Jesus a Social Revolutionary?

Mike- Your wrote that "the Romans have no reference of Jesus".

Please see the writings of Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, Constantine, Tertullian, Tacitus, or Flavius Josephus.

Did Jesus even exist at all??? For that mater did Mosses exist at all?? seams the only reference of these two people are in religious books and writings... starange how the Egyptains have no reference to Mosses, and the Romans have no refernce of Jesus. One would think with the record keeping by both of these societies that they would make mention of these two dudes....

But then again the Christains did there best to destory all books and writings after the fall of rome..Now what is real crazy is that Christains, Jews and Muslims all kill each other in the name of God...How nice is that----

Was Jesus a social revolutionary?

social: adjective: relating to human society and its members

revolutionary: noun: a radical supporter of political or social revolution

Jesus was not interested in or part of any political movement. When he was offered political power he refused it. (John 6:14&15) And rightly so, because Jesus knows Jehovah God’s purpose for the earth will not be realized through human governments but through God’s heavenly government.(Matthew 6:10&11)

That Jesus laid the groundwork for a classless society might have caused some to believe that Jesus was a social revolutionary. Actually, he was supporting Jehovah God’s original purpose for mankind.

Another question is, Is a classless society really possible?
So far, history has shown that humans are far from equal, and class distinctions are still a predominant feature of society. Such classes have not brought any benefits to society as a whole. Social class systems divide people, resulting in envy, hatred, heartache, and much bloodshed. The one-time white-supremacy mentality in Africa, Australia, and North America brought misery to nonwhites—including the total genocide of the Aborigines in Tasmania. In Europe, classifying the Jews as inferior was a prelude to the Holocaust. The great wealth of the aristocracy and the dissatisfaction among the lower and middle classes were factors that led to the French Revolution of the 18th century and to the Bolshevik Revolution in 20th-century Russia.
The Bible says, "Man has dominated man to his injury." (Ecclesiastes 8:9) These words are true whether those dominating are individuals or classes. When one group of people elevates itself over another, misery and suffering inevitably result.
In God's eyes, one group of humans is not inherently superior to another group. The Bible says: "[God] made out of one man every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth." (Acts 17:26) The Creator "has not shown partiality to princes and has not given more consideration to the noble one than to the lowly one, for all of them are the work of his hands." (Job 34:19) All humans are related, and before God all are born equal.
We are all born equal in God's eyes, and we all end up equal in death. It’s futile to promote one group of people over another during our short lifetime.
Still, there is hope that some day there will be a society among the living where social class will not be important. Almost 2,000 years ago when Jesus was on the earth, the groundwork was laid for such a society. Jesus gave his life as a ransom sacrifice for all believing mankind so that "everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." (John 3:16).
To show that none of his followers should elevate themselves above fellow believers, Jesus said: "You, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your teacher, whereas all you are brothers. Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. Neither be called 'leaders,' for your Leader is one, the Christ. But the greatest one among you must be your minister. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled." (Matthew 23:8-12) In God's eyes, all of Jesus' true disciples are equal in the faith.
The early Christians, who got the sense of Jesus' teaching, viewed themselves as equal. They viewed one another as equal in the faith and showed this by addressing one another as "brother." (Philemon 1, 7, 20) Nobody was encouraged to view himself as being better than others. Consider the way in which Peter described himself in his second letter: "Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith, held in equal privilege with ours." (2 Peter 1:1) Peter had personally been instructed by Jesus, and as an apostle, he held an important position of responsibility. Yet, he considered himself to be a slave and recognized that other Christians held the faith in equal privilege with him.
Some may say that the ideal of equality is contradicted by the fact that in pre-Christian times God made Israel his special nation. (Exodus 19:5, 6) They may claim that this is an example of racial superiority. It is true that the Israelites, as descendants of Abraham, enjoyed a special relationship with God and were used as the channel for divine revelations. (Romans 3:1) But the purpose of this was not to put them on a pedestal. Rather, it was in order that 'all nations would be blessed.' (Genesis 22:18; Galatians 3:8).
It turned out that most Israelites did not imitate the faith of Abraham. They were unfaithful and rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Because of that, God rejected them. (Matthew 21:43) However, the meek among mankind did not lose out on the promised blessings. At Pentecost 33 C.E., the Christian congregation was born. This organization of Christians who were anointed by holy spirit was called "the Israel of God," and it proved to be the channel through which those blessings would come. (Galatians 6:16).
Some members of that congregation needed educating in the matter of equality. For example, the disciple James counseled those who were treating wealthy Christians with more honor than poorer ones. (James 2:1-4) That was wrong. The apostle Paul showed that Gentile Christians were in no way inferior to Jewish Christians, and female Christians were in no way inferior to males. He wrote: "You are all, in fact, sons of God through your faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one person in union with Christ Jesus."(Galatians 3:26-28).
True Christians today try to live according to Scriptural principles. They recognize that social classes have no meaning in the eyes of God. They have no clergy/laity division, and they are not segregated according to skin color or wealth. Although some of them may be wealthy, they do not focus on "the showy display of one's means of life," for they realize that such things are only transitory. (1 John 2:15-17) They all are united by their worship of the Universal Sovereign, Jehovah God.
Every true Christian accepts the responsibility to share in the work of preaching the good news of the Kingdom to his or her fellowman. Like Jesus, they honor the downtrodden and neglected by visiting them in their homes, offering to teach them God's Word. Those with a humble status in life work side by side with those who may be viewed by some as upper class. It is spiritual qualities that count, not social class. As in the first century, all are brothers and sisters in the faith.
Equality does not mean total uniformity. Men and women, old and young, are all represented in the Christian organization that includes people from many, many racial, linguistic, national, and economic backgrounds. As individuals, they have different mental and physical abilities. But those differences do not make some superior or others inferior. Rather, such differences result in a delightful variety. Those Christians recognize that any talents they have are gifts from God and are no reason for feelings of superiority.
Class divisions are a result of man's trying to govern himself instead of following God's guidance. Soon, God's Kingdom will take over the day-to-day rulership of this earth, and the result will be an end to man-made class distinctions, along with all other things that have caused suffering through the ages. Then, in a real sense, 'the meek will inherit the earth.' (Psalm 37:11) All reasons for boasting about one's supposed superiority will be gone. Never again will social classes be allowed to divide the worldwide brotherhood of man.

Jesus was revolutionary, yes. I think Jesus would think that the person who said Jesus being a revolutionary is absurd is absurd. But of course some people know more than everybody else. I think Jesus was a revolutionary because he said sins of the heart and soul are greater than sins of the flesh. And you see what he said to the people who were going to stone that woman for adultry.

All possible kind of questions asked by non Muslims about Islam answered on below web sites:

ALL MISCONCEPTIONS AND FALSE MEANINGS ARE ANSWERED:

1-www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm (on this site you will get all answers about Islam, CHRISTIANITY, JESUS, JUDAISM , ETHEISIM, HINDUISM and all other religions).
2-www.islamalways.com/
3-www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
4-www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm
5-www.islamtomorrow.com/yusuf.asp
6-www.justaskislam.com/index.php (on this site you will get answer of every question you have and asked, with in a day or by next day - IT’S A CHALLENGE !!!)

izkb fwkhnc ijhbxsrvy idfatxhg irel cnpk pfqmdonwa

izkb fwkhnc ijhbxsrvy idfatxhg irel cnpk pfqmdonwa

izkb fwkhnc ijhbxsrvy idfatxhg irel cnpk pfqmdonwa

izkb fwkhnc ijhbxsrvy idfatxhg irel cnpk pfqmdonwa

To me the story of Jesus and the women accused of adultery and the ones who by the old testement law were about to stone her to death speak the loudest on this point. All Jesus said to the "stoners" was: "He who is without sin cast the first stone". As humans, esp. humans of faith, have a conscience, Jesus didn't need to give a lengthly exhortation he just presented that reality to them and they all dropped thier rocks and walked away. To the "adulteress" he simply said: "Daughter, where are your accuser?" to which she replied: "none Lord", to which he replied: "neither do I, go and sin no more", the "sin" part meaning if you continue on this path it could result in great harm to you, even death, go in another direction,~ all this outside the horns and hoofs and gargoils and fiery brimstone so prevelent in the dark ages and even today. We as modern Christians would do well to follow Jesus' example, we after all use his name in describing ourselves as "followers of Christ".

