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

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
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.

You forgot one. The Jesus of the bible never existed theory.

originally posted by: neformore
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.

I kind of guessed this would be somehow brought around to 'what if happened today in America', but the scenario is extremely deeply flawed. The Jewish traditions talked of a messiah who would overthrow those who seek to oppress them, with the assumption that this would be by force. There is no such tradition in modern day North America that I'm aware of, but you may know differently?

There have been several musings that Jesus (assuming the Jesus of the New Testament existed) moved from thoughts of an armed revolt to thoughts of a peaceful revolution based on the fact he wouldn't gain the blessing of the Sanhedrin - who were loathe to claim him as a messiah - which in turn led to the Sanhedrin pressing Pilate to execute him. The fact that the life of Jesus in the NT is relatively undocumented until the age of roughly 30 (apart of course from his birth) leaves a gap where talk and planning for an armed revolution may have taken place.

Is that what happened? Of course we have no idea. Without any further information we have the collected writings of the new testament - how some people wish to interpret them based on their assumptions is up to them, but it is nothing but their assumption............... until proven otherwise.

a reply to: Sigismundus

I always thought people at the time were really disappointed with Jesus because he wasn't the brutal warlord they expected.

a reply to: uncommitted

You wrote QUOTE

There have been several musings that Jesus (assuming the Jesus of the New Testament existed) moved from thoughts of an armed revolt to thoughts of a peaceful revolution based on the fact he wouldn't gain the blessing of the Sanhedrin - who were loathe to claim him as a messiah - which in turn led to the Sanhedrin pressing Pilate to execute him...Is that what happened? Of course we have no idea. .. UNQUOTE

Good points. But it also could have worked the other way around - "Jesus" (Gk. ho Iesous) could have started out as a pacifist and when that didn't get him the results he wanted he then turned to violence or allowed his movement to engage overt Zealots like Shimeon haQana ('Simon the Zealot') as the date of the 100th anniversary of the Invasion of Rome (BC 63 to 36CE) drew nearer and nearer, which culminated in 'The Insurrection' spoken of by 'Mark' (whoever he was) in chapter 15:7.

It all depends on where you place the beginning of this feature in the scheme of things.
It might be helpful to take a look at the so-called 'Riot in the Temple' pericopes, which showcases this violent Tendenz in the gospel narratives. In the 4th gospel ('according to John' whoever he was) we see the riot described in some detail at the BEGINNING of his ministry (see John 2:16

When it was almost time for the Passover of the Jews, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Remove these at once! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”..

whereas the 'synoptic' gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke place the Riot at the END of his ministry (see Matthew 21:13, Mark 11:15-17 and Luke 19:45-47) so the Tendenz towards violence could conceivably have gone in either direction.
We also have the tricky phrase in Matthew 11:12 which is variously translated :

ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν Ἰωάνου τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ ἕως ἄρτι ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν βιάζεται, καὶ βιασταὶ ἁρπάζουσιν αὐτήν.

Here are some guesses from the versions out there in the wild:

"From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it."

"From the days of John the Baptist, the kingdom of heaven has been subject to violence, and now the zealots are laying claim to it."

"From the days of John the Baptist until now, life is given unto the kingdom of the heavens, and the valiant take hold of it"

"From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom from heaven has been forcefully advancing, and zealous have been attacking it..."

The Greek verb βιάζεται may be either in the middle voice, “forces its way with zealous violence,” or passive, as in the English version, but the latter is surely correct.

The Greek noun βιασταὶ is without the article, “men who are zealously violent or use force.” The meaning is determined by the preceding clause.

Who these anonymous 'men of violence' are is not stated in the text - and it would be up to the reader or listener to fill in the gaps, but as you say, perhaps we'll never know for sure...

a reply to: arpgme

You wrote QUOTE: "No. Jesus taught Pacifism (non-violence)..." UNQUOTE

Pacifism? Really, now.

