reserved for insurrectionists especially those 'with Royal aspirations' and was considered a breach of Lex Maiestatis, the No King but Caesar Law)


This stands to reason, in the sense that yes in fact Rome crucified people for insurrection. But remember Jesus was Crucified along side two thieves, so it was not only insurrectionist who were crucified.
However it does say Pontius Pilate found him not guilty and really did not give a crap anyway, but pretty much just wanted the Jewish leaders to shut up and sit down.
Likely cause he did not want them to cause a big stink back in Rome, and he lose his job in Jerusalem, by not keeping the locals in line.
He went on to put King of Jews on his cross as well almost as if to mock the Jews themselves for wanting to kill someone he felt was not guilty. (After All Herods son Antipas was by law the King of the Jews even though he was a vassel of Rome.) So it is possible that was the crime Christ was convicted of.



2. The arming of his disciples with swords (see Luke 22:36 - ('Let him who does not have a purse, sell his outer tunic and buy a sword immediately' ) on the Mount of Olives suggest that he was hoping for some kind of Apocalyptic intervention in accordance with Zechariah 14:4


Seems kinda weird because when the disciples produced 2 swords we said, "that is enough" so I suppose if you presuppose Jesus thought he could fight Rome with only two other guys with swords... Well that theory seems suspect.



3. The timing of his execution seems to have co=incided with 'The Insurrection' mentioned by the earliest 'canonical' Greek Gospel 'according to Mark' whoever he was - see Mark 15:7



I have no idea what he is talking about referencing Mark 15. All I see there is Roman solders making fun of Christ calling him King of the Jews.


4. The naming of certain disciples by overt proto-Zealot names is telling in this context: there are the two 'sons of Thunder' (benei Regesh); there was Simon Peter ('ha Kephah' i.e. the Rock); there was another Simon who was overtly called a Zealot (Gk. Simon Zelotes, Aram. HaQana, or "Canaanite' which means Zealot)


These seem circumstantial at best, especially Peter, because we are told why he calls Peter "The Rock" and it was because of his faith.
Matthew 16:13:18
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I.E. Peter recognized Christ as the Son of God, and it was on this thought and idea that the foundation of the Christian Church was to be based.


Anyway that's a few of my thoughts for what it is worth. I did a bit of brief reading on this guys ideas, and apparently these thoughts of his are not new. I gather some of them were written back in the early 1900's.

i could throw a random internet kook fart theory generator together that would be better at this crap than all the web based conspiracy theorists in existence just jumbling random events, various agencies and persons together with random predicates and verbs.

a reply to: stormbringer1701
A million monkeys and a million typewriters.
"a random internet kook fart theory generator"
good one storm. Stopped me mid sentence and sent me all the way back to the beginning to see if I must have misunderstood something along the way but no, when I got to the random internet kook fart generator part, you hadn't mentioned Trump at all. Kinda stumped me there. That's Trump, I say to myself, that's Trump.
Arandom internet kook fart theory generator
And ya know what? He loves it.

Ah OP? Sorry I didn't mean to drift there, Im back now.

I play golf with Jesus here and there. Let me tell you, that guy can get rowdy after a bottle of wine or two.

Always interesting to read about the political conditions under which Christianity was founded! Thanks for the interesting read!

Just my opinion... the Jewish elite had a vested interest in painting Jesus as a seditionist, whether He was or wasn't one. He and His message were of much greater threat to the Jewish establishment than to the Roman establishment.

a reply to: Sigismundus

Surprisingly this more violent image of Dr Aslan's 'Jesus' is at odds with what modern day priests and ministers try to portray him when they use terms like 'Prince of Peace' to their congregations on Sundays.

 Is there a conspiracy of silence on this subject? 

No. Jesus taught Pacifism (non-violence):

"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." - Matthew 26:52

"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." - Matthew 5:39

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." - Matthew 5:9

a reply to: Sigismundus

I don't have a copy of it any more but I wonder if I didn't read something like this view in the Gospel of Thomas or another of the ignored Gospels that were around but deliberately chose by the church founding fathers.

I suspect Christ as a Gnostic and that view was not the one the emperor and early church founders wanted because they wished to claim Jesus as the actual Son of God and in the Gnostic gospel tells us he said he wasn't but would be glad to call any many who followed him brother etc etc. You can't be an actual brother to the son of a God without being a God yourself.

The real "jesus" from this fable we are fed is a character who lived not 2000 years ago but in fact several hundred years ago. He represented a leader in the resistance movement against the illegitimate system of governance of man which is still running today. He was a rebel,who drank,fought and kept the company of prostitutes. To be more specific he was a pirate and when he was hauled up in court by the system he was mockingly accused of being the "king of the pirates". There are many coded references to this truth in the symbolical story that is told,pirate code. The so called cross he was "crucified" to was the main mast of a ship,the two who were crucified alongside him were strapped to the fore and aft masts of the same ship. It was a gruesome parade meant to serve as example to anyone else who dared to go against the system. One of the most famous symbols of christianity is in fact a pirate symbol,if you google christian symbols you will find the one in question very quickly

a reply to: TravelleOn

The real "jesus" from this fable we are fed is a character who lived not 2000 years ago but in fact several hundred years ago. 