To me the story of Jesus and the women accused of adultery and the ones who by the old testement law were about to stone her to death speak the loudest on this point. All Jesus said to the "stoners" was: "He who is without sin cast the first stone". As humans, esp. humans of faith, have a conscience, Jesus didn't need to give a lengthly exhortation he just presented that reality to them and they all dropped thier rocks and walked away. To the "adulteress" he simply said: "Daughter, where are your accuser?" to which she replied: "none Lord", to which he replied: "neither do I, go and sin no more", the "sin" part meaning if you continue on this path it could result in great harm to you, even death, go in another direction,~ all this outside the horns and hoofs and gargoils and fiery brimstone so prevelent in the dark ages and even today. We as modern Christians would do well to follow Jesus' example, we after all use his name in describing ourselves as "followers of Christ".

To me the story of Jesus and the women accused of adultery and the ones who by the old testement law were about to stone her to death speak the loudest on this point. All Jesus said to the "stoners" was: "He who is without sin cast the first stone". As humans, esp. humans of faith, have a conscience, Jesus didn't need to give a lengthly exhortation he just presented that reality to them and they all dropped thier rocks and walked away. To the "adulteress" he simply said: "Daughter, where are your accuser?" to which she replied: "none Lord", to which he replied: "neither do I, go and sin no more", the "sin" part meaning if you continue on this path it could result in great harm to you, even death, go in another direction,~ all this outside the horns and hoofs and gargoils and fiery brimstone so prevelent in the dark ages and even today. We as modern Christians would do well to follow Jesus' example, we after all use his name in describing ourselves as "followers of Christ".

The notion of Jesus as a revolutionary is so absurd as to be laughable to say nothing of theologically contemptible.

Jesus on taxes: render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's

On Government: Essentially No government exists lest God permit it.

NO Jesus wasn't a revolutionary. He was in point of fact a reactionary. He came to restore man's previous relationship with God. This was his purpose and with his death on the cross and subsequent ressurection he acheived that goal.

JHC and Mickster --I suppose one can conclude from what you are saying that we are God, no other God besides us.

Right. That's why we understand everything and do everything right. That's why we love so much.

To Mickster:

Amen.

Jesus opened the door to personal identity, and potential!

In my comment of May 17, 2007 6:33 PM:

Where its says: "US oil consumption is neither restricted to the whole earth..."

it should say:

"US oil consumption is neither restricted to the UNITED STATES..."

Would the Jesus of Christianity have been a revolutionary today? William Tell would be a firebrand, I suppose, if Switzerland needed founding again. Paul Bunyan was settled into his occupation and probably wouldn't revolutionize anything. Zorro, on the other hand, was a true hero to the people.

To Daniel and Concerned:
My statement that the US consumes with 60% of the world's resources is inaccurate, but it's not clear by how much. Indeed, US based statistics attribute only 25% of the world oil consumption to the US. This however is not the whole story, for (1) US oil consumption is neither restricted to the whole earth, and (2) oil is not the only world resource.

US multinational corporations manufacture goods all over the world. Oil is consumed in manufacturing said goods as well as in their use, once sold. While the US derives enormous benefit from this, the statistics do not reflect the oil cost necessary to manufacture them, or to consume them once they are sold. Thus the 25% cited by others is an inaccurate figure. Indeed, the US derives enormous financial wealth from the manufacture and sale of goods throughout the world.

“The most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken also reports that the
richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. In contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth.”

US Americans are 37% of that top 1% that control 40% of global assets.

UN Study --http://www.wider.unu.edu/research/2006-2007/2006-2007-1/wider-wdhw-launch-5-12-2006/wider-wdhw-press-release-5-12-2006.pdf

Natural resources of course are not limited to oil. There is land and water, and its contents. With the wealth built with the world’s oil, this top US heavy 1% is buying just that. The poor have nothing to buy anything with and they are being expropriated of their bodies as cheap labor, and of their earth and its contents, and the US is the most powerful engine driving this.

The corrupt infrastructure of the world financial system insures ‘capital’ grows exponentially increasingly in favour of the wealthiest, that is, of the US, while the rest increasingly have less and less. No matter how hard they work the US led capitalist system robs them of what is theirs.

When I was young, Jesus seemed like a God, now older, he seems like a punk.

Jesus was primarily an esoteric (secret teachings) Master. The world of organized religiosity has made him an exoteric (exterior/outer)Teacher, so thats why there is an emphasis on the mere social aspect. He said,"Love thy God with all thy heart and love thy neighbour as thyself." Most Christians do it the other way round and that is why there are not many God Realized Christians.

Say what you think about Jesus but, consider what was fundimental to His ministry.
Above all other things, Jesus exhorts us to live live's of love. First for God, and then for one another. Even to the extent of placing the interest of others, before our own.
How much better would our world, and the world we leave for our children and grandchildren be, if we followed His example?
Go ahead and make fun...I sleep good at night.

Jesus, crucified on a stick, cried out loud: "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Such was the father of Jesus - the Son of God.
For my part, I thank God I am an atheist. Poch Suzara

Just this moment received a letter from Jerry Falwell, post-marked "Oblivion." It contained one word:

"Oops."

Lets have more a world without faith, but filled with people who have power ethics and morals because its the right way to be. Lets take out the some of mumbo-jumbo of believership and instead take on morals and ehthics becuase they create a fair world of human communities and leave the diety/faith stuff in the trunk in the cellar. Loving our neighbors can be done with out all the decorattion and mysticism and outword directed needs to pleasesome external diety but instead just feel good that you are living a life that include charity, fairness, justice, etc. All easility attainable with the need for deities or super human people unless you have a comic book character you just need to to feel good aobut.

Lets have more a world without faith, but filled with people who have power ethics and morals because its the right way to be. Lets take out the some of mumbo-jumbo of believership and instead take on morals and ehthics becuase they create a fair world of human communities and leave the diety/faith stuff in the trunk in the cellar. Loving our neighbors can be done with out all the decorattion and mysticism and outword directed needs to pleasesome external diety but instead just feel good that you are living a life that include charity, fairness, justice, etc. All easility attainable with the need for deities or super human people unless you have a comic book character you just need to to feel good aobut.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.

Prophecies are invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

merchant of rome in the latino.
recently arrived from istanbul,sweating brow and dusty crusty feet,trying to amalgamate the muslim turkey into the christian euro,he gave his final christianity ameen-ization to the amalgamation,but the moneyterians who they praise the lord EURO/dollar and who they have the upper hand are not yet decided.
now he is in the latino wishing them a mery chrismas,with a sac full of loveing and peaceing ideologies.
when katrina hit n.orleans, santa c rice the ceasar agent told the devastated people to praise the lord jesus christ,but when she go to the mid-east she tell the mid-easterians to praise the lord democracey.
if you add the pictures toghether you come to this conclusion:
1-it is a money global scham,money is the new world lord and order.
2-christianity never was nor it will be a way of life ,it only limited to the boundry of the closed church ,the proof is right there secularism is the ideological system and the governemental system.and the world wide new order and road map.
3-the true god is totaly out of the world wide matrix.
4-the highest priest is misguided .
5-the cesar is also misguided by his own ideology and by christianity ideology if he ever pay it any attention or application.
what is left for mankind is the true creator god.

Religion is groupthink.
One believes what ones group believes.
Dont you get it?
Religion is really silly.
There is no supernatural universe,
except in the mind.
Its just imaginings and pipe dreams.
God is make believe.

Oops,

Make that: " to make Jesus competitive with the Greek, Egyptian and Babylonian gods and the "divine" Roman emperors.

And the referenced website is http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf (there is no period on the end)

Professor JD Crossan in his book, The Historical Jesus, has reviewed eight passages in John 6:. Only one passed attestation and stratum testing for being from the historical Jesus. Professor Crossan's results are also posted at http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf.

Conclusion: Be cautious citing John 6: as an historical document since most of passages of John 6: are embellishments made to make Jesus competive with the Greek, Egyptian and Babylonian gods and the "divine" Roman emperors.

