I happen to believe that he was. It's The Church that twisted it all around. There are parallels between Jesus and Che Guevara, for example. Executed in their 30s by the lackeys of the imperial power; huge following amongst the poor; helping lepers; going on journeys of self-discovery in their youth; not recognizing differences in color. Jesus was obviously against capitalism - the moneylenders, rich man/needle/camel etc. He was against sexism - helping the prostitutes. He was against the authority in charge. He believed in equal distribution of food and wealth. Against organized religion and open displays of religious faith. I reckon all the god stuff was put into his story later by the powers-that-be, to make it all mystical and obscurantist. He was a social revolutionary. A communist. The meek shall inherit the earth. No wonder they had him killed. Peace. _____________ Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace. It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man; it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him. -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)
Are you Captain Crunch? *gives a funny look* Suppose your thoery has some truth in it. Maybe it is true. I'm not up to scratch with communismPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
He couldn't have been a communist since the idea of communism hadn't been formed yet. But he could have had some similar ideology going, but not exactly alike.
(sorry my nit-picking has rubbed off on you, Bebe!) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Originally posted by goofyfish There are parallels between Jesus and Che Guevara, for example. Executed in their 30s by the lackeys of the imperial power; huge following amongst the poor; helping lepers; going on journeys of self-discovery in their youth; not recognizing differences in color. Jesus was obviously against capitalism - the moneylenders, rich man/needle/camel etc. He was against sexism - helping the prostitutes. He was against the authority in charge. He believed in equal distribution of food and wealth. Against organized religion and open displays of religious faith. I reckon all the god stuff was put into his story later by the powers-that-be, to make it all mystical and obscurantist. He was a social revolutionary. A communist. The meek shall inherit the earth. No wonder they had him killed. That's a bit of a stretch. Jesus wasn't against capitalism, he was against what he perceived as defilement of the Temple. He wasn't overturning the tables in the market square but those that we're turning a profit in the Lord's Temple. Neither was he against the secular authority. "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Was his position. The authority he was against were the self-proclaimed religious authorities and it is they who had him killed. If you recall, Pilate wanted no part in his execution. If there is any historical truth to the story of Jesus, I would have to say that his was a religious stand, not that of secular economics. To say that the "God stuff" was added later is a stretch indeed. ~Raithere
I think that older view of "a temple cleansing" is becomming outdated. Scholars have largely found a new consensus on the issue. Those in the temple provided animals to be sacrificed for travelers who went to the temple. Its hard to imagine a temple without them in there. Jesus hardly could have spoken against men selling animals to be sacrificed in temple. It was a convenience and the temple was home to an enormous amount of sacrificial offerings. Jesus' action most likely was a prophetic enactment. Goofyfish, you've basically espoused the views of John Dominic Crossan: Jesus the radical egaltarian who adhered to an open commensiality. Jesus the non-institutional cynic who threw down social restraints and hierarchy. That view of course, runs into some problems. The Temple being one of them. What you espoused as evidence for this view is actually evidence against it according to Paula Fredriksen (Jesus of Nazareth). The radical egaltarian Jesus, who cleansed the temple runs into a problem with two bedrock facts about his life: He was called Messiah and Rome killed him by cricifixion. Vinnie
Originally posted by ilgwamh I think that older view of "a temple cleansing" is becomming outdated. Scholars have largely found a new consensus on the issue. Those in the temple provided animals to be sacrificed for travelers who went to the temple. Its hard to imagine a temple without them in there. Jesus hardly could have spoken against men selling animals to be sacrificed in temple. It was a convenience and the temple was home to an enormous amount of sacrificial offerings. Jesus' action most likely was a prophetic enactment. Perhaps it was the manner in which they were doing business rather than the business they were doing. But I find the statement 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER' and the accusation 'you are making it a ROBBERS' DEN.' to be rather straightforward. BTW do you have a specific reference to the OT that would suggest it was a "prophetic enactment"? In any case, this is entirely beside my point which was that he was specifically focused upon what was taking place inside the temple… he wasn't running from shop to shop in the market square screaming about the evils of capitalism. Actually, I find the whole thing kind of silly. The evidence for the specific person in the NT named Jesus is sparse to begin with and that little is hardly without it's critics. Trying to elaborate upon his stance regarding socio-political-economic theories that had not yet been invented… or even the precise intent of actions recorded dozens of years later is a rather large leap to make. ~Raithere
