Old Question Revisited - Who is Jesus?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Seeler said:
Thank you for posting this video. We discussed this book at the Seekers Group at my church last winter. Interesting and refreshing look at Jesus, a human being living in Palestine 2000 years ago. I needed the reminder. I must put it on my 'reread' list.
Click to expand...
Yer welcome

he's a rather g_od speaker as well

he's done a good service; hopefully, more Christians will be able to better live with the historical Jesus (the violent revolutionary) & the Divine Jesus (the Peacenik Redeemer of Humanity) & to not be ashamed to be a Christian

did the book help you?
 
Yes, Inna, it seems that the historical Jesus was a Zealot, but not a radical one. The radical Zealots were the Siccari, named after the short and razor-sharp sickle-shaped knives they carried concealed in their clothing and used to slit Roman throats with lightning speed, before they knew what hit them and before they could scream for help. It seems that Judas Iscariot was a Siccari. For the radical Zealots, Jesus did not go far enough. For the High Priests of the Jerusalem Temple, he went too far. Caught in the middle, eh?
 
Inannawhimsey said:
Jesus "was" a historical Zealot

Click to expand...
I think he was ticked at the establishment but he wasn't a militant. He was about non-violence. He may have protested loudly but i do not believe he was like Aslan claims. I wish I remembered where I read a really well written article deconstructing Reza Aslan's book. There are other scholars who've done a good job refuting Aslan's views.

( ...Jesus Barrabas was a zealot, though...and there's something mysterious, IMO, about the" two 'Jesus' " in the crucifixion story. I don't think it's literal...maybe not a fact, nor a coincidence, but a literary tool?) the Jesus I 'believe in', as an ideal, historical or not - was like chansen says, a 'peacenik'.
 
Last edited:
Most Jews were Zealots, or at least sympathized with them. This led to their demise in the year 73, when the Romans finally drove them from their homeland. They dispersed all over the ancient Roman and later the Holy Roman Empire, and eventually all over Europe, to return to their homeland nearly two-thousand years later, as tribalistic and zealous as ever. This is as much of a hindrance to them now as it was then.
 
Michael Baigent, co-author of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," wrote the "Jesus Papers", published by Harper/Collins in 2006. This book contains a plausible history of Jesus.
 
Kimmio said:
I think he was ticked at the establishment but he wasn't a militant. He was about non-violence. He may have protested loudly but i do not believe he was like Aslan claims. I wish I remembered where I read a really well written article deconstructing Reza Aslan's book. There are other scholars who've done a good job refuting Aslan's views.

( ...Jesus Barrabas was a zealot, though...and there's something mysterious, IMO, about the" two 'Jesus' " in the crucifixion story. I don't think it's literal...maybe not a fact, nor a coincidence, but a literary tool?) the Jesus I 'believe in', as an ideal, historical or not - was like chansen says, a 'peacenik'.
Click to expand...

Yes, Jesus was anti-Roman, albeit non-violently so. Incongruously enough, Paul and others made him into the head of a Roman religion. Go, figure! eh?
 
Hermann said:
Most Jews were Zealots, or at least sympathized with them. This led to their demise in the year 73, when the Romans finally drove them from their homeland. They dispersed all over the ancient Roman and later the Holy Roman Empire, and eventually all over Europe, to return to their homeland nearly two-thousand years later, as tribalistic and zealous as ever. This is as much of a hindrance to them now as it was then.
Click to expand...
The thing that makes Jesus very different from the zealots though his act of non-violent resistance. The cross.
...which is partly what you're saying. Although, I disagree in part, as well.

I find a lot of irony in the fact that they let the militant Jesus Barrabas go and Jesus of Nazareth the healer and one who said "love your enemies", was killed. I think there's some important meaning there.

Why is there not more discussion about the two Jesus' fates that day, I wonder? I think it would be very interesting to look more into that.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio said:
I find a lot of irony in the fact that they let the militant Jesus Barrabas go and Jesus of Nazareth the healer and one who said "love your enemies", was killed.
Click to expand...


The real irony is the name play.

All through the Gospel we are getting a picture of Jesus as the Son of God. Then in the trial we have a choice between "the Son of God" and Barabbas (from bar abbas meaning the son of the father).
 
Inanna - you asked "Did the book help you?"

It's hard to say exactly, but yes. It broadened my understanding. It provides a balance for Borg and Crossan's book "The First Paul". It helps me to appreciate some of the other NT writings - ie The Epistle of James, which I immediately reread when I realized I knew almost nothing about it. Now I have one more interpretation of Jesus floating around in my head and heart - and becoming part of who I am and what I believe.