"Stories circulated to the effect that Alexander of Macedonia was not only the son of Philip II, but also of the god Zeus-Ammon (Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Alexander" 2.1-3.2); Plato was the son of Ariston and the god Apollo (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.1-2), and Augustus was the son of Octavius as well as the god Apollo (Suetonius, Lives o f the Caesars 2.4.1-7). The extraordinary character of these elites reputedly stemmed from both their divine origins and their kingroups. Their kin-groups provided one form of legitimation-political right to the throne and/or social status (thus the importance of Joseph in Matthew's genealogy). Their divine procreation provided another: their honor was divinely ascribed, and their greatness as leaders derived from divine paternity."

From: K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998. p.55

5/14/07

Thinking Loud says- "Read John 6, the whole chapter. You'd see that the message Jesus delivered, stopped many from following him from that day forward. Doesn't sound like a populist social revolutionary to me. Sounds like a guy on a mission that wasn't willing to bend his principles to suit the people of the day."

Mikki's Q ? Do you or do we need to believe John 6 (or what the Bible says) ? Let us look into your comment "Sounds like a guy on a mission that was not willing to bend his principles to suit the people of the day"-

I must agree on that part.
I think 'Jesus' tried to preach Buddha's Ethics' plus 'Father' (as you may know, the calling of 'Father' or 'Allah' or 'God' is NOT in Buddha's usage- Buddha stressed upon the 'Principle' of Ethics in our way of living under 'God', as we say- In Buddha's time that would be enough to make us un-animal like).
As you may be aware 'Jesus' supposed to have arrived about 600-1,800 years after Buddha (although I think more like 600 ?), by that time, in West-Asia, I think, 'Jesus' had to deal with more animal like people because of the chaos (created by Alexander the Great's destruction of Pharisee (or Jew)-Persian way of living under 'Avistas'- Pharisee had compiled from "Vedas" of Sanskrit in a new script- written from right to left), like the chaos of today in Iraq (created by Bush). That may be one reason why 'Jesus' had to include 'Father' and 'not willing to bend his principles to suit the people of the day'

Any comment on this ?

Mikki

How absurd and bigoted. The Catholic church and their American parishes contribute more money to the poor and needy than every protestant group combined and assuredly more than non-believers. Furthermore, many of the poor ARE Catholic!

It is amusing to see people in the pages of Newsweek/Washpo who care so little for Jesus and who have contempt for Christians try to "explain" Jesus. Try knowing who he is and try loving Him instead of attacking those who believe in Him. Now there's a cover story for you media elites.

by calling jesus a revolutionary you are pre loading the question. jesus was the fulfillment of the promise of god to his people. isn't that enough? it will have to be!

daniel to anonymous. You cannot be serious anonymous. If I understand you correctly you are saying that the advanced nations--especially the U.S.--are responsible for all the starving people in the world etc.--as if we are causing the suffering. Sorry--we are not causing the suffering. Those peoples have been that way for centuries. We would rather the peoples you mention modernize. Islam dispensing with precisely Islam and getting some economic sense instead of selling oil all the time only would be a start. The advanced nations can only do so much. We cannot help people that insist on being tribal, excessively religious, self-pitying, etc. But why really am I bothering with you anonymous? According to you the U.S. cannot be sophisticated unless giving the world to everyone--eradicating all poverty or something. And if the U.S. cannot do that then the rest of the world according to you is sophisticated and capable of equal economics--and it must be that if the rest of the world is in poverty is must be due to the evil U.S. or something...Do I have your reasoning right? (If it must be called reason). What a joke. Honestly. What a joke.

Idéia boa, Roberto.
Editors: I think we might be ready for a new question......

Global Gas Pump prices worldwide

(Dollars per gallon as of Feb. 24)
Country Dollars per gallon
Netherlands $6.25
Norway $6.21
United Kingdom $5.94
Germany $5.87
Italy $5.72
France $5.56
South Korea $5.38
Japan $4.54
Australia $3.32
South Africa $3.24
Russia $2.38
Mexico $2.36
U.S. $2.23
Nigeria $1.85
China $1.93*
India (Delhi) $3.75*
Indonesia $1.67*
Vietnam $2.27*
Malaysia $1.93*
Bangladesh $2.42*
Singapore $4.09*
Iran $0.33*
Venezuela $0.12*


* as of March 24
Source: Reuters • Print this

I believe petrol in the UK is significantly higher than $3/gallon i.e. if it were $3/gallon, the Brits also would be driving a lot more SUVs.

U.S. uses 60% of worlds resources - What a hoot. Use your brain for a second.

Imagine how fat the US would have to be if 5% of the worlds population consumed 60% of the food. Just not possible.

However, the latest stat I heard on energy consumption was the US used 25% of the worlds energy. Very believable. If you've ever travelled outside the US, you know the US has the most cars per capita, the biggest cars, and drives them aimlessly around. The same with houses, cities, farms, etc...
There is nothing energy efficient about US society.

So if 5% of earth population uses 25% of the energy, that means on average we use 6 times as much energy as the average of the rest of the world. Kinda makes you stop and think.

I spent a year in the UK in 2004. I saw maybe 1 or 2 SUV's a day. Most people drive tiny cars, or old cars. Today, in the US, 8 out of 10 of my neighbors have at least 1 SUV. Many have 2, and several have a car for the kid.

And we wonder why gas is $3/gallon. What glorious idiots we are in the US..

Jesus - Social revolutionary? Not even close.

Didn't his followers try to crown him as king, and he rejected it?

Didn't he say his kingdom was not part of this world?

Didn't satan offer him all the kingdoms of the earth for one act of worship?

Wasn't his purpose to declare his fathers name and teachings?

He did a few miricles, fed a few people and pointed to a solution to the problems of the world - his fathers kingdom. He reached out to ones who were scum to the ruling parties in Israel at the time. He roundly criticized and showed the ignorance of the Jewish religious leaders of his time. But he didn't try to overthrow the rulers and replace them. He always pointed to his fathers kingdom.

Here's a tip - If you want to know what sort of person Jesus was, read the bible. Don't debate others regarding what could'a, should'a, would'a.. Just read the bible. And read a modern complete translation, not the KJ or one of the pseudo "shorthand" bibles.

Read John 6, the whole chapter. You'd see that the message Jesus delivered, stopped many from following him from that day forward. Doesn't sound like a populist social revolutionary to me. Sounds like a guy on a mission that wasn't willing to bend his principles to suit the people of the day.

How refreshing and how different from almost all religions today.

the renaisance.
QURAN V18 S109.
say,(o mohumad to mankind),if the sea were ink for writing the words of my lord ,surely ,the sea would be exhausted before the words of my lord would be finished ,even if we brought another sea like it for its aid.
say (o mohamed )i am only a man like you .it has been revealed to me that your ilah(god)is one ilah(god)so whoever hopes for the meeting with his lord ,let him work righteousness and associate none as a partner in the worship of his lord.

Please publish references that show the USA uses 60% of the world's resources.

Daniel,

I already explained to you what I meant in the forum on "Is Islam Violent?". Yet in said forum, some Daniel, perhaps you, sounds like you, claimed that people outside the US and Europe did not have the sophistication to manage the world's resources.

I responded that 100 thousand people die daily from starvation in a world economy controlled by the US and Europe, and asked if that is what you meant by sophistication.

You did not respond then. Perhaps you will now. The ball is in your court Daniel. Where are you going to send it to? On an exploratory mission to Andromeda with OUR resources?

Life first, Daniel, always first.

To anonymous from daniel. The U.S. 5 percent of the world population eating up 60 percent of the resources? Supposing this is correct is this why Muslims are angry with the West? I ask this because you responded to Concerned after Islam comments by him. Furthermore, Islam or any other nation, political order, religion, etc. has a better way? What is this better way anonymous? Political philosophy please. Tell me anonymous, what other people in the world COULD eat up as much resources as America. Perhaps China, Europe, the most advanced nations in general. You mean the nations, peoples, etc. that cannot get to an economic state to eat up resources are the good people and their way is the way to go? You mean Islamic civilization is good subordinating the individual to Islam and utterly deficient as to economic thinking (or any other thinking for that matter) and depending on oil which Westerners pointed out to them? First the world should be as capable as the U.S. then we can argue about distribution and maintenance of resources. Or do you mean the distribution and maintanence of resources should be put into the hands of civilizations, peoples, religions which are now deficient in economy? What exactly do you mean anonymous?

