It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   


However one takes the historicity of the final days of "Jesus" in the Greek Gospels, including 'Lukes' sword purchasing sayings in 'Luke' 22:36 it does seem that R. Yehoshua bar Yosef ("Jesus") was looking for some kind of apocalyptic Miracle on the hill in accordance with the prophecies of the divine protection of the Messiah.


I understand why you would think this way, however there are other things to consider as well.
If we take the account of what he said which is only found in the Bible as authoritative to what happened, then we must also assume that he went peacefully, and even went so far as to heal the soldiers ear, when Peter got rambunctious with the sword, because it is all part of the same narrative.
We would also have to account for why Jesus would also effectively tell his disciples that he was going to be the sacrificial lamb for the sins of world at the last supper. Why would he tell people to turn the other cheek, when attacked e.t.c

Considering the sheer amount of evidence presented in the Bible of Jesus' somewhat pacifist nature, I would think it a wiser course of action when coming to a passage about buying swords to assume we simply don't understand what he was telling them. It would not be the first time people did not understand what he was saying, his own disciples had difficulty according to the Bible.


What is even more compelling here is the physical position of Jesus and the (11 remaining) disciples moving across the Kidron Valley and climbing one of the hills on the Mount of Olives in the light of Zechariah 14:3-4 - note the warrior/zealot language...and apocalyptic hope for the Messiah of Yisro'el:


I have indeed noticed the language, however I would offer something else to think about. The passage in Zechariah is talking about the Day of the Lord. The question what is the Day of the Lord I think is relevant to our understanding, of what is being talked about in Zechariah.

Well a description of the Day of the lord entails the moon turning to blood, and the sun going dark. Assuming that neither of those things happened I think we can safely assume that Jesus did not think that what was what was transpiring that day. That is of course we assume Jesus new his Scripture.
Again assuming that the Biblical narrative is true, on what Jesus said, we also should assume the reason that the same scripture tells us he went to the mount.
To Pray.
It not as if he had not been there many times before, in the gospels, why should we assume this time he was up to sedition.

Luke 22:39 "And he came out and went, as was his custom, to the Mount of Olives, and the disciples followed him."
Note the passage says; as was his custom, which seems to imply he visited the place on the regular.



And one of them [Simon Peter] drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his [right] ear.

Such zealot activity is ususally swept under the carpet by priests and ministers alike since it undermines their portrayal of 'Jesus' as a 'pacifist' .


This is at best subjective as I have never witnessed any such sweeping under the carpet.
In my experience it has been discussed a lot to demonstrate that Christ was going to willing martyr himself and other times the passage is discussed to demonstrate that Peter was something of a reactionary. I mean it is the same Peter that denied him 3 times in one night when he got nervous and the same Peter that Jumped out of a boat. It seems to me that Peter did whatever peter was going to do. LOL




posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Punisher75



You wrote QUOTE "Considering the sheer amount of evidence presented in the Bible of Jesus' somewhat pacifist nature, I would think it a wiser course of action when coming to a passage about buying swords to assume we simply don't understand what he was telling them. It would not be the first time people did not understand what he was saying, his own disciples had difficulty according to the Bible..." UNQUOTE

I'm not sure what you mean by 'somewhat pacifist nature' - generally one is a pacifist or one is not. There's an old saying that if something lives in the sea, looks like a fish, swims like a fish and gets caught on a hook, that something is...well, a fish.

'Jesus' armed his disciples with swords and caused a riot in the Temple and was arrested and executed as an armed seditionist by Rome crucified betwen two seditionists during 'The Insurrection' (if you believe Mark 15:7).

He lived in a time and place that was a hotbed of political unrest, he certainly had the right background as a Galilean to be influenced by and to recruit armed insurrectionists like Simon the Zealot (among so many other armed Galilean zealots), he talked and lived as one - therefore many modern scholars are leaning towards the impression that his ministry as a whole from its inception leaned towards violence - as he himself admitted ('since the days of John the Baptist, the Kingdom has been assailed by Violence and now it is the violent men who have breached it') especially as the date of his crucifixion seemed to co-incide with the 100th Anniversary of the Invasion of Rome into Jerusalem in 63 BCE- that is, in c. 36 CE

Certainly, he was the leader of a group of armed Galileans, several with Zealot monikers ('Sons of Thunder', 'The Rock' and 'Simon the Zealot' etc.) a group of men who were angry that Romans literally owned the 'holy land' as a Roman 'Provincia' which they believed belonged soley to them in accordance with their Torah scriptures and their Prophets & Psalms...

