Was Jesus political?

Was Jesus political? If he was did he intend to be or was it just by luck or chance that the people saw him as a political man. He went around preaching and people gave him goods sounds like a campaign to me. When he said "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar" is he meaning that in a political sense. Was Jesus a political figure in his time or was he sttrictly religous. I would think that his actions at the money changers place in the temple would be enough to prove that he is a political activist. By politics i dont mean democracy because we should all know that those two words cant be used interchangably. Any ideas or thought comments would be welcomed!

He was individual. And individuality is the class enemy of the mob.

Perhaps you need to further define what is to be political in your question. If it has something to do with pleasing the (savage) mob then no, he was not political.

Originally posted by Kaiser617
...He went around preaching and people gave him goods sounds like a campaign to me.

As far as his famous story goes he left this world "without any goods" (following the democtratic procedure of the mob). Does any modern politician campaigns like that? It doesn't sound like a campaign to me at all...

Groupies:

R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean ("Jesus") was born into a very political family, of the exiled line of "king" David (the line went into Exile in 587 BC to Babylon, and was partially re-instated with Zerubabbel, who organized a rebellion against Persia around 450 BC and was then assassinated, putting the Daviddic family back into hiding).

He did not have any choice, having been born into that family, about being political: he could not avoid it even if he tried to.

When "Jesus" proclaimed phrases like:

"Amen, these be the Days of Vengeance of our God...The Times of the Gentiles are Fulfilled...The Time is close at hand...Repent and Belief the Good News of the Kingdom of God..." etc.

he was using POLITICAL LANGUAGE, preparing Roman Occupied Israel for the 100th anniversary of the BC 63 Invasion of the Roman General Pompey (The 100 years would be AD 36, the year of his arrest for Sedition against Rome for arming his disciples with swords during a coup attempt at Passover).

When he sent out his disciples "two by two but not into any of the towns of the Goyim (gentiles)" he was reaching out to the "grass roots" of his constituents announcing that Rome's day was over, and that he was planning to effectivley take over the government.

When he started the "Temple Tantrum" in the court of the Gentiles and "blocking those who would sacrifice oxen and sheep" he was effectively organising a very political armed rebellion against the Temple Authorities (remember all the whips and cords used to drive out the money changers and their tables in an area where specific bankers were tasked to convert Roman and Greek coins into the approved Tyrian Sheckel currency of the Temple?)

This was the act of a political revolutinary, not some harmless rebbe telling harmless little parables to old ladies.

And there was a reason for the timing of these little outbursts.

There was a historical-political timeline at play here.

The Judaean Maccabees in Judaea had nearly exactly 100 years of semi indendence from the Syrian Greeks (cf: from the time of the Maccabbean Revolt/Hannukkah Event BC 163 to BC 63) before Rome invaded and occupied the country.

"Jesus" was following some kind of time frame here: BC 531 to BC 331 was 200 years of Persian Rule: BC 331 to BC 167 was the rule of the Greeks (or "kittim") from 163 to 63 BC was a hundred years of semi political independence where the Kingdom was transferred from the line of Judah-David to the Levitical liine of the Hashmonean High Priests who from 104 onwards began to think of themselves as Kings (cf: Exodus: "Ye shall be unto me a Kingdom OF Priests, a holy nation...")

From BC 63 to AD 36 was 100 years of brutal Roman Occupation.

"Jesus" (following John the Baptist, his one time Rabbi) as a disciple of John, must have seen AD 36 as the specific time when "the Times of the Gentiles is fulfilled" and "these be the Days of Vengeance" (a quote from the War Scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls) when he seems to have imagined a "political" overthrow or coup attempt of the Romans and of the Roman appointed High Priests who ran the Temple (and Herod who married into the High Priestly Hashmonean family) , and the re-establishment of the Daviddic line in a Messianic Kingdom of God...

Don't forget, he was crucified specifically for armed rebellion against Rome (breach of Lex Maiestatis) in a manner specifically reserved for political seditionists...but the Gospels circulated after AD 70 in Greek after the Jewish War (AD 66-72) so the political rhetoric was toned down to a minimum in order to "sell" the product to the Gentiles of the Empire (Israel having been destroyed in the meantime, so a revolutionary Messiah would have been an impossible sell).

So they re-worded much of his rhetoric and tried to hide the political aspects of his "ministry" and shift his message "to a kingdom not of this world..."

The shocking discovery of the War Scroll found among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran (copied out between BC 50 to AD 35) changed all of that...