It would surely be ignoring key evidence (to say nothing of being somewhat blindly foolish not to pursue the subject) to think there was no undercurrent of violence at all to the 'Jesus movement' - especially in view of what has already been mentioned above on this thread with evidence taken from the very gospels themselves which are meant to be supportive of the movement, but were too entrenched in the early tradition to be removed (cf: the criterion of embarrassment, where uncomfortable facts are generally not the product of the gospel writers imagination but are based on historical underpinnings) - including but not limited to:

the Riot in the Temple where whips and cords were used,
the Arming of his Disciples with real Swords where during a scuffle on the hill, someone's ear went missing,
the Placing of his followers on a deliberately strategic almost military position atop the Mount of Olives,
the Naming of key disciples with proto-Zealot monikers, e.g. 'Sons of Thunder', 'Simon Zealotes', 'The Rock' etc.
the Threats placed into the mouth of a Greek speaking Iesous to bring upon the land of Yisro'el 'The Sword and not Peace' and that the Kingdom of Heaven has been 'usurped by violent men...'

to say nothing of the actual method of Execution (crucifixion) significantly between two insurrectionists) -

These all point to something else is going on underneath all the texts we read in the Greek (council-approved) gospel material which are often 'swept under the carpet' by modern Christian clergy when they seek to portray their god-man to their congregations.

All these fit the 'criterion of embarrassment' where not so savory elements are to be taken as more historically reliable than other parts of the gospels which are clearly apologetic.

Dr Aslan's book also notes some additional key 'zealot language' which is even 'hiding in plain sight' in the Greek gospel tradition. See the 3rd canonical gospel ('according to Luke' whoever he was) chapter 4:16-21

"And he came to Nazareth...and, as his custom, he entererd the Synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read from it. And there was delivered unto him the Scroll of the prophet Isaiah - and when he had unrolled the scroll, he found the place where it was written, (see trito-Isaiah 61:1)

רוּחַ אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, עָלָי--יַעַן מָשַׁח יְהוָה אֹתִי לְבַשֵּׂר עֲנָוִים, שְׁלָחַנִי לַחֲבֹשׁ לְנִשְׁבְּרֵי-לֵב, לִקְרֹא לִשְׁבוּיִם דְּרוֹר, וְלַאֲסוּרִים פְּקַח-קוֹחַ

The spirit of YHWH elohim is upon me; because YHWH has anointed me to bring good tidings unto the humble; has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim a Jubilee to the captives, and the opening of the eyes to them that are bound;

בִקְרֹא שְׁנַת-רָצוֹן לַיהוָה, וְיוֹם נָקָם לֵאלֹהֵינוּ

to proclaim the acceptable year of YHWH and announce the Day of Vengeance of our clan-god."

And he closed the Scroll and he gave it again to the attendant, and sat down....and he began to say unto them, "This day has this scripture been fulfilled in your ears..."

Curiously the author of 'Luke' seems to have deliberately omitted the final key (more politically charged) ending to the passage quoted above which includes the phrase 'to announce the Day of Vengeance of our clan-god' - (a famous tagline which his audience could recite back to him from memory and recalls another similar passage they also would have known from Isaiah 34:8 "For YHWH has a Day of Vengeance, a year of retribution, to uphold Zion's cause.")

This key passage is found in the full copies of the consonantal text of Isaiah from antiquity (see 1QIsa and 1QISb from the Dead Sea Scrolls corpus, c. 150 BCE) - but we must always remember that the Greek gospels were penned AFTER the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome (c. 66-72 CE) and during a time when the authority (Lat. Maiestas) of Rome was something of a prickly subject in the minds of the Roman authorities. By stopping short of the whole oracle, the text in 'Luke' is clearly covering up any possible seditionist Tendenz by hacking off this key passage from the text of the prophets...

Moreover the 'Day of Vengeance of our god' is an often repeated refrain in the Dead Sea Scrolls and even has taken on a kind of technical meaning when it is linked with the phrase 'zeal for the law and a time of Vengeance of our God' (see 11Q13 and cf. the War Scroll, 1QM) where the 'Day' to those who wrote the texts meant 'Freedom from foreign occupation' as well as the idea of divine retribution on behalf of the 'chosen people...'

The fact that these features are rarely if ever brought to the attention of a rather passive Christian audience is no excuse for them. The church insists that 'Jesus' was a 'Prince of Peace' and hopes the audiences they preach-to never bother to look too closely at the text.

But I and those like myself who have an interest in such maters do look closely at the text and it is amazing how often people miss the genuine plant hidden amongst so many weeds...to me it's time to do some gardening and somehow get to the truth, no matter how uncomfortable that might be for some...

a reply to: stormbringer1701

You wrote: QUOTE "...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..." UNQUOTE

To what end? My own research into this thorny topic is merely to get at the truth and to peel away centuries of overpainting and whitewashing that has made the portrayal of 'Jesus of Nazareth' completely unrecogniseable and quite divorced from the turbulent times in which he lived.

