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 political?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 08:38 PM
link   
his followers were political in nature...just no evidence to show that Jesus himself was politically charged....his followers though he was going to take over Jersalem by force...it shows in what they said ans what some did when he willingly went with the Romans right before he crucifixian.




posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 09:27 PM
link   
speculates the Bible does referr to yehoshua bar Yosef as the " Prince of peace" Yehoshua mentions there will be other flocks so people shouldnt down other religions cause their Bibles are different its not in what you call God but what He calls you look at a persons heart not their religious beleifs thast what i think anyways



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 11:38 PM
link   
When we think of Political though, we think of power
Jesus was about equality
He may have been born into a political blood line, but your blood line may have been political 200 years ago, doesn't mean you are and it certainly doesn't mean your well off now.
Jesus spoke of other dimensions and other places, not our physical filth. He spoke of mindstates and heavenly things.
Politics are materialistic these days.
If there is no room for religeon in politics:
why do they use it in courtrooms
why do they use it in education systems
politics are for the people, they are morales
although we are supposed to seperate the church and the state?
Why is our time BC and AC ?? Especially if supposibly he is a controversial individual?
Things don't add up, contradiction is not allowed... Opposites Cannot Co-exist. One cannot shoot 2 bows at once nor can One ride 2 horses at once either.

So he may be political, but he is number one in a two "man" political war.
His politics aren't of this world. LoL

[edit on 18/11/04 by dnero6911]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 12:47 AM
link   
"the difference is that Jesus was a HISTORICAL person...
most all of the histories of the timeperiod,"

Instead if Jesus put 'dragons' or 'the fact that the world is flat' and this sentence would still be correct and have implications on the political thought of that time period. ie "When we are fleeing from the dragons exactly how far should we sail from port Jesus sir?"



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 01:27 AM
link   

...................... Register me Kingdom of Heaven party for the next election please...






wheres the ballot box



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Groupies:

Don't forget, that R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean ("Jesus") was executed by the Roman government for purely political reasons:

Specifically breach of LEX MAIESTATIS (the so-called No King but Caesar Law) and for organizing an armed revolt by literally arming his disciples with REAL swords on the hill... which ultimately led to his arrest.

So he was ULTRA political.

How can anyone on this thread claim that a man with Daviddic Blood coursing through his veins running around saying the TIMES OF THE GENTILES IS FULLFILLED REPENT AND BELIEVE THE GOOD NEWS OF THE KINGDOM was not in any way POLITICAL?

The Davidds according to the Old Testament prophecies and psalms etc. were supposed to be reinstated ON THE THRONE in the LAST DAYS (e.g. Amos chapter 9: AND IN ThAT DAY I SHALL RAISE AGAIN THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HATH FALLEN).

There was no separation of politics and religion ("Church and State") in the ancient world, as with most of the world today (the US is one of the rare ones who try and separate it..but then there's Mr Bush...well anyway).

Any religious leader in the ancient world was IPSO FACTO a political leader...and IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND THE WORDS OF R. YEHOSHUA BAR YOSEF the Galilean OUTSIDE OF THE POLITICS OF THE OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE BY ROME since BC 63, at the 100th anniversary of the Maccabean Revolt.

And the fact that "IESOUS" led his very own home grown and very Armed Revolt (wow, real swords !) on the very Anniversary of the 100 year mark following the Triumphal Entry of General Pompey of Rome who invaded and militarily occupied Jersualem (at which time, a slave of the High Priest seems to have lost, well...an ear) means POLITICAL POLITICAL POLITICAL no matter how much the whitewashed gospels tried to hide it (they were carefully edited and widely circulated IN WATERED DOWN GREEK which TONED DOWN THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC WARRIOR LANGUAGE in the period immediately after Israel was destroyed in the Jewish Revolt of AD 66-70), where even that cruel monster, the vicious Roman Praefect of Iudaea "Pontius Pilatus" is carefully porrayed to seem, well... almost human...!!


[edit on 19-11-2004 by Amadeus]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Amadeus,




Don't forget, that R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean ("Jesus") was executed by the Roman government for purely political reasons:



Not that simplistic ...... Infact, Pilate(representing the ‘the Roman Govt.’) wanted to let Jesus go, because he quickly rationalized the lone, half naked and [apparently] powerless Jesus to be harmless , either to Caesar or to himself . But the religious leaders left Pilate with little choice.

The corrupt Roman-established Synhedria threatened Pilate. Pilate knew that the charges were false, “for he knew it was out of envy that they had handed Jesus over to him.” (Matt. 27:18)

On the basis of the charges they had brought against jesus, the theo-political leaders threatened Pilate: “'If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.' When Pilate heard this, he ...” changed his mind. (John 19:12b-13a)

etc....






’‘IESOUS" led his very own home grown and very Armed Revolt (wow, real swords !)”


In which Gospel do we find Jesus’s 'VERY well armed Revolt"? Y Not Peter’s lone sword which Jesus ordered put away, I hope? In fact all the apostle’s, including Peter, deserted him soon after he was arrested…Some 'revolt'!...

Jesus was indeed political, but his politics was literally out of this world ,i.e. Spiritual. He had no interest in establishing a literal, earthly kingdom, at least not before his crucifixion.