Before I go on, let me clarify the definition I'm using here:

Main Entry: po�lit�i�cal
Pronunciation: p&-'li-ti-k&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin politicus
1 a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy

Now, I'm saying he couldn't care less of the politics here on earth. He was a party to the Kingdom of Heaven. He established policy. He enforced law (Biblical). He provided the communication needed for his people to succeed in that kingdom.

Despite what people claim, he was not Republican, nor Democrat, nor Independent, etc. because our policies on earth are our attempts to do what is right where he actually DID what was right. Register me Kingdom of Heaven party for the next election please...

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

I wrestled with the idea of a 'no-vote' but then came to the realization that I have a voice and am to use it. Silence is imposed by malevolent dictatorships and I should be grateful for the years it took to acheive amnesty in a country. To not speak is to not stand for anything *shrug*. I see what you mean though.

jesus was our savior. if he was political who cares. we will all have to answer to him soon if we dont change our ways

Originally posted by ThEeNd
jesus was our savior. if he was political who cares. we will all have to answer to him soon if we dont change our ways

Whoah are you implying that Christianity is the one and only true religion because that is a preety strong statement there! The "who cares" part i have a problem with especially when you see the Vatican in its long history get involved in so many political upheavals is this what Jesus would have wanted them to do? Last time I checked the Vatican was supposed to follow and teach and act accordingly to the teachings of Jesus, If Jesus was a political man then maybe someof the past actions of the Vatican are i concordance with his teachings

Jesus causes a moral revolution nothing more. He didn't create an army.
Secularism from the 1900's is starting to wipe out his legacy

Hi "Thinker":

You might also want to read the text of the gospels a little closer next time before you start generalising like that.

Are you saying that R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean ("Jeezizz" to the average "English-Speaking Christian") merely "morally" armed his disciples with "moral" swords on a "moral hill" during Pesach of AD 36, and that the slave of the high priest's ear was "morally" cut off by one of his armed disciples?

Or perhaps the 4 council approved "canonical gospels" are perhaps echoing something "really historical" (albeit midrashically expanded by Isaiah 53 and Psalms 22 and the Wisdom of Solomon chapter 1 in view of the "criterion of embarassment") that "really happened" on a "real hill (like for example, a "real" crucifixion with "real" nails hammered into "real" wrists by "real" Romans)?



The horrors of a Roman Crucifixion was a SPECIFIC punishment for "political" sedition against the State, especially armed seditionists with Daviddic blood. During the Jewish War (AD 66-72) when the Judaean Messianists saw the Humiliation and later Revolt of Queen Boudigga in AD 61 [in Sussex and "Lonidinium" ] as well as other sporadic revolts in the "provinces" of the Roman Empire ---together with the evident political weakness in the Roman Government looming in the Capital under the "Divine Emperor Nero", armed rebellion broke out all over Palestine, and the first to be targeted were the Davvids.

(ditto for the "Bar Kosiba-Kohba" Revolt 100 in AD 136, years to the day of the Revolt of "Jesus" in AD 36, led by another of his relatives from the Daviddic line).

Remember the Time Line:

Macabeean Revolt against Syrain Greek Rule 163 BC: 100 years of "freedom":

Pompey's Occupation of Judaea BC 63: 100 years of "Roman Occupation" :

"Jesus" announcing that the TIMES OF THE GENTILES IS FULFILLED and THESE BE THE DAYS OF VENGEANCE (Luke) arming his disciples with "real swords" in a revolt against Rome during a passover in AD 36 = 100 years to the day of Pompey's Occupation of Jerusalem

The 2nd Jewish War under the Bar Kokhba Revolt of AD136, 100 years to the day of the Revolt of "Jesus"....

This is NOT A COINCIDENCE, but a highly strict POLITICAL-HISTORICAL TIME LINE IN THE MINDS OF THE JUDAEAN & GALILEAN JEWS

It has very little to do with "morality" but with political reality.

YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE LIFE OF R. YEHOSHUA bar YOSEF the Galilean OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF THE ROMAN OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE.

Even phrases like "to him who would strike you on the right cheek, turn to him the other" is a phrase derived from Galilean Aramaic which means "be defiant, let them know who you are" : i.e. striking a person on the right cheek requires a SLAP WITH THE BACK OF THE HAND, which to a conquored or "occupied" people (modern Iraqi's spring to mind) is a MIDDLE EASTERN INSULT. By turning the face in the other direction, R. Yehoshua was basically instructing his constituents ("grass roots") to make their Roman Oppressors AWARE of what they are doing.