The image and understanding of Pilate's involvement is a case in point.

With regards to the notoriously vile character of Pontius Pilatus, see On The Embassy of Gauis Book XXXVIII 299–305 written in Greek by Philo of Alexandria -

'Pilate was a man of narrow, stubborn and sadistic disposition, infamous for his venalities... his heartless insults, his thefts [from the Temple Treasury], his numberless outrages and wanton injuries, his summary executions without trial, and above all his constant and egregious cruelty...'

We are a long way from the deliberate white-wash of Pilate's involvement with the execution of 'ho Iesous' in all four canonical Greek gospels (which date from approximately 50-80 years after the events they purport to describe) when we compare their portrayal of him with that of the testimony of Philo quoted above (NB: Philo was an exact contemporary of Pilate) - and reading over Philo's contemporary account of the man, we can see that Pontius Pilatus was no shrinking violet when it came to dealing with his subjects in Judaea -

There is no evidence outside of the canonical Greek Gospel material that Pilate ever offered to release one prisoner every year during Passover (admittedly the story has a logical ring to it politically and should not automatically be tossed out for that reason alone) but the Greek words placed into his mouth in the Greek gospels exonerating Pilate are surely the invention of the gospel writers to ingratiate themselves with Rome or at least to diffuse any accusation that the Romans had any direct involvement with the verdict of the death penalty passed against 'ho Iesous'

("I find nothing of guilt in this man" in Luke 23:4 and "I am innocent of this man's blood" in Mathew 27:24) - these apologetic phrases do not seem to fit the cruel image we glean from a contemporary's view of him as a man of deceit and gross heartlessness - especially the accusation of 'summary executions without trial' which seem to fit the gospel story (the 'trial' with Pilate in the Greek canonical gospel stories was nothing more than a glorified 'hearing' and there was no jury to decide the outcome)

'Pilate was a man of narrow, stubborn and sadistic disposition, infamous for his venalities... his heartless insults, his thefts [from the Temple Treasury], his numberless outrages and wanton injuries, his summary executions without trial, and above all his constant and egregious cruelty...

I have do doubt Pilate was as described in your quoted text, however I don't in fact think the Bible makes apologies for the guy or denies this at all.

The Bible portrays him as being flippant with the case of Jesus guilt or innocence, offers to let a convicted murderer free among the Jewish people.
Then he eventually says "Okay have it your way" and mocks the Jews who launched the complaint by calling the guy they brought to him "King of The Jews" after having him beaten whipped and his head crowned with a crown of thorns.
Mind you at this very time the Jewish people technically had a King, named Herod Antipas, basically mocking the entire nation of people, and demonstrating the Roman domination of the people in Palestine.

In Short this is hardly an apology for the guy. In truth it is probably closer to the truth to say, that Bible portrays Pilate as disgusted with Jewish people and generally felt that Rome and Romans were simply superior.

a reply to: Punisher75

You wrote QUOTE "...at this very time the Jewish people technically had a King, named Herod Antipas, basically mocking the entire nation of people, and demonstrating the Roman domination of the people in Palestine..." UNQUOTE

Not true...technically, unlike his father, Herod Antipas was not actually a 'king' but was the Tetrarch of the Galilee (haGilgal haGoyim - 'circle of Gentiles') in northern Palestine, who first 'ruled' (admittedly as a puppet of Rome) from Sepphoris, then in 20 CE moved his administration to Tiberius on the coast of the Sea of Galilee. His brother Phillip was Tetrarch of Gaulinitis who 'ruled' out of Caesarea Phillipi located east of the Jordan.

On the other hand, Judaea (i.e. southern Palestine) was 'ruled directly from Rome' since 4 BCE and between 26 and 36 CE was under the praefecture of Pontius Pilatus. The only reason why Antipas figures in the Gospel narratives at all is that R. Yehoshua bar Yosef ('ho Iesous') was Galilean and under the jurisdiction of Antipas, and it happened that Antipas was at hand (according to the Gospels) during Pesach, the Jewish Feast of Passover - according to 'Luke' at any rate, Antipas provided Pilatus with an way out of having to deal with yet another armed rebel during a feast....

