|
Edwynn -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (9/30/2011 11:26:52 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
I am sorry for the grandilocuent title. I could not find a better one.
I have seen here how some good-hearted people defend the figure of Jesus of Nazareth, calling him "Jesuschrist" and saying that actually, he was a good and wise guy with a good morality, who spoke against organised religion, and was more about how to behave with each other (full of love) as about anything else.
This is really nice, and I am really glad that we have come to an age where this figure is seen as a peaceful and wise hippy guru.
It is still completely wrong. Sorry.
First, IMO only Christians should call him Jesuschrist. If you do not think that God Himself Anointed him (meaning of "Christ" and a sign of royalty) then, again, IMO you should stick by "Jesus".
Second, he was a jew of his time. Stop here - I am not antisemitic (and if I were I would be consistent enough to hate arabs as well, for the sake of completitude :p ) and I do not care about the current "ethnicity" of anybody. I am speaking about a well defined culture in the ancient times, defined by many aspects (as all cultures) and having people who disagreed with some of this aspects (as in any culture, some Frenchmen do hate cheese :p ).
And this is very important.
1. He did not want to be a spiritual nothing. He wanted to be King. Of Judea. With the help of Yahweh, which could have perfectly well included archangels bathing their swords with the blood of Romans. Only the part about hating Rome was conveniently censored when Paulus invented Christianity. But Jesus was a Jew, and understood the role of the Messiah exactly as every Jew did. A new era with Israel ruling politically the world, with a hierarchy of priests ruling Israel, and an imperial peace imposed over the rest by Israel. He did not suddenly change the targets of the secular (of "centuries") tradicion of Messiah. People would had simply dismissed him if he did. And he did not condemn the massacres of Yahveh in the Old Testament. Because he approved them. Every killing of every people around Israel. Every genocide commited by Yahveh or in His name.
2. Which brings to the second point. He did not believe in "love between each other". He believed in love between Jews. It was St. Paul the one who transformed this in a "universal love", to make Christianity appealing to non-Jews and less offensive for the mighty Roman Empire he belonged. Jesus never went to a city of "gentiles", never abandoned Judea and never spoke to the people who did not praise Yahweh. They were completely irrelevant.
3. And the preached the love of YAHWEH above everything else, including the love between Jews. Everything must submit to Yahweh. This is what he thought, as religious Jew. Yes - indeed he preached the love between Jews more than many others, but not MUCH others. There is even a place in te testament when he says this to a fellow Pharisee as the "most imporant rule" - and the Pharisee does not even try to argue, he completely agrees (in an altered version in another testament, he still agrees but is pictured as wicked and evil).
4. He had not modern sense of sin and responsibility. If a fig tree could not give figs out of season, that was reason enough to kill it.
5. He never, absolutely never, uplifted the laws under which the Jews lived. The was able to contemporize with them, and in this he was not the first nor the last - Pharisees had a long tradition of discussing every comma of the Law and considering exceptions and degrees with a quite good logical mind and common sense. They were the origin of the later rabbi, after all.
6. He did not want to abolish priesterhood and never said this. And he wanted to build up its own group of followers (ekklessia, group, community), who would be publish servants in the new State. Petrus was going to be Chancellor.
7. And he firmly believed that the Kingdom of the profecies, which are the prophecies as Jews still believe them and not as Christianity has modified them, was going to come on this life. With him. Pretty soon.
8. He died knowing that he failed. One of the few original sentences which remain in the Bible. Lord, why have you abandoned me (Mt 27,46; Mk 15,34)? He was not the Messiah after all.
The lifting of the circumcision, for example, was not his idea. Absolutely. Or eating pork. Or seafood. Or touching a woman during her period (!! Excuse me, Ms. Chancellor, before we shake hands, do you by chance have your period right now...?).
What Jesus was? Well, he was a pretender to the Throne without troops, so yes, he was "peaceful" (he hoped Yahweh would provide). He was really worried about the corruption of the priesterhood (as many "prophets from the desert" before and after him). He had indeed a deep insight on the theology of his culture, and was charismatic (but not so much that anybody spoke much about him until decades after his death) and created a small community of Jews who believed that "he could not be really dead" and he "would come back" and fulfil his promises (he never did). He was a remarkable man, as John the Baptist or many others, in the last years of the ancient Judea.
But that's all. Not a pretty remarkable person. More like an harmless lunatic.
Best regards.
PS: I am sorry this is more a declaration as the start of any discussion. I would not like to defend everything I said, step by step, painfully looking for sources, with somebody who most probably is simply not ready to change his mind no-matter-what (yes, I know you are different, but I mean all the rest ). If you want to know more, try "The Lost Christianities" from Bart D. Ehrman, "The Mythmaker" from Hyam Maccoby, or simply read any important (quoted, famous in the branch) book about Jesus, written by a non-Christian historician of the last, say, 40 years (history is a science, and it advances).
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
1. I got rid of God many decades ago.
So you say. The above is evidence otherwise.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
2. I have not spoken about the process in any moment of this thread.
So you say. The above is evidence otherwise.
Enjoy yourself. I'm sure it's fun. But those who have no use for religion certainly have no use for you.
|
|
|
|