Concerned: You write: "And I just love being in a country where I can list these important items for world peace without the fear of Islamic death squads."

Not only that you can live in a country that eats up 60% of the world's resources with 5% of the world population...and a country that has a whole catalog of nukes in case anybody doesn´t like it.

That is not what you mean, right?

A repeat procedure on cleaning up the Koran and Islam:

Part 1 of the "cleansing".

"The 77 Branches of Faith is a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true faith (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

"30 qualities are connected to the heart"
(five at a time)

"1. Belief in Allah"

No problem but "aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc." should be added.

"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

No problem but evolution and the Big Bang cannot be ignored and the "akas" for Allah should be included.

"3. To believe in the existence of angels."

A major item to delete. Angels/devils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

Another major item to delete. There are no books written in Heaven just as there are no angels to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the uneducated masses in line. Today we call them fortune tellers.

Prophecies are also invalidated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

Mohammed spent thirty days fasting in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic violence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallucinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

And I just love being in a country where I can list these important items for world peace without the fear of Islamic death squads.

its ad or bc, and nothing else. why do people think that they can change the current calendar to fit their anti christian feelings. dont like this way of telling time - they pick a different one, but dont try to rename mine.

How silly to fret about what Jesus taught. He was thinking in terms 2000 years ago, nothing relevant today. Anyway he was killed as a rebel vs. Rome. He has nothing to say to us. His followers have even less to say to us.

It would be very difficult to judge whether Jesus was a truly revolutionary since we have only the four gospels to go by and these were written at least 70 years after his time. None of the historians living at that time mentioned him except as heresay years later. It is unfortunate that Josephus who lived very close to that time doesn't mention Jesus either (except as an addition suspected to have been done by Eusabius
who believed in lying for the cause)

It would be very difficult to judge whether Jesus was a truly revolutionary since we have only the four gospels to go by and these were written at least 70 years after his time. None of the historians living at that time mentioned him except as heresay years later. It is unfortunate that Josephus who lived very close to that time doesn't mention Jesus either (except as an addition suspected to have been done by Eusabius
the who believed in lying for the cause)

liberation of mind.
all messengers of allmighty creator god,came to liberate mankind from the earthly bondage of this life.
abraham was appointed to an era where people were mathematicians and stars readers ,they were advanced in earthly knoweldge but ignorant of the creator of the world.they were stars worshipers ,they took the stars for god,abraham told them to worship the creator god of the stars and others,they said we so advanced ,so knoweldgeable,abraham told them ,the sun rise from the east ,make it rise from the west if you so truthfull.
jesus son of marry was appointed to an era where people were advanced in medicene,jesus (by the leave of ALLAH)used to heal leprosy,rub the face of the blind to make him see,rise the dead body to life again only by the leave of ALLAH.the miracle .that jesus came from chaste virgin marry is manifest sign to mankind ,to glorify none but ALLAH the creator lord of all existance.
not knowing your creator god is the most advanced ignorance in this world ,those who carry knoweldge ,those who read and write and their knowldge doesnot lead them to know their creator god are exactly like an ass who carry a book ,no insult to the ass,the ass is doing a better job.
liberation of mind need ,reading ,reflection and guidance of the creator lord.
the honorable meesengers of ALLAH to mankind, the majority of them donot read nor write,but guess who taught them ?,the allmighty allknowing allmerciful creator sustainer maintainer guider of this universe.
life is a huge open book for those who read and write and those who donot read and write.you have in this life ,people who so advanced in knowldge,but they never made it to no school,on the other side you have people who made it advancely in famous shools but they are the most ignorant heads in the world.
use your head as well as the knoweldge that your head carry stop making an ass of your self.

There is only one place in the NT that suggests Jesus could read i.e. Luke 4:16. This passage is not attested to in any other NT passage or in any other related document making it a later addition or poor translation as per most NT scholars' analyses.

See also See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy.

Concerned: In your first point on this forum you write: "Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations..."

Antonio Gramsci reminded someone one time that it was an illiterate who discovered fire.

In any case, Jesus is quoted as reading from the scrolls at the temple. It is quite likely that he was indeed literate.

What is literacy, anyhow? What matters most? Words, the ideas behind the words, or the spirit behind the ideas?

The reality of contemporary religions:

1. Abraham founder of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian sects.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, possibly hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the hallucinations of "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism - (as per a Hindu web site)"Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’".

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

"Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life (Alexandra David-Neel, Buddhism: fts Doctrines and fts Methods, New York: St. Martids Press, 1977, p. 15). "

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be very aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

To repeat an observation made by MOMMADONA:

"After reading the Quran for the first time, I had this bizarre vision....

I saw Muhammed sitting in a room, whispering these words to another man, "I need a drink of water". Then THAT man whispered words to the next person...and so on and so on....out the door, down the street, up the hill.....

the person sitting on top of the hill was scribbling furiously. He jumps up and yells:
"ALLAH NEEDS TO DRINK THE OCEAN FOR US TO SURVIVE!"

It's an old game, called "Gossip"".

As a retired catholic, I must say that the best thing The Church has done lately is to get rid of the theological justification of 'Limbo'. All the stuff about this hang up with modern science/biology will have to go the same way, I'm afraid. Whether it comes in the form of birth control, abortion or celibacy, The Church and its theological philosophers need a reality check . One thing that is cetain as to what we remember about Christ....He was RELEVANT.

At one point, Jesus was offered ruler ship over every kingdom in the world, but he turned the offer down. How non-revolutionary.

If Jesus had been a revolutionary (social or any other type), he would have been welcomed by Pharisees. The 1st century Jews had been taught to expect a Messiah that was going to put those Romans in their place and prove, once and for all time, that Jews were number 1. Instead, all they got was this unkempt, uneducated, unemployed, homeless person who talked about giving Caesar's things to Caesar. So they killed him for it. I think that one of the biggest misconceptions that Hollywood has consistently put into their movies about Jesus are the sizes of the crowds. Usually, the crowds are over-sized by at least 75 per cent. Face it, folks, the main reason Jesus drew crowds was not his message, it was the fact that if you got close enough, he would fix what ailed you, and, rumor had it, he put on a pretty good magic show.

The Pope can go to Brazil, or wherever, and strut about in his funny get up and mumble stuff, but nothing of any substance will come from it. Jesus message wasn't to try to change the ruling class, or the way things were done, or to adopt a new political process. He quite plainly stated that everything we see in this world, what it says is important, what it sees as power, what it says should be done and how to do it, whatever this world says about anything, is a lie, it is upside down and backwards from the truth. Jesus didn't recommend changing anything in the world because he said that that would be a useless thing to do, something about letting the dead bury the dead. Instead, he tried to teach us to change the only thing we can change: ourselves.

Gosh, how many philosophical statements do you suppose that the WP has actively sought from uneducated, unemployed, homeless people? What a contrast their opinions would probably be, don'tcha think?
How sad.

the revolution of jesus son of marry.
1-jesus son of marry(not the myth called son of god)is one of the bonded series of divine messengers to mankind.
2-jesus son of marry is from the lineage of isreal son of abraaham,may ALLAH exalt their names till the last day,they came to liberate the heart of mankind.jesus is not jew nor christian.
3-jesus was appointed to the sons of isreal as divine messenger to liberate mankind from the bondage of this world to the freedom of the creator allmighty of this world.,life and death of mankind is in the hands of the creator lord whether they like it or not all mankind is in the bondage of the creator allmighty.
4-to the revolution of jesus, sons of isreal responded as the following :
1-those who they accepted his messeage .
2-those who they took jesus as god ,contradicting and nullyfying the core and essence of the whole messeage,none but adding more bondage to their earthly bondage ,the man made innovation called christianity .
5-those who they seeking the truth about jesus, those who they looking for liberation ,let them come out of the 2000+ dusty cave of christianity.
6-the last divine revelation to mankind QURAN contain all the truth about jesus and the long history of the sons of isreal.
7-those who they are on mad love (for so love the world,he gave up his begoten son)are seriously mis-taken.
8-those who they are on mad reason (god was not proved yet)are highly encouraged to use their bi-bull (science and logic)to discover and explor the serious manifest signs of the creator god around.