Ditto for "carrying the load two miles instead of one": a Roman Soldier would be flogged with 10 stripes if he ever forced someone to carry a burden more than one mile: R. Yehoshua is here again supporting some kind of passive resistance----getting a soldier in trouble "will make him think twice" before grabbing some one out of the crowd to carry a package (in accordance with Roman law).

These are POLITICAL acts, not merely "moral"ones (although all political acts carry with them moral undertones, I will grant you that).

The Gospels circulated AFTER THE FIRST JEWISH REVOLT (Ad 66-72), and softened the War Rhetoric of their leader, but some of the original messaging was left here and there.

Of course, you have to read the Gospels "closely" in order to find these things out, because the Church whitewashed the "political" overtones against Rome out of the tradition as best they could, to the extent that most modern "Christians" especially in the West (who are mostly ignorant of 1st century Palestinian and Roman history) are blissfully unaware that these political undertones to the narratives they read in "church" ever existed...

I believe that Jesus the person was not, but the idea then and now is.

He is used as political power sling shot.

Jesus was without doubt political, he started a movement that was contrary to both the Roman Government of the day, and the religious authorities of the Jews.

DONT FORGET that religion and politics in this day and age where inextricabaly linked.

I see him as a Che Guevara type figure, he was the spiritual leader of an anti roman, anti old testament movement that took over time took dominance. It has been a powerful political movement even today, look at the pope intervening in political situations. For years people ruled with religious justification for the power.

Jesus began a movement had people following his teachings this is how most political parties begin.

Thanks guys, I think most of us agree that Jesus was a political man but i guess the question now is did he mean to be political or were his teaching just interpreted that way. Did he mean to be a "politician" or was it just pure coincidence that this happened? Or maybe he wasnt but then his teachings were later interpreted in a way in which the early church had the ability to engage themselves in politics.

well this would be a lot better if i had people disagreeing with me but i guess we all believe jesus was a political guy.

While we are at it why not ask if the tooth fairy has a political agenda as well. What are her views on the black market for body parts?

the difference is that Jesus was a HISTORICAL person...
most all of the histories of the timeperiod, including those which were not anywhere NEAR Jerusalem mention Christ in some or other form...and some of his movement...whether to criticize or uphold..or just go, "Oh, this is what happened here..." The people of his time believed he was real, INCLUDING the Jewish leaders that wanted him gone....(you should see some Jewish leader's writing during this period)
When you find such information on the Tooth Fairy, then it would be a proper comparison, ...
It's as important, if not more important, than what any one Cesar's political leanings are...since Christ's teaching has had just as much (or arguably more) influence on our modern culture....though our HOR and Senate is based off of the Roman version.....

You ever notice how not even those modern historians who believe that Christianity is the most evil thing in the world wouldn't dare say he never existed? Just like some guy named Abraham shows up in a lot of historical documents, aside from the Bible, so does Christ. He was a real man. His teaching, whatever else he may have been, STILL influences the way we see this world.

It is important, even if all you want to do is iradicate him from our culture...you need to see the scope of what he affected to be able to do that, to go in and say this is "Christian" (axe it) and this is not, without historical reference, is right near impossible.

If he is political, where does his political tatics bind our own, and should it stay bound? Answering that without devising if he was political in the first place would be very amusing.

which do you wish?
1. He shows componants of political reasoning.
2. His main goal was political. or... One of his main goals is political.

I don't think that he was political in what he was doing...yes, it had political influence...but if he was trying to get elected as King by the Jewish leaders or trying to get power though the Romans....then he wouldn't have been trying to convert the lower class jews with no political standing, or would have caused an outright revolt. Yes, he had shown some political common sense with the Ceasar thing and the two coins out the fish's mouth for a Jerusalem tax...but in the Cesar thing, he was trying to point out that there was a time for both...and the coin from the fish's mouth, he was trying to show that he was not bound by the political system...i.e. that he was transcending the need for politics and showing a way of life, lol...it shows in a lot of what he did, and what his apostles did after his death.

Once again, yeah, there were political components, but no, it was not a political movement at all.

Has anyone considered that billions of people have faith in a cartoon character?

Or follow the most vain person ever imagined or created.

Well if went against the teachings of the majority of the power ( Pharasees) then wouldnt that show that he was politically motivated and so where his followers. Although a small political party at the time it was a political party nonetheless. Also when he had his little fit at the money changers place in the temple he was correcting the pharasees indirectly because the pharasees approved of the actions of the money changers. So he was politicaly motivated in my opinion or maybe at least somewhat. I maybe missing a piece of logic here comments are welcome.