Was Jesus a terrorist?

[gabosaurus]

If you read the Scriptures and apply the modern definitions of terrorism, then yes he was.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/359206/was_jesus_a_1st_century_terrorist.html?cat=34


"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

[Noir]

Pointless question is pointless.

[PostmodernProphet]

and then again...
Malachai 4:6
He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse."

certainly, the thought of a truly righteous man would strike terror in the hearts of many who despise righteousness......

[Agnapostate]

Pointless religious allegory. But it is my opinion that there is a potential for Christian terrorism to manifest far more potently than "Islamic terrorism," as the fundamentalists of the Christian Right are a powerful political constituency that influence the decisions of heads of state like George W. Bush that believe that turbulence in the Middle East is an indication of the coming Rapture and Apocalypse. It's therefore possible that "Christian terrorism" is manifested as state terrorism through the foreign policy of U.S. political regimes. Recall that though the intolerance of Islamic teachings for the "immorality" of Western society was blamed for the 9/11 attacks, the only major religious leader that I recall saying anything to the effect that Western immorality provoked divine wrath was Jerry Falwell.

[Gaffer]

Pointless religious allegory. But it is my opinion that there is a potential for Christian terrorism to manifest far more potently than "Islamic terrorism," as the fundamentalists of the Christian Right are a powerful political constituency that influence the decisions of heads of state like George W. Bush that believe that turbulence in the Middle East is an indication of the coming Rapture and Apocalypse. It's therefore possible that "Christian terrorism" is manifested as state terrorism through the foreign policy of U.S. political regimes. Recall that though the intolerance of Islamic teachings for the "immorality" of Western society was blamed for the 9/11 attacks, the only major religious leader that I recall saying anything to the effect that Western immorality provoked divine wrath was Jerry Falwell.

So the hate monger comes to the defense of radical islam.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. And the op is a supposed teacher of American children.
2. I'm sure these kids are getting their heads filled with some crazy shit.
3. Then the Chineseian shows his actual ignorance by making claims that Islam is not really a terrorist cult.
4. This kind of thread pulls the lid off the tops of these two heads, and gives us a true peek at what makes them tick.
5. Thanks for the insight.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Agnapostate]

So the hate monger comes to the defense of radical islam.

No, that would imply that "radical Islam" needed a defense in this context. Since I don't share the rather ill-informed opinion that religious doctrines are the sole basis for "Islamic terrorism" (as opposed to political ones also), I don't believe that it does.

[Gaffer]

No, that would imply that "radical Islam" needed a defense in this context. Since I don't share the rather ill-informed opinion that religious doctrines are the sole basis for "Islamic terrorism" (as opposed to political ones also), I don't believe that it does.

Their doctrine is religious and political. It's built into the koran. It's all about submission to religious law.

[Agnapostate]

Their doctrine is religious and political. It's built into the koran. It's all about submission to religious law.

We know this to be false, as Osama bin Laden and other senior Al Qaeda members have explicitly stated that their violent campaign is based on their opposition to several aspects of the foreign policy of U.S. political regimes, most notably the financial and political support offered to the Israeli government, which uses that to fund policies toward an Arab population that most Arabs and Muslims regard as oppressive and unjust. Also drawing their ire is the presence of U.S. military troops in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East. Conversely, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's convictions do seem to be fairly consistent applications of Christian religious doctrine, and their fundamentalism could influence political figures sympathetic to their aims...

[Gaffer]

We know this to be false, as Osama bin Laden and other senior Al Qaeda members have explicitly stated that their violent campaign is based on their opposition to several aspects of the foreign policy of U.S. political regimes, most notably the financial and political support offered to the Israeli government, which uses that to fund policies toward an Arab population that most Arabs and Muslims regard as oppressive and unjust. Also drawing their ire is the presence of U.S. military troops in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East. Conversely, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's convictions do seem to be fairly consistent applications of Christian religious doctrine, and their fundamentalism could influence political figures sympathetic to their aims...