He assaulted the sacred Place in the middle of a large and crowded Religious Festival. He scourged respected merchants, with whips and cords, destroyed records and property which belonged to the Temple, and assumed an armed occupation of an important city building. The next day he threatened the city with further such acts because they had fallen from a religious ideal, and he used prophecy and religious zealotry to draw supporters to his cause. What would we describe that as today? Some would even go so far to say that Jesus was not only a Zealot; they would call him (today) a 'Terrorist' especially after causing the Riot in the Temple.

Even some of his parables show some inherent violence. See for example Luke 19:27

But as for my enemies who did not want me to be their king, bring them here and execute them all in my presence...”

We need to realise that the canonical Greek Gospels were written many decades after Jesus' death by a group of people trying to convince others to join their new movement - it is not outside the realm of possibility that some of the more benign aspects of Jesus' bibliography are either fabricated or exaggerated in the texts in order to make him more attractive to potentially new followers - and the Gospels themselves, when all is said and done, are propaganda tracts, for want of a better word and geared for the sole purpose of making and retaining new converts at a skittish time following the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome (66-72 CE) when the Roman authorities would have been very sensitive to any armed rabble rousers stirring up 'Messianic hopes' among their vassals in Palestine.

See Luke 24:21 “Our own hope had been that he would be the one to set Israel free….” To set Israel free could only mean one thing in first century Judea – to remove Roman rule and establish the 'Kingdom of Heaven...'

On the hill that night, there is no doubt Jesus and his disciples were outnumbered -in 'John’s' Gospel it is even claimed an entire cohort of Roman soldiers along with the Temple Police was sent to arrest him: a cohort was a uniquely Roman term referring to 500 Roman soldiers, roughly equivalent to 40 football teams of men.

Judas...bought the cohort to this place together with a detachment of guards sent by the chief priests and Pharisees, all with lanterns and torches and weapons.” (John 18:3 J.B).

'Matthew' called this crowd “a great multitude with swords and clubs”. 'Luke' called them a “multitude”. Mark claimed they came “from the chief priests, the scribes and the elders.” ('Mark' 14:43).

The question immediately arises: Would the Romans have sent this many soldiers to arrest a benign, peace-loving preacher telling harmless little parables? I think not. Jesus was a 'big fish' with a large entourage of loyal fanatic supporters and he needed to be decisively crushed.

I would encourage everyone on this thread to read around the subject a little e.g. on the socio-political climate of first century Galilee. For example there were several major armed insurrections against the Romans in 4BC, 6CE (and in 36 CE according to Mark 15:7) and of course the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome 66-70CE.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain stories and pictures of a revenge filled fantasy war in which the Jews were victorious against the Romans ('kittim') and the War Scroll in particular outlines zealotry - all in the context of a Holy War against Roman Occupation.


edit on 14-1-2016 by Sigismundus because: stutteringg compute keyyboardddd



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sigismundus
a reply to: Punisher75
I'm not sure what you mean by 'somewhat pacifist nature' - generally one is a pacifist or one is not. There's an old saying that if something lives in the sea, looks like a fish, swims like a fish and gets caught on a hook, that something is...well, a fish.


Simple answer, is this. When Christ came to the world he came to act as a sacrificial lamb, however when he is to return he will not be quite as polite.


'Jesus' armed his disciples with swords and caused a riot in the Temple and was arrested and executed as an armed seditionist by Rome crucified betwen two seditioinists during 'The Insurrection' (if you believe Mark 15:7).

I think its important to read Mark 14 before we get to 15, because it tells us what led to the trial.
I am not reading anything about Christ being in any insurrection at all, nor am I reading anything about him arming anyone, remember 2 swords are enough?
The question I have is what evidence you have that Jesus had anything at all to do with any riot in Jerusalem? What I see in Mark 15 is two people who were charged with the same crime and one was found innocent and the other turned free.


He lived in a time and place that was a hotbed of political unrest, he certainly had the right background as a Galilean to be influenced by and to recruit armed insurrectionists

Would you say that someone should be assumed guilty of a crime in 1970's Detroit for living in the inner city? Of course not.


Certainly, he was the leader of a group of armed Galileans, several with Zealot monikers ('Sons of Thunder', 'The Rock' and 'Simon the Zealot' etc.)