Just a little clarification while we're on the subject !

a reply to: Sigismundus

I don't wanna put to fine a point on it as it sis not terribly relevant to my larger point, but the two things are not mutually exclusive.

Emperor: the ruler of empire.
Rome had an Emperor
Empire: a group of countries that are controlled by one ruler / government.

The Jews had a King.
King: the (male) ruler of an independent state / country that has a royal family. Kingdom: a country ruled by a king (or queen)

Basically the Jewish King was in effect a Vassal of the Emperor.

a reply to: Punisher75
You wrote: QUOTE "The Jews had a King. King: the (male) ruler of an independent state / country that has a royal family. Kingdom: a country ruled by a king (or queen) Basically the Jewish King was in effect a Vassal of the Emperor..."
UNQUOTE

Not to put too fine a point on it, actually the 'Galileans' had a Tetrarch who ruled as a king in everything but name- but that is in the NORTHERN PART of Palestine; the southern Judaean territories of Palestine including Jerusalem were under direct Roman rule in 36 CE without a king - the Judaeans literally had 'no king but Caesar' and Herod had no jurisdiction over Judaea.

One must try to remember that the term 'Iudaioi' in Greek is often translated into English as 'Jews" when in fact it would be more correct to call them 'Judaeans', as opposed to say, Galileans, especially when reading e.g. the 4th Gospel ('according to John' whoever he was). The Galileans were forced-converted to Judaism in 104 BCE during the High Priesthood of John Hyrcanus, although by the time of 'ho Iesous' they had assimilated into 'qol Yisro'el'

Clear as mud?

a reply to: Sigismundus
Clear as Mud, but I am working on parsing it out.
I have no doubts that Jerusalem was ruled directly by Rome as it was a pretty huge city for trade in the area if memory serves. (Lots of money to trust to someone not Roman.)
However I do not think that Tetrarch and King are mutually exclusive.
I know about the No King but Caesar meme at the time, however I also understood it to be more of a political statement that essentially stated, "Sure you have your king, but remember who runs your county, and if you don't do what we say don't expect your King to be able to help you."
From what I remember allowing a country to "keep their king" (even if in title) was more or less an attempt to reduce the chances of the Population from revolting wishing self rule.
The idea was to my understanding, that the people of a conquered area might not feel the need for revenge if they did not lose their king, (i.e. morale and what not.)
So why yes, a country had a King it did not mean much in the large picture.
Of course I could very well be mistaken, I don't have a degree in the field or anything.

a reply to: Punisher75

You wrote QUOTE "...From what I remember allowing a country to "keep their king" (even if in title) was more or less an attempt to reduce the chances of the Population from revolting wishing self rule. The idea was to my understanding, that the people of a conquered area might not feel the need for revenge if they did not lose their king, (i.e. morale and what not.) So why yes, a country had a King it did not mean much in the large picture. Of course I could very well be mistaken, I don't have a degree in the field or anything...." UNQUOTE


Not to worry - that's why ATS can be used as a learning tool. And this history especially around 36 CE is a little convoluted.


Earlier than the time we're talking about, Judaea as a whole did once have a king after the Roman occupation of Palestine c. 63 BCE (Herod the Great had been appointed king βασιλιάς by order of the Senate of Rome after his brother Faisel invaded Jerusalem with the Parthians) before that, Judea had been ruled more or less autonomously by the Hashmonean Macabbees from c.140 BCE until 63 BCE when Pompey the Great conquored Jerusalem.

And it was Herod 'the Great' who overthrew Antigonous II the last Hashmonean ruler in 37 BCE and reigned as king until his death in 4 BCE, at which time the southern part of Palestine Judaea passed to Direct Roman Rule without a king [but appointed an ethnarch (Herod Archelaus) until 6CE when Judaea finally and officially fell under Direct Roman Rule as a 'province' i.e. wholly owned by Rome.

Here are a couple of WikiLINKs which shows maps (which explains this convolution of a divided province a little better than words can do)

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

The rest of the 'kingdom' that Herod 'the Great' had once ruled over were divided amongst his sons, Archelaeus (23 BCE to 18 CE - Samaria & Idumaea), Herod Phillip II (the region north East of the Jordan including Iturea and Trachonitis;

Gaulanitis and Paneas) and Herod Antipas (the Galilee & Perea); even Salome got a piece of the pie with 3 poloi or 'city-states' e.g. Javneh, Phaesalis and Azotas - refer to the handy map of the territorial boundaries on the right column with the colour coding.