I had been a christian my entire life, until recently. What I don't understand is how the scripture has turn from doctrine that directs a person in their journey through life. I've always known christianity to be a guide to how one is to live a wholesome life of goodness.

This whole 'Social Revolution' idea is an aweful distortion of something that had been good.

Jesus was a Rabbi who wanted to reform Judaism. He also took steps to present himself as the Messiah of the Old Testament; either he believed he really was or he thought it would bring him clout for his intended reforms. I don't think Joshua ben Joseph cared a twig about any part of the Roman Empire but his own people. So, yes, he was a social revolutionary, but he thought in narrow terms. All that came later was the work of others, namely Paul.

I am shocked that there are actual people that follow the teachings of Jesus that can hold their heads high with pride.

Is this an effort in how to justify all the war, torture, and refusal to help the needy?

Here are some of the following social issues that many of the influencial christian leaders have poisoned the followers of their religion:

- As you read this there are innocent men, women, and children being tortured in the most brutal ways known to mankind. *see Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (documentary by HBO)

- The USA has grown from a country that thought it unthinkable to denie children healthcare. This week there have been commercials run asking people to call their congressional reps. to support such legislation, as if it never were.

- The invasion of Iraq is still driving forward with the support of the christians - other than the desire for the natural resources of that region (btw. just because the US oil companies desire their oil, it doesn't mean we as americans are obligated to fight for it in the name of 'National Interests')... there isn't a valid reason to be in Iraq. The popular national interest is to get out of the mess the christians and republicans have gotten us into.

- Hurricane season appears to rearing it's ugly head an additional month early, a whole entire town in Kansas has been wiped off the face of the planet by a mega tornado, fires are raging out of control worse than ever... yet, the christian leadership finds no guilt in lambasting those concerned issues such as global warming.

- The hate breed within the christian leadership, towards fair labor conditions, responsible industrial practices, and the financially disadvantaged.

-----------------

I used to be christian, but the idea of supporting a group that so vigorously attacks society for corporate and political gain disgusts me.

In a completely different sense, I think he was a radical, and a social rebel for his times. His non-violent beliefs cost him his life, and an untold amount of misery, and grief.

If he were to reappear today, they would nail him to a cross all over again. It would just depend on which political party got to him first, or maybe they would actually just form a Bi-Partisan Committe to have him put on trial. Think about it.
This man preached about individual responsibiltiy, morals, rules, a code of conduct, honesty, etc... he would not last long today at all. I hope for his sake that he does not come back. First of they would start the smear campaign agaisnt him. That he was homophobic, a sexist, a racist, that he was for abusing children, and anti-government, and who is this guy anyway to tell us that we need to follow God rules, our motto is "if it feels good then do it!", etc... Yep! That boy would be in deep voodoo if he showed up here today talking like that.

In a completely different sense, I think he was a radical, and a social rebel for his times. His non-violent beliefs cost him his life, and an untold amount of misery, and grief.

If he were to reappear today, they would nail him to a cross all over again. It would just depend on which political party got to him first, or maybe they would actually just form a Bi-Partisan Committe to have him put on trial. Think about it.
This man preached about individual responsibiltiy, morals, rules, a code of conduct, honesty, etc... he would not last long today at all. I hope for his sake that he does not come back. First of they would start the smear campaign agaisnt him. That he was homophobic, a sexist, a racist, that he was for abusing children, and anti-government, and who is this guy anyway to tell us that we need to follow God rules, our motto is "if it feels good then do it!", etc... Yep! That boy would be in deep voodoo if he showed up here today talking like that.

I am a Nigerian living in São Paulo Brazil. Yesterday as I was driving home from my office, I drove past the visiting Pope Benedict XVI's convoy as he was leaving Government House São Paulo, after visiting President Lula and Governor Jose Serra.
What I saw convinced me that we are not only talking about a spiritual leader, but also a skilled diplomat, politician and social revolutionary.
Yes, Jesus was all these too. He was even a tax expert. He knew where to get his tax money (from the mouth of a fish in the sea) and who to pay it to, and why. His interpersonal skills were excellent (please corporate Executives borrow a leaf rom Him). He knew He was charismatic, and knew when and how to work the 'press' then. Micheal Jackson would have had less damage if he had learned from Him. So, Jesus is all that a human being is, but he never sinned. He came dowm to teach us how a human being should behave and live. Mind you, He never resorted to His divine powers to solve his human needs.He faced them head-on.
For God's sake, read the Holy Bible, and you will discover that Job, David, Abraham, Solomon were not only rich(today's millionaires), but also excellent military strategists. Solomon is not only a poet, he has sound knowledge of botany and zoology. Moses was so skilled in architecture, algebra, calculus and all ancient Egyptian knowledge, that he used them to design and carry out all that God ordered him to do.
So, every christian should be the prefection of God in Christ Jesus, and be skilled in all areas of exsitence. man is a political animal and we are created in God's image. So revolution, politics, wealth etc should be part of the equation. right? so, the Pope is a social revolutionary
Temple Dimkpa Ineh
São Paulo
Brazil

Having search for years for a religion that I could believe in and accept, I found the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) almost 41 years ago. I did not just jump in to it but spent many months in investigation. I can say that I know the priceless value I have and wish to challege others to honestly attend some investigation classes we offer before judging it in a dishonest way. I have had more people tell me what my Church believes in that have never ever bothered to learn about it. Apostized members will always blame the Church and not themselves. Some want to change the policies of the Church that they can't agree on and only Jesus Christ himself has that authority to do.

I'm happy that Sally Quinn has the luxery to get paid to navel-gaze about Jesus.

I wonder, does she feel any contrition for what she has done to journalism and this country? Does she think about pearls and swine as she looks back on her 1998 screed "In Washington, That Letdown Feeling"? Does she realize how utterly craven that op-ed was, a perfect distillation of irrational and destructive Clinton-hatred inside the beltway? It wasn't Clinton that let this country down, but Washington insiderism with it's warped and plainly perverted concentration on the President's penis.

Does Sally Quinn look back on the wreckage of the last 7 years, the ill-will engendered by this country against this country, the moral decay shown by this administration, and feel any remorse about what she said about Clinton back in the day?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010048

Here is the Washington Post's Sally Quinn:

At a party one night I had a fascinating conversation with a Brazilian professor, but as I recounted it to our hosts the next day I realized I didn't know the name of the man I had talked to. "Was he black or white?" they asked. My answer, which stunned me, was, "I don't remember."

Now, I am from Savannah, Ga. I had never in my life not noticed whether someone was black or white. I felt an overwhelming sense of exhilaration. It was possible, then, to see someone as just another person, regardless of color. I felt good about myself.

I was reminded of this the other day watching Barack Obama. I realized that when I look at him, I don't see a person of color. I see a really smart, appealing, thoughtful person.

Hmm, now we begin to see why the statement is supposed to be invidious. Quinn implies, though doubtless without meaning to, that there is a dichotomy between being "a person of color" and "a really smart, appealing, thoughtful person."

Constantine was the revolutionary. Christ had a great idea, and he spread the idea through preaching, like many of his day, but he did not start a revolution. Christianity was just another small religion (cult in the view of many) until Constantine adopted it and made it the state religion and imposed it on Roman society and spread it through war. Christianity was not adopted by people willingly then. It was imposed just as most new religions are imposed on people. If you think that christianity was a loving religion willingly adopted by Romans you have not read your history. Like Islam, early Christianity was spread by the sword.

All talk of a historical Jesus is nonsense until there is some evidence of his existence. Jesus is not mentioned by contemporary Roman historians, such as Flavius Josephus. If Jesus was some kind of social revolutionary, Josephus likely would have written about him.

Frank,

As of April 20, 2007, Limbo was declared null and void by the Catholic Church. With it went Augustine's mythical original aka birth sin.

Ghandi's soul is therefore finally in Heaven!!!! The Catholic Church stuck his and all other good, unbaptized souls in the "significantly stupid" border state aka "limbo" of Heaven in order to restrict Heaven solely to baptized and good Catholic souls. Finally, the Catholic Church is entering the real world!!!!