Zealot: Zealot does not equal violent, it also means passionate.
Yes there are some who think that Simon the Zealot was involved later in life with an insurrectionist movement, however that claim does not go undisputed by others in the field. So in my opinion, we simply do not know.

Sons of Thunder: There is no stated explanation as to why Jesus named James and John this. From what I have gathered it would likely be a result of this incident,

Luke 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?”

But what happened right after they said this?

Luke: 9:55
"But Jesus turned and criticized them for saying this. Then he and his followers went to another town."

Not exactly the response you would expect from a Violent Man. It is my contention that Jesus Calling James and John the Sons of Thunder was likely sarcastic in nature.

The Rock:
This one we can be somewhat certain about as the entire narrative is spelled out for us, and it clearly shows it has nothing to do with insurrection but rather the building of the Christian Church.

Matthew 16:15-20
15 Then Jesus said to his followers, “And who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah. No one taught you that. My Father in heaven showed you who I am.
18 So I tell you, you are Peter. And I will build my church on this rock. The power of death will not be able to defeat my church.
19 I will give you the keys to God’s kingdom. When you speak judgment here on earth, that judgment will be God’s judgment. When you promise forgiveness here on earth, that forgiveness will be God’s forgiveness.”
20 Then Jesus warned his followers not to tell anyone he was the Messiah.

So we see here that Jesus was telling Peter that his understanding and faith of Christ as the Messiah was the foundation of his church.
In addition if you will note verse 20, he tells his disciples NOT to tell anyone he is the messiah. Why? I would assume so that the locals would not riot in his name.



The question immediately arises: Would the Romans have sent this many soldiers to arrest a benign, peace-loving preacher telling harmless little parables? I think not. Jesus was a big fish with a large entourage of loyal fanatic supporters and he needed to be decisively crushed.


Just gonna let that sit there. LOL




I would encourage everyone on this thread to read around the subject a little e.g. on the socio-political climate of first century Galilee. For example there were several major armed insurrections against the Romans in 4BC, 6CE (and in 36 CE according to Mark 15:7) and of course the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome 66-70CE. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain stories and pictures of a revenge filled fantasy war in which the Jews were victorious against the Romans ('kittim') and the War Scroll in particular outlines zealotry - all in the context of a Holy War against Roman Occupation.


I would encourage anyone on this thread to recognize that a political climate is not evidence of anything at all other than the Middle was a difficult place to live at the time of Roman Rule, and being present at the time does not make one a terrorist by default.
I would also add that if the writers of the New Testament were attempting to "White Wash" Jesus then why would they mention him saying anything that could be construed as insurrectionist?

What standard do we use to say; "Yes the Bible IS correct in stating that Jesus said "X" but the same Bible, and Often the same Book in the Bible is Wrong when it says Jesus did NOT in fact say "Y"?
edit on 14-1-2016 by Punisher75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus



When the person 'turns the other cheek' to the offender, it would force him to slap him with the palm across the face - in other words, he is saying in effect 'be defiant' : remember who you are (i.e. the Elect of the Lost Sheep of the House of Yisro'el) don't let the filthy rotten gentiles disrespect you with a back handed slap to the head.'


Your interpretation doesn't fit with what Jesus says in the rest of The Sermon:



Matthew 5:44-46 King James Version (KJV)

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?


Nor does it fit with what Jesus said here:



Luke 6:35-36 King James Version (KJV)

35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.



edit on 14-1-2016 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

You wrote QUOTE "Well, Christians have "the golden ticket" of faith alone... so they can do whatever they want because they're already saved it seems... Preachers are still gonna preach their garbage... Christians will still blindly follow their pastors and priests..." UNQUOTE

This is difficult for me to swallow (as for you, no doubt) since it seems to excuse all malevolent behavior of 'Christians" (unless I am missing something) when all they have to do is claim "faith in Jesus" and go scot-free. Others would add that they need to repent and all will be forgiven them, which amounts to the same thing.

The premise (or promise) of Christianity, as it is generally practiced today, is that all Christians, the tall and the small, the meek and the mild, the wonderful and the wild, are going to Heaven by virtue of their acceptance of the late J.C. as their personal Savior.

You hear people say 'as members of the one true religion, they alone hold a Golden Ticket to Heaven'... Other Christians give lip service to the teachings of Christ, but fall far short of the mark, saying things like "I'm free to do whatever I want while I'm here, as long as I confess my sins, I will be forgiven by the Lord..."