By 36 CE Judah (in green) was under direct Roman rule under the praefect, Pontius Pilate (26-36CE); the fifth in a long line of Praefecti of Judea (southern Palestine) since 6 CE :

l. Coponius (6-9 CE),
2, Marcus Ambivulus (9-12 CE) ,
3. Annius Rufus (12-15CE)
4. Valerius Gratus (15-26 CE)
5. Pontius Pilatus (26-36CE) -

Pilate was succeeded by Marcellus then by Marullus ;

In 41 CE Judea again had a king (Agrippa I from 41-44CE); in 44 the area was ruled under a Procurator (i.e. governor) named Cuspius Fadus and so on and on...

I suppose with Agrippa I being styled βασιλιάς ('king')for three whole years beginning in 41 CE might throw anyone into confusion !

I always find it interesting that some "slam the door shut" without even considering what they've been told may not be correct.

However, when some historians claimed the Book of Mormon could not be accuarate --- some where "in your face" all over that.

a reply to: Annee

Hi Annee

You wrote QUOTE: "I always find it interesting that some "slam the door shut" without even considering what they've been told may not be correct. However, when some historians claimed the Book of Mormon could not be accurate --- some where "in your face" all over that...." UNQUOTE

That's the biggest problem with threads like these which shake the foundations of people's pre-conceptions especially vis a vis Religion; as you say, they slam their mental doors shut without ever bothering to consider that what they've been fed all their lives since childhood might not always be the absolute truth...and in fact is often based on untruths.

But we fight on, just the same !

a reply to: Akragon

You wrote QUOTE: "...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..." UNQUOTE

Pacifist? Hmmm.

Following the Law of Embarrassment, the Riot in the Temple (i.e. in the Court of the Gentiles) surely must be counted among the most 'historical' in the gospel narratives in terms of an actual event that happened in real-time - in fact it was one of the few events in the life of "Jesus of Nazareth" (along with the Baptism and the Crucifixion, both of which fit the Criterion of Embarrassment) that is actually mentioned by all 4 canonical Greek Gospels -

But notice how each gospel writer glosses over the event in just a couple of verses (one of the shorter 'pericopes' of the Gospels) as if the writers were trying not to draw too much inference from the Riot.

The question before us is: what are we to make of it, exactly?

It could be argued that since David’s son Solomon built a temple to YHWH, 'Jesus' by entering Jerusalem on a donkey (like Solomon) and then cleansing the temple (as the Synoptics order shows) demonstrates that “one greater than Solomon is here (Matthew 12:42).”

In view of 'Jesus’ overarching message of the coming destruction when the Bar Enasha (Son of Man) arrives to slay the wicked and reward the righteous, one could possibly also make a case, I suppose, of Jesus’ action in the Temple as a kind of 'prophetic gesture', or an 'enacted parable', in which he demonstrated on a small scale what was soon to happen on a bigger scale when Jerusalem and the Temple would be 'overthrown' i.e. destroyed by Roman troops.

How we are to understand the Riot depends on your own point of view. Did 'Jesus' perform this felonious act at the beginning of his Ministry (John chapter 2) or at the end (Matthew, Mark, Luke) or did he pull this stunt more than once?
Was this a pre-mediated act, or did Jesus just fly off the handle in an outburst of uncontrollable anger? How does this fit with the image of him as being without sin?

Moreover, there was not much of an 'aftermath' mentioned in the gospel tradition, and there does not seem to be any immediate legal ramification. No one seems to directly challenge this act; nor is he said to have been fined or arrested for the act - at least according to the Gospel narratives - only that the authorities in the Temple were reluctant to arrest him because they feared the crowds at Passover.

But if the Riot was historical fact, that act alone would have been regarded as an act of blasphemy against the Temple and would have allowed him to be arrested on the spot by the Temple Police. The sheer number of animals awaiting sacrifice being let go would have caused quite a stampede at the very least. Certainly there is nothing in the Torah that I know of which would require violence or vengefulness on the part of an individual.

And this was a very violent action, (if one is to believe the story, and there is no reason for all four gospel writers to invent it from whole cloth) when all is said and done. It is the kind of Riot associated with the Zealots, according to Dr. Reza Aslan's book.Taking a scourge and whipping people is probably not an example of pacifist love of one's neighbour..