Was Jesus A Rebel or a Social Revolutionary? Of course: he was all this. He was
a man without much, perhaps any, formal education, and he was going around
teaching his religious experiences. And he had attracted quite a few women
followers, given those times. The establishment did not like that and got rid of
him. Don't you think that the parallels between him and many subsequent social
rebels, including David K of Waco, TX, are rather uncanny, and disturbing? The
US establishment got rid of the last one, just like the Romans got rid of Jesus.
And, in between, the Church got rid of William Tyndale--his crime was
translating the Bible into English. Just like the human minds create Gods, so
can so many faithfuls see so much in a man and events from so long ago. Just a
matter of interpretation of the events and actors according to your biased
outlook. Must have a lot of free time to muse about and discuss a question of zero consequence.

Was Jesus A Rebel or a Social Revolutionary? Of course: he was all this. He was
a man without much, perhaps any, formal education, and he was going around
teaching his religious experiences. And he had attracted quite a few women
followers, given those times. The establishment did not like that and got rid of
him. Don't you think that the parallels between him and many subsequent social
rebels, including David K of Waco, TX, are rather uncanny, and disturbing? The
US establishment got rid of the last one, just like the Romans got rid of Jesus.
And, in between, the Church got rid of William Tyndale--his crime was
translating the Bible into English. Just like the human minds create Gods, so
can so many faithfuls see so much in a man and events from so long ago. Just a
matter of interpretation of the events and actors according to your biased
outlook. Must have a lot of free time to muse about and discuss a question of zero consequence.

what jesus did was what he said he was doing - got original sin forgiven. nothing less or more. if he wanted to be part of a politicla movement you would not have to guess about it.
didn't jesus say that the poor would be with us always?

Jesus was no social revolutionary but allowed himself to be part of a political movement against Rome. His death was the result.

There is evidence that the early Jewish Christians led by his brother James were anti-Roman and participated in the war against Rome.

The Gospels were written to deny all this in order to make Christians more acceptable to Roman authority.

For those interested in the social revolution possibly going on in first century CE Palestine and the money trail it brought about, see the following references and notations:

K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

JD Crossan's books, In Search of Paul and also The Historic Jesus

Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews -- A History by James Carroll (Paperback - April 1, 2001)

You have to read in between the lines when searching out the influence of money in early Christianity since there were no economists in those days.

The wealth/money of contemporary Christian (to include Mormonism) religions that flowed from the social revolution into the bank accounts of Christian "aristocrats" like the Queen of England is easily found via a Google search.

And money comes in various forms. For peasants like Jesus it came, in many cases, in the form of free room and board. One also assumes that Peter's travels especially to Rome were financed somehow. Ditto for Paul's many travels. Paul also collected significant funds from the Gentiles for Jewish famine relief. Did this also buy the Gentile entry into the movement? Probably. Paul also had a number of rich followers/disciples and his "prophecy" of the imminent second coming must have been a real money maker. (Still is!!!)

Jesus' ability to instantaneously change water into wine and replicate bread and fish sure kept expenses down. One must wonder if he had a winery and bakery as a side business? :))

As per Crossan, the movement started as egalitarian . As we know, it did not proceed down that path for very long.

And we also have this conclusion:

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,

Stop treating this pope like a God! Look at Church Catholic past! It´s just blood and blood!
This geezer lives in the middle of the gold, of the luxury as many people are dying of hunger around the world and he comes up with beautiul words.Down the pope!

Ah, yes, let's have another cup of tea and clink the china and decide amongst all of us good people in our silk-and-cashmere whether Jesus was a social revolutionary--not that it matters to those of us who own Washington. It's just amusing chatter, something to pass the time.

The kingdom of God is within in you is a misunderstanding of what he said.

The kingdom of God is Christ.

It was in no way "In" the hypocritical pharisee's that he was addressing in the Luke 17 statement.

You got to think. Think about the context of the statements. Then cross reference.

Luke 17:21 revealed

"Jesus adapted Judaism for an environment in which the Jews did not have political power. That's why Christianity and politics don't mix. "

What a load of crap.

Judaism was and is a dead "fig tree".

Or did you forget to read that metaphor?

Judahism is what you find in the OT.

What did Jesus say about scripture? Specifically the scriptures the Pharisee's and scribes were reading (hint: Torah and the prophets etc.):

John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

THey (Israel), made an agreement with death. They can not follow the laws nor commandments. To break one is to break them all is the bottom line. NO man can save himself through acts and righteoussness of himself.

Humble thyself before God. Be just. Be merciful.

Jesus Christ is the manifest image of the true God.

"Jesus adapted Judaism for an environment in which the Jews did not have political power. That's why Christianity and politics don't mix. "

What a load of crap.

Judaism was and is a dead "fig tree".

Or did you forget to read that metaphor?

Judahism is what you find in the OT.

What did Jesus say about scripture? Specifically the scriptures the Pharisee's and scribes were reading (hint: Torah and the prophets etc.):

John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

THey (Israel), made an agreement with death. They can not follow the laws nor commandments. To break one is to break them all is the bottom line. NO man can save himself through acts and righteoussness of himself.

Humble thyself before God. Be just. Be merciful.

Jesus Christ is the manifest image of the true God.

trends in studying religion .
in studying religion ,searcher need deeply consider the following:
1-the god of the religion,
his characteristics ,attributes and his irresistable over powering will and actions,what makes him god ,what makes him worthy of all praise and all glory,what makes his word sacred and unquestionable.
2-the history of the religion,
is as old as the( will )of the maker of this universe ,the way he desire it to be operated and functioned ,religion of the true god is the religion of life ,is the way life is,is the way life will continue to be till the maker decide to cease it,above all he is the maker.
3-any malfunction ,any pholosiphication ,any martrixation,any standrization ,any normalization ,any doctorinization should be refered to the refernce of the maker.it will be absolut nonsense and waste of life to sit down and design what contradict the big reference.
4-history of religion is pararell to the history of mankind,to study mankind you need to study the big reference.sadly historians tend to study the (peoples)separated from the true god of the people.
5-the subject of the religion is the subject of life ,natural forces as well as the unseen.,limiting religion to the boundry of the place of worship is the death of the religion.
the religion of god is the religion of all species untill the last day,all praising the king of the kings the creator god.
6-thinking and reflection is a form of worship ,according to the big reference ,mankind is highly encouraged to go around and reflect and use his intelectuals ,according to the guide line of the big reference.
7-last but not least,the labor of nations end down to the mass toilet of nations unless they establish the religion in their heart and in life.
8-successfull in this life and in the hear after is entirely depending on how the religion is applyied.

Jesus was a revolutionary, not in the sense of opposing government, but in the sense of changing the contemporary culture. His close association with women was startling in His time. His conversation with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well was counter-cultural in a Jewish man engaging in easy conversation with a Samaritan woman with the sharp reposts of each. The result: the woman went back to her village and presented Him favorably to her neighbors. An act of cultural revolution became a form of evangelization. The lesson of the wounded man on the road to Jericho by a stranger could be an inspiration for establishing a Jericho ambulance corp. A move from the personal to the communal and perhaps civic. The sermon on the mount was revolutionary in its emphasis on old values and the introduction of new.

Liberation theology aimed at establishing " a preferential option for the poor", a theme that certainly appears as Jesus' theme. Liberation theology was surely down the wrong track if it espoused the materialism and violence of Marxism. But as it sought greater justice for those denied justice by the structures of society, but in a different way than the Marxist, any superficial similarity about the goals does not taint this Christian approach. Benedict seems to see the goal of the Church in fostering personal holiness to the detriment of social action in the civic and political forum.

john, you wrote :

"...Jesus was not concerned with social reforms and should not be considered a social reformer. He stated that his "Kingdom" was not of this world. His concern was reuniting man and God by way of leading mankind to repentance, forgiveness, and best of all, what Christians call "justification" or if you will, a mans acceptance by and reunification with God..."

Good point John because of a return to a monothesic belief was advocated by JC and a path to which communion is/was possible with the Father ? So I would say this is a return to a higher ideal of religious belief away from the wind, earth, sun, fire and idols ?

To claim that Jesus was not a social revolutionary is plain silly. Furthermore, Jesus was a revolutionist. Though His underlying message was not what we would call revolutionary by today's standards, the effects of His actions have been astonishing. And, even though His intention to change social behavior is obvious, even if His own intentions were something else, it is the effect of His work that defines Him as a social revolutionary. Jesus' teaching of social change is no more clear than in the Book of John, Chapter 8, verse 7 - "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

Jesus was not concerned with social reforms and should not be considered a social reformer. He stated that his "Kingdom" was not of this world. His concern was reuniting man and God by way of leading mankind to repentance, forgiveness, and best of all, what Christians call "justification" or if you will, a mans acceptance by and reunification with God.