John 18:36

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, .... but now is my kingdom not from hence".

May we conclude that it was the high priest and his gaggle of corrupt 'priests'(if I may) priests who were most responsible for Jesus' death?


Regards,








[edit on 19-11-2004 by Logician]



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Jesus says follow me how does that show equality that only shows that he is a leader and we are the followers if it were truly equal wouldnt it have been something like "lets take turns following each other"



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Political beliefs follow in line with a persons moral and personal beliefs. Not the other way around. Well at least as far as conservative are usually concerned.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   
The bible clearly states that Jesus was a political figure and not a man of peace, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Mathew 10:34) and "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" (Luke 22:36).

Zealot Apostles...

The disciple Simon Magus was a zealot, a terrorist against the Roman invaders, Judas Iscrariot's name is a corruption of the Greek Sikariotes, meaning Assassin, Lebbaeuse Thaddaeus was also another Zealot Commander and the three were invoved in an unsuccessful uprising against Pilate..

The gentle Jesus meek and mild, seems to be the invention of a later age.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   
The gentle Jesus meek and mild, seems to be the invention of a later age.


Somebody has been inventing alright.


Take two lines out of the bible that you don't understand out of context and ignore every other word. Real bright.

You want violence? Read where the Koran talks about beating your wife and killing the infidels.


[edit on 20-11-2004 by imas]



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by imas

You want violence? Read where the Koran talks about beating your wife and killing the infidels.


[edit on 20-11-2004 by imas]


Add to that incest, child molestation, stonning and genocide and you have the Old Testament of the Bible.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 02:04 PM
link   
The God from the Old Testament is a a hella of a lot meaner and vengefull than The God of the New Testament



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by badkitty
Add to that incest, child molestation, stonning and genocide and you have the Old Testament of the Bible.


Whatever helps you sleep at night.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I don't understand???

Do you really think Jesus and the Hebrew nation liked being invaded by the Romans?

Christ comes from the greek Christos and means King, in this case of the bloodline of the Judean (Davidic) kings. "Christ cometh of the seed of David" John 7:42 and " Jesus Christ our lord, which was made of the seed of David" Romans 1:3-4. The Judean kings had been supplanted by the Romans installing Herod the Idumean as king.

Remember Herod? he was the man who had John the Baptist (High preist of Zadok) beheaded.

Jesus tried to rally support to his cause, to unite jews and gentiles to overthrow the Roman Oppression, but sectarian groups within the jews like the Pharisee's hated him (Matthew 21:12) for busting up their temple, and making trouble with the roman authorities. Luke 19:40 tells that the Pharisee'sordered the disciples to be rebuked for causing a disturbance, and (Mark 14:1) tells how the scribes and preists "sought how they might take him by craft and put him to death".

The entire saga of the AD 66-70 Jewish uprising is detailed not only in the bible but also in the "The war of the Jews" and "the Antiquities of the Jews" (circa AD80) by the Hasmonaean Flavius Josepus, Roman Guardian of Galillee.

Every part of Jesus life and death was dogged by factional rivalry in his community and the intercession of the Romans, who eventually under the Emporer Hadrian in 135AD crushed the Jewish community scattering it's survivors utterly.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Hi Flange,



.The bible clearly states that Jesus was a political figure and not a man of peace, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Mathew 10:34) and "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" (Luke 22:36).

. .......The gentle Jesus meek and mild, seems to be the invention of a later age.



. Yes Jesus was a 'political figure' in a sense. But he didn't encourage a 'violent political revolt' (if that's your implication). That's going too far. Jesus’ “sword saying” (only in Luke; see v. 36) results in a quick taking of inventory. Two swords are found, and when one comes into literal use Jesus undoes its harm (vv. 50, 51). He is not counseling readiness for armed rebellion. Rather, he is stressing the peril they face and the courage they need to muster for the crisis just ahead. 'It is enough' is a dismissal of their overliteral response, just as you are doing right now! If jesus were talking to you right now, he would say to you, "it is enough", 'don't get carried away'.. Jesus’ admonition sought to sting them into alertness, not institute violence as a means of following Jesus.

It is wrong to manipulate isolated verses of scripture to make out of context generalizations about their intent. Such manipulation makes these verses(usually lone) to 'say' just about anything.

.Also the meek and gently jesus was not a later 'invention'..I will let you find out for yourself why that's the case.


Best





[edit on 20-11-2004 by Logician]



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   
... when people who call themselves Christians vow to impose the un-progressed Mosaic Law on the entire USA;

... when people duck out of Social Security because they're going to take care of their own elderly.

... when people refuse to have blood transfusions nor to bend to the will of the pharmacological industry;

... when people refuse to buy media that portray violence and porn;

... when people stand on principle and refuse to vote for avowed Satanists, even if they merely joined a Fraternity in college that espouses Satanism.

... when people don't allow their children to participate in Gummint-sanctioned activities.

... when people walk away from debates over same-sex marriage and homosexual relationships because they figure their community will always want to remain apart from those practices.

.... among other times.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I agree it is wrong to take a single line out of the context of a larger meaning...

Have you not done exactly that to me...

I'll leave you to work out for yourself why hippocracy is wrong...




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join