The term 'Violent' can be defined as 1 : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force marked by extreme agitation or sudden intense activity

If the Temple existed as it was today and I had a gun with blanks and shot it towards people, would the fact that I didn't hurt anyone make it a no-violent action? Would that be the deed of a 'pacifist'?

The question many have is : Is this the kind of behaviour that Christians should emulate? Should we go around with whips and cords when we enter a modern Bank and start knocking things over and throwing things around because the Bank skirts both ethics and the law? Would this story suggest that we should start yelling at preachers who quote the most proposterous lies and exaggerations during their sermons?

Where does it all end?

a reply to: Sigismundus

Well... again this is the only incident that we can read about where Jesus is actually aggressive...

The reason being obviously... the temple is supposed to be the house of God, and they turned it into a den of thieves...

Whether it was done and the beginning of his ministry or at the end doesn't really matter... the fact is none of the gospels are written as a time line of what he did, the exception being the events that led to his death.

according to Dr. Reza Aslan's book.Taking a scourge and whipping people is probably not an example of pacifist love of one's neighbour..

The problem with this is... Not everyone is "thy neighbour" according to Jesus... so I don't think it applies here

If the Temple existed as it was today and I had a gun with blanks and shot it towards people, would the fact that I didn't hurt anyone make it a no-violent action? Would that be the deed of a 'pacifist'?

that would be an act of aggression regardless of intent... and you'd probably be shot in turn

The question many have is : Is this the kind of behaviour that Christians should emulate?

I don't speak for Christians... most of them follow Paul anyways...

Should we go around with whips and cords when we enter a modern Bank and start knocking things over and throwing things around because the Bank skirts both ethics and the law? Would this story suggest that we should start yelling at preachers who quote the most proposterous lies and exaggerations during their sermons?

Where does it all end?

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

It doesn't ever end... Until the day the Vatican releases some new bit of information about Jesus that im sure they have hidden away in their vaults... LOL

Never gonna happen because im sure said info would destroy Christianity

a reply to: Punisher75

I wrote earlier: QUOTE "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" UNQUOTE

You wrote: QUOTE "Seems kinda weird because when the disciples produced 2 swords he 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." UNQUOTE

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.

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:

Zechariah 14:3-4
"In that Day, YHWH will go out and fight against the gentiles as he fights on a day of battle. 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..."

Compare 1 Sam 2: 6-10
It will not be by brute strength that one prevails; the adversaries of YHWH shall be broken to pieces; he shall thunder upon them from Heaven: YHWH shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength to his King; yea he shall raise up the horn of his Messiah.

For YHWH brings death and makes alive; he is the one who brings down to the grave and he is the one who raises up - he humbles and he exalts. He raises the poor and has them inherit a throne of honor...he will guard the feet of his faithful servants, but the wicked will be silenced in the place of darkness.

We see something of this 'waiting for a miracle on the hill' language in 'Matthew' 26:53

"Don't you not realize that I could ask my Father for 12 legions of angels to protect us, and he would send them instantly ?"

(cf: Psalm 91:11 For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways...)

There are also a number of similar warlike/zealot loving verses in the Hebrew scriptures which talk about YHWH fighting for Yisro'el as well as protecting his Messiah from danger.

Exodus 14:14 - YHWH will fight on your behalf - you need only to be still

Psalm 91

A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand,
but it will not come near you.

You will only observe with your eyes and see the punishment of the wicked.
If you say, “YHWH is my refuge,” and you make the Most High your dwelling,
no harm will overtake you, no disaster will come near your tent.
For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways;
they will lift you up in their hands, lest you will strike your foot against a stone...

“Because he loves me,” says YHWH, “I will rescue him; I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.
He will call on me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble,I will deliver him and honor him.

Isaiah 49:23b
All those who hope in me will not be disappointed. Can plunder be taken from warriors, or can captives be rescued from the violent? But this is what YHWH says: “Yes, captives will be taken from warriors, and plunder retrieved from the fierce; I will contend with those who contend with you and...I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh; they will be drunk on their own blood, as with wine.


cf: Deut. 1:30 YHWH who goes in front of you shall fight on your behalf before your very eyes.
cf: Deut. 3:22 Fear not; YHWH himself will fight for you

However we are to interpret the presence on the Mount of Olives at this crucial juncture, there can be no doubt that some kind of armed conflict ensued resulting in the slave of the high priest's ear being cut off, something which is reported in all four canonical Greek Gospels (which also survive the Criterion of Embarrassment, in other words something the gospel writers would hardly have made up out of whole cloth)

See 'Luke' 22: 50 or 'Mark' 14:47 or 'John' 18:10 'Matt 26:51'

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' .