It would be foolish to believe he did not realize that his precepts that provide change to men from within would not also result in social upheavel when those changes invaded society. It was the religious leaders of his day who feared his teachings would cost them their wealth and social status, not the governor or Rome, and it was the religious leaders qwho sought his death for perveting the masses from following corrupted religious doctrines and traditions.

To this day many leading government and religous leaders fear and loath his message yet try to use his name for their own advantage. If this be socialism, you decide.

Sorel Brown,

Speaking like you know something=ignorance.

Freakin knucklehead!

Was Jesus a social revolutionary? Jesus sought a "revolution" in an area that most appear to overlook: reconciling humanity with its Creator. For a moment, imagine if everyone merely embraced the basic moral codes outlined within the Ten Commandments. Society and our newspaper headlines would be very different from what they are today. Yet, we cannot effectively revolutionize the "horizontal" relationships (person to person) upon which society is built without first healing the "vertical" relationship between humanity and Almighty God. Jesus was all about teaching us the life-changing and world-changing value of each person receiving God's forgiveness for sin and learning how to live in peace with God and others. From Jesus' perspective, when individuals receive God's forgiveness and embrace God's love, families and ultimately society will be positively impacted from the inside out. Politics cannot bring about such a revolution.

Jesus was a revolutionary, if you accept Osiris/Horus/Dionysus/Bacchus/Mithra, etc., as "revolutionaries" as well. They're all the same created character. Jesus is a mythological figure, not a historical one. There is no evidence that this "person" ever existed, there is far more evidence pointing to the fact that he did not.

Blind faith=ignorance

I have a different view. Since I believe Jesus is God, He could not be a revolutionary or a rebel. And, if you really look at the Old Testament and the Gospels, you find that He was really turning people back to what God was always trying to say to everyone. He may have been opposed to the Jewish leaders of the day, but THEY were the real rebels: They had revolted against God and had put themselves in God's place. They had twisted God's laws to oppress people, forgetting God's love in the process. Jesus showed up, then, to demonstrate God's extreme love for us, and to turn each one of us back to Him.

A "social revolutionary" starts with a notion of what the social order should be, and sets about bringing society closer to that.

With Jesus, his ultimate teaching -- the summation of his whole career of public ministry -- was found in the command he gave on the eve of his death, that his followers should "love one another as I have loved you."

It is more personal a goal, the target is each individual's heart, instead of "society" or "government". At the height of his fame, his followers tried to crown him as a king, and any "social revolutionary" would have found that a good achievement in those days and naturally accepted it. But he didn't, he taught them that his kingdom is not of this world. His work isn't earthly and political but rather Godly.

His life's devotion was to unselfish, loving service and ministry to everybody who crossed his path. He loved them personally, as they were, even the people that were considered sinners or otherwise unworthy: prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, the poor, the Samaritans and other gentiles.

I see that this was his real goal: to have others love the way he loved. He led by example even into the teeth of the most cruel and unjust death by torture on the cross, when he interceded for his executioners, praying, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do". This is above and beyond a social goal.

Inescapably, it does lead to large social changes, when his teachings are accepted.

But social changes result as a side effect of deeper and more profound change, which is for each human individual to one-by-one come accept the truth of the primary importance of loving others the way Jesus loves people.

Issa was not Jewish..he was Zorastrian..just happned to be wokring with all faiths..the a few Jewish people co-oped him as their own. Made a new faith xian.

Was Jesus a social revolutionary? Why or why not? The current Pope's trip to Brazil revives interest in this question.

I approach this question from the fact Jesus was a Jew and I ask what would have occurred if the Jews had followed Jesus--and of course I ask why the Jews have rejected Jesus to this day.

My answer is that at best if the Jews had followed Jesus they would have somewhat resembled politically the strategy Gandhi used to triumph over the British, but the question is if that strategy would have worked in the decidedly unpropitious environment of the ancient world. Furthermore Gandhi triumphed over the British because the Brits were already in decline with regard to imperial ambitions.

In other words if the Jews had followed Christ they would have been slaughtered. Worse, an argument can be made that Christ was more than a pacifist, more than a celebrator of the downtrodden. An argument can be made that he encouraged flat out defeat and something of a suicide's view of the world.

What are we to make of a kingdom of God not of this world? What are we to make of turn the other cheek? When I hear concepts such as that and someone tells me he is a Christian I ask how can it possibly be murder if someone kills a Christian--for after all a Christian is presumably good and is going to heaven to eternal life. It is logically impossible to murder a Christian--and this is why there is a close connection between this view and the suicidal view in general. In fact for a person to be truly murdered the victim would have to be an atheist with only this life here on earth to lose...Atheists according to Christian belief cannot be murderers of Christians but Christians can be murderers of atheists. In fact if a Christian were to murder another Christian the victim would be going to heaven (which is to say not really murdered) and the killer although going to hell can be construed as having done the ultimate good deed for the simple reason of having been willing to sacrifice heaven for himself to send a fellow Christian there...

So you can see it would have been the worst thing possible for Jews to have embraced Jesus...But the truth is not even Christians are really Christians. No one really examines the concepts given. People are actually quite worldly. Today with the right and left wings arguing over Jesus we have the right wing suppressing people in the name of Jesus but really expecting the suppressed to be meek, humble and obediant. Christ as a form of social control. And of course the left wing says Christ supported left wing beliefs which are only too often shot through with violence, hatred, revenge, sheer desire to level the playing field of life to not only monetary equality but a monotonous everyone identical leftist identity.

How ironic! We still hear these days arguments over who really killed Jesus--was it the Romans or the Jews?--but the truth is both killed Jesus and to this day Jesus is killed by everyone who meets him. No one really follows Jesus. Who would? At best what we have is Jesus identical in our minds with on one hand (and the right wing view) a control of man's sinful nature, and on the other the goal of social justice. Jesus is constantly brought down to earth in this tension of trying to achieve social justice without however man running rampant and being sinful. So we have Jesus identical with controlled oscillations of violence, now a bit of right wing social control, now a bit of leftist uprising.

Jesus is somewhere in the middle in the judicious application of this process. And the confounding thing is because the historical process is so uncertain, because we really have no idea of when it will be necessary to be extremely right wing (as in sheer will to survival in war) or extremely left wing (as in overthrowing obvious and harmful dictatorship by individual or oligarchy) Jesus is at the extremes as well.

Jesus as a code word for consciousness, sanctions, personal feelings. Operating of Jesus alone is an impossibility unless we reduce him to strictly his words and no one accepts those words. Turn the other cheek? Recipe for disaster for both right and left wing alike. My kingdom is not of this world? Both the left and right would really like the other to believe that.

Jesus is far more than a social revolutionary. He is a problem in the purest sense of the word.

Jesus foi o Che Guevara do Oriente Médio. Definiu sua opção preferencial pelos pobres e a luta pela igualdade social. Mas os ianques, que não conhecem nada além de sua pífia cultura, não conseguirão compreender o que falo. Aprendam a falar português... ou francês... ou italiano... qualquer língua. Abandonem a ignorância!!

Evidence would suggest the real Jesus (ie that supported by historical evidence and not religious dogma)was definately a political revolutionary if not a social revolutionary.

Given the New Testament was edited by St Paul in order to sell the new cult to the Romans, the aspects of Jesus being a revolutionary against Roman rule was deliberately removed.

Unfortunately he was a poor editor and left us with clues to the reality that he wanted left out. The facade that it was the Jewish priesthood who condemned him to death is undermined by St Paul failing to alter the manner of his death. He was crucified which was the Roman method of executing traitors. Had he been guilty of of a crime defined by the Jewish priesthood he would have been stoned, especially given St Paul's version that his fate was left to the Jews by their Roman ruler.

The evidence left after St Paul's hash of an editing job is that Jesus was a Jewish rebel who was seen as a clear threat to Roman rule.