But the Gospels about Jesus Christ were written in 2, 000 year old Ancient Greek... and there were early church fathers who wrote about Jesus between around the end of the second century (which started in 100 AD) to 200 AD...

a reply to: Sigismundus

l. The very type of execution of 'Jesus' by crucifixion shows that Rome saw him as an armed Seditionist against the Roman Maiestas (it was a punishment soley reserved for insurrectionists especially those 'with Royal aspirations' and was considered a breach of Lex Maiestatis, the No King but Caesar Law)

I do not mean to be rude, but his whole argument is based on the premise which claims that Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists(i.e forceful, aggressive agitators) only. That is plain wrong. The real truth about Roman crucifixion is that it was commonly used as punishment for all types of crimes committed by slaves and the lower classes. According to Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World, it was the primary punishment used on slaves[1].

In the writings of most Roman authors, crucifixion appears to be reported as the normal punishment for disobedient slaves.

Crucifixion was regularly used on liberti (former slaves) and peregrini (non-citizens), and not just for major crimes. Crucifixion was occasionally used on citizens as well.

Not surprisingly this more violent image of Dr Aslan's 'Jesus' is at odds with what modern day priests and ministers try to portray him when they use terms like 'Prince of Peace' to their congregations on Sundays.

I do not know about Dr Aslan, but if i was an "armed Seditionist" i wouldn´t spend my time by preaching:

Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to Him, 2and He began to teach them, saying:

3Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

5Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness,

for they will be filled.

7Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.

8Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

9Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God.

10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Is there a conspiracy of silence on this subject?

No, there is not a conspiracy of silence. Only to those who see fire where there is none.


Regards

Seed

Refererences :

1. Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World (2014) by John Granger Cook Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World (2014) by John Granger Cook

a reply to: arpgme

According to the history we are taught..

a reply to: Sigismundus

In a word, NO.

my kingdom is not of this world

[Jhn 18:34-37 KJV] [34] Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? [35] Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? [36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. [37] Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Violence is the rule of the empires of the world, is it how the kingdom operates?

[Mat 11:12 KJV] [12] And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.


Where is his kingdom?

[Luk 17:20-21 KJV] [20] And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: [21] Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Does the kingdom operate by the same rules as a violent empire?

[Mat 20:20, 25-27 KJV] [20] Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping [him], and desiring a certain thing of him. ... [25] But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. [26] But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; [27] And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

The sons of thunder: Look at their power hungry mom, conniving to get them positions of power. Who he then rebukes because they just don't get it, thats not how the kingdom operates. They are still living by the kingdoms of this worlds rules. And this is exactly what he does when the same two knuckleheads with their pushy stage mom, come upper try to operate in the old violent mindset.

The sons of thunder received their name not out of prestige or in a good way, but more like "blow hard", "short fused", "tough guys"

[Luk 9:54-56, 60 KJV] [54] And when his disciples James and John saw [this], they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? [55] But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. [56] For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save [them]. And they went to another village. ... [60] Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

The violent mindset is rebuked here, in the same way he rebukes it in the incidence of the two swords. "yeah you go ahead and fight Rome, real tough guys all of ya', no no two swords is surely enough, you guys have the sons of thunder and Peter "the rock". All twelve of you should do just fine against an army." And when they actually try to bear the sword

Over and over his disciples still don't get it. He has to explain to them repeatedly the meaning of the parables, and they still don't get it. they were brought up in the violent second temple mindset. YHWH the killer god and his killer people.

"you do not know what spirit you are of" that spirit is the spirit of the world. That spirit is the way of the empire. When he spoke of tearing down the temple he meant tearing down everything of the whore of babylon, which is the religious institution (the scribes, pharisees, priests, rituals, heavy burdens, heavy taxation). His entire message is antithetical to the violent zealot mindset. That is exactly what he spoke against.

His message started with peace and ends with forgiveness. When he reads from the Isaiah scroll in the beginning of his ministry he leaves out the "best part".

[Luk 4:18-24 KJV] [18] The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, [19] To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. [20] And he closed the book, and he gave [it] again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. [21] And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. [22] And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son? [23] And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country. [24] And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.

[Luk 4:28-29 KJV] [28] And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, [29] And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.

Why so angry? I thought they were commending him?

He left out the best part

[Isa 61:2 KJV] [2] To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

The old violent mindset, is the old wine. The kingdom of Israel operated on the very same principles as the empires of the world. No difference. Violence, slavery, us vs. them, hierarchy, classes of people, separation, war, etc.

My kingdom is not of this world. The kingdom of heaven is inside. God does not dwell in temples (or religions) made of human hands. The word was made flesh and dwelt IN us. Don't you know you are the temple of God?

These things are far more dangerous to the empire than armed sedition by a bunch of fishermen against the war machine. Which didn't turn out so well, when the jews continued in their violent ways and attempted to revolt against Rome. This was the reason for the warnings of gehenna, or the valley of Ben Hinnom where the bodies of the jews who tried to throw out Rome were thrown and burned. This was the meaning behind the little apocalypse. They just didn't get it.

The kingdom of heaven suffers violence to this day.

a reply to: Sigismundus

If you equate Rome - being the great power of the time - to the USA, then in modern terms Jesus would be classed at best as a cultural insurgent and at worse as a terrorist.

I imagine these days, with a general pacifist mindset and a message to more or less be nice to everyone, he'd be labelled by Fox news as a "liberal, PC idiot" and be ripped to pieces on right-wing forums and by those of a similar mindset on ATS.