Your video gave a link to the author taking part in an interesting debate with an atheist, moderated by a Jew. It's 1 1/2 hours long, so I've only watched the first third. An interesting comment, made by the moderator at one point. 'Here we have a Muslim, an Atheist, and a Jew discussing the Christian epistle of Paul to Timothy'.I can't wait to free up enough time to watch the rest.
 
revjohn said:
The real irony is the name play.

All through the Gospel we are getting a picture of Jesus as the Son of God. Then in the trial we have a choice between "the Son of God" and Barabbas (from bar abbas meaning the son of the father).
Click to expand...
I have read that and wondered about the significance. Both historically and spiritually - of the peaceful Jesus ascending to heaven and the militant one free to roam the earth.
 
Kimmio said:
I have read that and wondered about the significance. Both historically and spiritually - of the peaceful Jesus ascending to heaven and the militant one free to roam the earth.
Click to expand...

It is another nod to the "my kingdom is not of this earth" theme. The distinction between two potential kingdoms, one that cannot and will not last versus one that is to be eternal.
 
Hermann said:
Yes, Jesus was anti-Roman, albeit non-violently so. Incongruously enough, Paul and others made him into the head of a Roman religion. Go, figure! eh?
Click to expand...

That, they did. Had they not, we might not be having a discussion about Jesus today though. For good or ill, that spread the word about Jesus.
 
Kimmio said:
Hermann, I think there were different schools of thought back then, as now. I am not sure that 'most Jews were zealots'.
Click to expand...

Most Jews may not have been Zealots, but they must have been sympathetic enough with the anti-Roman Zealot movement for Rome to warrant the destruction of Judea and the dispersal of the Jewish people. To remain tribalistic and oppose mighty Rome was not a very smart move. The conquered nations who willingly submitted to Roman rule and adopted Roman culture eventually fared well under the Pax Romana. Culturally speaking, we all are Romans. The letters I write this post with are Roman, and the philosophies of humanism and inclusivity are basically Roman.
 
Kimmio said:
I think he was ticked at the establishment but he wasn't a militant. He was about non-violence. He may have protested loudly but i do not believe he was like Aslan claims. I wish I remembered where I read a really well written article deconstructing Reza Aslan's book. There are other scholars who've done a good job refuting Aslan's views.

( ...Jesus Barrabas was a zealot, though...and there's something mysterious, IMO, about the" two 'Jesus' " in the crucifixion story. I don't think it's literal...maybe not a fact, nor a coincidence, but a literary tool?) the Jesus I 'believe in', as an ideal, historical or not - was like chansen says, a 'peacenik'.
Click to expand...
Then you've created a personal Jesus in your own image. That's nothing new - that's what a lot of Christians do. I can point to dozens of verses where Jesus talks about casting people into hell and torment, but sure, your Jesus is a peacenik.

You don't really want to look at the bible too closely, then. What you want, it seems, is more of a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure approach, where you get to pick what Jesus said and did! And if what you want Jesus to have said isn't in there, you can insist he probably meant it!

Then you can kick up your heels, clasp your hands and shout, "Jesus is good! Jesus is good! I just know it!"
 
Not exactly. Jesus was brash at times. He was anti-establishment. He was unabashed about saying so when he saw fit to. But the distinction between him and the militant zealots is that he DID preach peace. He DID say love your enemies, and he DID die on the cross. He didn't flee. They people in the square called for the militant 'Jesus' to be freed. They killed Jesus of Nazareth - the peace loving one. They were zealots. You like this 'zealot' view because it's more fodder for you to say, "see?!" - to me. But I think you're wrong. I think it's not one way or the other. Jesus was not a warm fuzzy guy...at least not with everyone. Nor was he a militant zealot.
 
Last edited:
And if that's the Jesus I want to believe in - if that's me creating him in the image I want him to be - as you say...I still think you're wrong...but so what? Why is that even an argument worth worrying about?
 
Correction: it was the Romans who killed Jesus of Nazareth rather than Barabbas after consulting with the people in the square and they chose to free Barabbas instead. My point was that they were zealots. A few of his disciples were zealots I think...but Jesus was into non-violent resistance. Even Jesus' disciple, Peter, was ready to defend him, to not let him be persecuted...but Jesus said no to that. When Jesus was about to be arrested Peter cut of one of his captor's ears (how he didn't get hauled away I don't know unless that was added to the story to make the point)...and Jesus told him to put his sword away...Jesus had different views than Peter on the situation. The contrast is evident for a reason.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top