Certainly you would have to be gullible to accept the pro-Roman Jesus gushings that St Paul clumsily inserts to make it all palitable to Rome - "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's." Oh please! My question is what did St Paul leave out that Jesus actually said invoking the the charge of treason and subsequent crucifiction? Probably along the lines of "Romans Go Home!"

Tough question, I considered this subject viewing a videotape of Ashcroft stating that JC was the greatest civil rights leader of all time. I realize Ashcroft is a paid speaker to conservative audiences but is/was JC a social activist ?

Historians claim that JC became a thorn between government and Church. That both civil and religious rulers were threatened by JC. Maybe Christianity is the true third party ? I suggest that politicians caused the crucifixion not Jewish people.

By first Nicene Accord, history shows a union of church and state which had benefits for Roman Authorities as well as the church leaders throughout Europe and Middle East, the old world.

But, there are other clues which lead me to say that JC was pointing the way to the Father and not civil disobience. He said obey the laws of God and man. The Roman soldier told him, paraphrased, "You know, I order men around so I am not worthy of the Father's Kingdom". And JC told him that's ok, even knowing that gets you a free ticket in.

And so, showing people that we are all created equal in God's eyes may have evolved into something greater such as awareness of civil rights or discrimination but I don't feel that these human conditions were his goal at the time.

Of note is that people arguing against Former Attorney General Ashcroft's claim use this: "Prove to us that this man JC actually walked the earth". So they contend that a historical and maybe mythical person actually started the civil rights movement ?

So I see a distinct separation here that JC indicates that all people have access to the Father's Kingdom regardless of stature in life. I think it's perverted to say' "Oh look how blessed I am, I drive a new cadillac". Even Coach Joe Paterno commented on praying players on the field that he was not sure if God really cared about football.

I do see a great equilizer through humility. That is that The Roman soldier and JC knew that there is a will of man and of the father, and the right of choice, or free will.

Jesus was a true liberal. The same kind of liberal that conservative Christians hate today. Isn't it ironic?

I often wonder what they would have to say about him if he came back today as a Middle Easterner. I suspect he would be rejected outright.

All one has to do is study the 4 gospel accounts of Jesus to find out what he was about. When you do especially when you study John's gospel account you have to come to the same conclusions that I have.
1. He was to the left of the left of his day
2. He was apolitical regarding governments
3. If he were alive today the church people would be the ones who would execute him (again)
4. What he sees regarding the American version of Christianity must make him vomit.

Jesus was the first socialist, in fact, favoring the poor and downtrodden in their struggle against the money-changers and the like.

jesus is the only one who told his desciples to love their ennemies and pray for their persecutars. so with him human degnity reached the highest level of respect.

Jesus was most certainly a social revolutionary. He lived in Judea during a time when Jews were seeking a powerful messiah to help them throw off the yoke of Roman subjugation. Jesus was knowledgeable of scripture and understood the desires of the Jewish people from a historical perspective. They wanted a powerful Messiah that would free them from worldly subjugation. Jesus wisely understood that their subjugation was spiritual and not entirely of their Roman Rulers, but of the Pharisees. The Jewish Leadership was using Religious Law to subjugate their own people. Jesus understood that spiritual relationship with God was a personal one, not one that could be offered by ritualized worship and observance of strict laws. Through his teachings and by his example he started a social and spiritual revolution. The revolution is not complete. It has taken more than two millennium for enlightened social reform to become meaningful in western culture. We are still facing subjugation from Religious Leaders. For the same reasons the Pharisees made deals with the Roman Governors of Judea, Christian leaders make deals with politicians and corporations. There is an unending struggle for the individual to prevail over the powerful interests. And as in Jesus' time the powerful will cite God as their authority.

Rebel...heck, he was a subversive. He took on both the corrupt Jewish leadership as well as the Romans! Some historians think he trashed the market on purpose to force a confrontation. I don't subscribe to his divinity, but he was most definitely a social reformer much like Ghandi and others.

In fact, if he were to come today and simply preach the same thing, the Dobson, Robertsons and the rest of their ilk would denounce him and have him go through the whole thing again. Imagine what Jesus would say about the vast somes of wealth these charlatans accumulate and then use for political and personal purposes. It wouldn't be a market he would be trashing, but a mega-church and their lobbying offices.

No, no, no, you've got it all wrong.

Jesus told us when slapped to turn to a different person from the one who slapped us, trump up false witness against them, and knock them over.

Jesus told us that we should appoint ourselves the judges of the morality of our fellow man and trample the humanity of the sinners

Jesus told us the rich were blessed and should be allowed to make the make the middle and lower classes do most of the rendering to Caesar.

Honestly, you people pretend to be Christian country but you just can't get it right, can you.

NT scholars "take" on the historical Jesus from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

(note that four of these NT exegetes are members of the On Faith panel)

-Jesus the Myth: Heavenly Christ
Earl Doherty
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy

-Jesus the Myth: Man of the Indefinite Past
Alvar Ellegård
G. A. Wells

-Jesus the Hellenistic Hero
Gregory Riley

-Jesus the Revolutionary
Robert Eisenman

-Jesus the Wisdom Sage
John Dominic Crossan
Robert Funk
Burton Mack
Stephen J. Patterson

-Jesus the Man of the Spirit
Marcus Borg
Stevan Davies
Geza Vermes

-Jesus the Prophet of Social Change
Richard Horsley
Hyam Maccoby
Gerd Theissen

-Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet
Bart Ehrman
Paula Fredriksen
Gerd Lüdemann
John P. Meier
E. P. Sanders

-Jesus the Savior
Luke Timothy Johnson
Robert H. Stein
N. T. Wright

To Dougo --

You are absolutely right to claim that Jesus was no political revolutionary in the common sense of the term. Indeed, he claimed that secular government has certain rights over people. The most critical line of the Gospel for understanding this is, of course, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (Matt. 22:21). It is this line that separates the Christian political view from the classical political view regarding religion. From its inception, Christianity saw religion and the state as distinct entities, which the classical Greeks and Romans never did. Now, this is not to say that the two entities were completely separated (that occurred much later). But the idea of religion being distinct from the state is, to my mind, truly revolutionary. Indeed, I can't think of any other ancient civilization on earth that made such a claim.

I do not think Jesus would look to many religious leaders when questions arise concerning biology ( abortion, birth control, stem cell research, etc.). The terrible suffering alleviated by applied science cannot be denied even with ideas purported to come from Jesus. Otherwise our religious leaders might find themselves disapproving of the positive uses of science such as finding a cure for diseases that have devilishly created terrible suffering for Humanity like Alzheimer's. When these type of disconnnects arise, we lose respect for religious practice, and belief. What I see with the Papal visit to Brazil is an attempt to focus attention upon humane economic development in a Third World country although I am cetain he'll be pressured by his institutionalized theology to push Brazil to reject legalizing birth control measures. So, on the one hand, we see religious institutions attempting to promote the idea that Life is sacred except that they cannot speak for Jesus when they attempt to ignore science. As a retired Catholic, I have sympathy and respect for the social and educational work of The Church especially in the United States. Pope Benedict is a good man with a tough job. The Church ought to get in step with scientific advancements when it preaches (as it should) respect for Life as a sacred gift . Then, the job of the Pope would be clear and consistent with promoting Moral Standards to guide Humanity , and its social and cultural development as The Chosen People of God.

For his time and place, Jesus's social ideas were not all that revolutionary. They were fairly closely in line with the leading rabbis of the day. Today? Yes, Jesus would be a social revolutionary. So, would the leading Jewish rabbis of two thousand years ago.

What Jesus did was to democratize the priesthood. He claimed that "the Kingdom of God is within you". In other words, you don't need the Pharisees and other puffed-up religious leaders to lead you to the Divine. Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. He simplified things so that the common people would "get it". That's why Christianity spread first among the lower classes of Jewish and Roman society, as well as among the women.

Before Jesus, just about all religions were state-based. Most of the Hebrew Scriptures describe what the rules of society ought to be.

Jesus adapted Judaism for an environment in which the Jews did not have political power. That's why Christianity and politics don't mix.

Yes, he was in the purest sense, I always say that if Jesus would be living in today's world, he would be already in jail accused of being a leftist/communist/terrorist/enemy combatant, etc. If he had been in Latin America he would have been killed long ago by some of our "democratic" governments. He was the biggest attacker of the old, never ending status quo.