Like I say, I cannot speak with accredited expertise, however I think my larger stance is still the correct one.
The larger stance being if you recall that Jesus was called King of the Jews to mock him.

Remember the reason for this rabbit hole was the claim that the Bible portrays Pilate in an apologetic light.

a reply to: Sigismundus

Pacifism? Really, now.

Yes, and those quotes of Pacifism were quotes from Jesus himself according to The Gospels.

You seem to believe in another Jesus.

Jesus said, in everything do to others what you will have them do to you for this is the law (Matthew 7:12).

Compassion is divine not violence and wars.

But if you want to believe in a violent Jesus, that's your free-will.

a reply to: arpgme

You wrote QUOTE: "...those quotes of Pacifism were quotes from Jesus himself according to The Gospels. You seem to believe in another Jesus. Jesus said, in everything do to others what you will have them do to you for this is the law (Matthew 7:12). Compassion is divine not violence and wars. But if you want to believe in a violent Jesus, that's your free-will...." UNQUOTE

Unfortunately we cannot 'quote' R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (Gk. ho Iesous) verbatim since he and his disciples all spoke Galilean Aramaic and the words placed into his mouth in the canonical Gospels are Greek - which is not his native tongue (ipsissima verba).

It is very difficult to reconstruct any original Aramaic from the mangled Greek we find in the gospels placed into his mouth; many of the nuances get lost in the translation - we are going from Aramaic to Greek and from Greek to English like a giant game of Telephone - the message at the end will not line up exactly to the message at the beginning.
'He who would strike you on the right cheek, turn to him the other' may sound like pacifism, but in Aramaic idiom it is clear that what the image is - a Roman slapping a Jew with the back of the hand (a common sign of disrespect in the ancient world) hitting him on the right cheek. 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.'

When the wording is studied carefully in this pericope, we can see at a glance that this is a far cry from pacifism.

There are many 'pious Jesus- reconstructions' based on picking out select verses from the Gospel material, many of which depict him as a pacifist to their congregations.

But this is not the image that we glean when we examine the earliest strata of the gospel traditions, including the Apocalypse of Yohanon ('Book of Revelatioin') which was written during the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome (c. 69 CE)
e.g. In the Book of Revelation the writer ('John' whoever he was) seems to portray Jesus as a Warrior Messiah declaring: “Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which he will strike down the Goyim...and he will rule over them with an iron scepter...for he treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of El Shaddai.

The setting up of Jesus’ millennial kingdom apparently will necessitate violence in the form of a war waged against the forces of the Beast - wherein the robe of the Messiah will be “dipped in blood” (see Revelation 19:13-15).

Within the gospels, in Jesus’ interaction with a Roman centurion, Jesus received the soldier’s praise, healed his 'boy-slave', and commended him for his faith (Matthew 8:5–13). What Jesus did not do was tell the centurion to quit the army—for the simple reason that Jesus did not seem to be preaching pacifism.

Jesus’ disciples owned weapons, which conflicts with the idea that Jesus was a pacifist. On the night Jesus was betrayed, He even told His followers to bring swords. (Luke 22:37–39). As Jesus was being arrested, one of them (e.g. Simon Peter) drew his sword and severed the ear of one of the slaves of the High Priest who was present in the brief scuffle on the hill (John 18:10). But however you read this pericope, there can be no doubt that real swords were being used - and the Criterion of Embarrassment would suggest that this story was not just some invention of the gospel writers (the ear cutting scene is present in all four canonical Greek gospels)

Jesus did not sound like a pacifist but rather someone who believed in Holy War when he allegedly said according to the gospels, “Do you think that the Bar Enasha (Son of Man) was sent to bring peace on the land (of Yisro'el)? Nay but the Bar Enasha (Son of Man) was not sent to bring Peace on the land, but the Sword." (Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51)

Between statements like that and the ear slicing incident on the hill, we can start to appreciate that something is not quite right with the traditional depiction of Jesus as a 'prince of peace...'