When taken to its logical extreme, it means that a mass-murderer who spends a lifetime engaged in misdeeds, but who takes a few minutes on the walk to the electric chair to finally recognize Jesus as his personal Savior, will ascend to Heaven the moment the sparks have died down, but the same all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God would turn away at the gates someone who lived life with kindness, compassion, and love for all, but in ignorant bliss of the boastful claims of Christianity.

Just when does all this end?



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus

It never ends... As long as the religion exists there will be people parroting crap like that

I find it extremely amusing and most times I can't help but comment on this mentality

Funny thing is Jesus taught nothing of the sort... Faith alone does not exist in his teachings...

In fact the very idea makes the bulk of his teaching Null and void...

What's worse is the belief that a man who has been an absolute horrid person his whole life gets a pass, while a loving caring person who's been good all his life gets the chop, and is sent to "eternal punishment" simply because he didn't believe...

God wouldn't do this... And what kind of motivation would it be to know that in "heaven" theres only Christians, who are mostly (in my experience) the most judgemental, self righteous, hypocritical people I've ever met... Not all of course, but most. IF that is the case, sign me up for Hell... at least there will be beer

Though they will continue this idea to the end, no matter how ridiculous it actually is... because its what they've been taught... or what they've been brought up to believe... and without critical thinking skills they will never escape

it is what it is though


edit on 8-2-2016 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

You wrote : QUOTE "Though they will continue this idea to the end, no matter how ridiculous it actually is... because its what they've been taught... or what they've been brought up to believe... and without critical thinking skills they will never escape : it is what it is though ..." UNQUOTE

I suspect one of the reasons why Christians do not exercise their critical faculties is the message of 'Paul' who railed against Knowledge ('gnosis'), but even his message was mis-understood since he was clearly referring to the Gnostic sects when he wrote against 'gnosis'.

In the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the words of 'Jesus' we see that the 'Knowledge' of God is something to be attained and hoped for. But Paul undid all of this.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Punisher75

You wrote QUOE "I am not reading anything about Christ being in any insurrection at all, nor am I reading anything about him arming anyone, remember 2 swords are enough? The question I have is what evidence you have that Jesus had anything at all to do with any riot in Jerusalem?..." UNQUOTE

The Insurrection is mentioned in Mark 15:7

ἦν δὲ ὁ λεγόμενος Βαρ αββᾶς μετὰ τῶν στασιαστῶν δεδεμένος οἵτινες ἐν τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν

'A man called Barabbas was in prison with other insurrectionists who had committed murder in 'The Uprising'...'

As for arming his disciples with swords, see Luke 22:36

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, ὅτε ἀπέστειλα ὑμᾶς ἄτερ βαλλαντίου καὶ πήρας καὶ ὑποδημάτων, μή τινος ὑστερήσατε; οἱ δὲ εἶπαν, οὐθενός. εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς, ἀλλὰ νῦν ὁ ἔχων βαλλάντιον ἀράτω, ὁμοίως καὶ πήραν, καὶ ὁ μὴ ἔχων πωλησάτω τὸ ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀγορασάτω μάχαιραν.


Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. 'And he said to them, “but now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one immediately'

As for the riot in the Temple, I think we would have to take it as read that a riot ensued during the whips of cords episode in the Court of the Gentiles ('the Cleansing of the Temple') which is under-reported in the canonical Greek Gospels (who devote less than 3 verses to this important periscope) see John 2:14-15

καὶ ποιήσας φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων πάντας ἐξέβαλεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας καὶ τῶν κολλυβιστῶν ἐξέχεεν τὰ κέρματα καὶ τὰς τραπέζας ἀνέτρεψεν...

"Then he made a whip out of cords, and drove all the men from the temple Courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and he overturned their tables..."

If you cannot see that this is a riot, you need to take a closer look at the Greek text which makes use of violent verbs
ἐξέβαλεν ('to throw out violently') ἀνέτρεψεν ('to overturn with force')

There were several Courts open to men in the Temple (Court of the Gentiles, Court of the Israelites, Court of the Levites) so we are talking about a standoff over a rather wide area with several courtyards involved. This is nothing less than a riotous act with violent intent.

The fact that Mediaeval and Renaissance artists (a Tendenz down to the present day, in fact) tend to depict this riot in the Temple in grossly understated terms is no excuse for them.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join