What's this "we" shit? You got a frog in your pocket? bin ladin, the wahabists, the iranians, the muslim brotherhood, and all the other islamic groups want to take over the world and establish a caliphate. This has been the goal of islam since mohammad (piss be upon him). I see you hate Jews as much as whites. It's obvious you know nothing about Israel and the arabs that live there, except for the arab propaganda you've been fed.

If you think Christianity is bad just try living under islam.

[Agnapostate]

What's this "we" shit? You got a frog in your pocket? bin ladin, the wahabists, the iranians, the muslim brotherhood, and all the other islamic groups want to take over the world and establish a caliphate. This has been the goal of islam since mohammad (piss be upon him). I see you hate Jews as much as whites. It's obvious you know nothing about Israel and the arabs that live there, except for the arab propaganda you've been fed.

Not that I'm not impressed by your ability to regurgitate talking points from WorldNutDaily, but your assessment is incorrect. While there exists a common misconception that "Islamic terrorism" exists solely to punish the U.S. for its secularism and liberal democratic "values," it seems more accurate to note that a more likely motive is anger regarding specific perceived encroachments by U.S. political regimes in terms of support for the Israeli government. Evidence of this is found in Osama bin Laden's first fatwa, Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places. Issued in 1996, it identified the Al-Aqsa Mosque as an Islamic holy site that was allegedly being defiled by Israeli sovereignty over the area. Moreover, the reality of his intent was covered in Marc Perelman's Bin Laden Aimed To Link Plot to Israel (http://www.forward.com/articles/5903/):


In an interim staff report released last week, the presidential commission investigating the September 11, 2001, attacks shed new light on the role of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Al Qaeda’s worldview.

The disclosures seem to weaken Israeli claims that the issue was only a secondary priority for Osama bin Laden, and they could rekindle the debate about whether U.S. support for Israel is hindering national security.

In a 20-page report titled “Outline of the 9-11 Plot,” the commission, which is to issue a final report at the end of July, describes bin Laden’s willingness to time the attacks against America with two visits by Prime Minister Sharon, one in Jerusalem and one in Washington.

The report claims that Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, or KSM, the alleged mastermind of the attacks who was arrested in March 2003 in Pakistan, told his U.S. captors that bin Laden “wanted to punish the United States for supporting Israel.”

This is why, according to KSM, bin Laden asked him to conduct the attacks “as early as mid-2000” in response to the outcry prompted by the visit of then-opposition leader Sharon to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the report states. Even though the Al Qaeda hijackers had barely arrived in the United States to take flight lessons, the Saudi renegade allegedly argued that it would be enough if they smashed planes to the ground without hitting specific targets. The report claims that KSM talked him out of the plan.

Bin Laden, however, reportedly asked him again a year later to hasten the preparations of the plot when he learned that Sharon, now prime minister, would visit the White House in June or July 2001, according to the report.

Once again KSM convinced him to wait, and the group eventually settled on September 11 after further debates about targets and timing, debunking the assumption that the details of the operation were planned long in advance.

In addition to bin Laden’s reported interest in linking the attacks to Israel, the report also sheds light on the worldview of Al Qaeda operatives and its sympathizers.

It noted that Mohammed Atta, the Egyptian ringleader of the plot, chose the second week of September to ensure that Congress, “the perceived source of U.S. policy in support of Israel” would be in session. Atta, who lived in Germany with several other hijackers, “denounced what he described as a global Jewish movement centered in New York City which, he claimed, controlled the financial world and the media.”

In a chilling detail, the report also mentions that KSM indicated that Mullah Omar, the former Taliban leader in Afghanistan, “opposed [Al Qaeda’s plan to attack] the United States for ideological reasons but permitted attacks against Jewish targets.”

“Bin Laden, on the other hand, reportedly argued that attacks against the United States needed to be carried out immediately to support the insurgency in the Israeli-occupied territories and to protest the presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia,” according to the report.

Moreover, he wished to accelerate the attacks twice, both in response to what he considered "provocative" actions by the man known as the "Butcher of Beirut," Ariel Sharon. I wouldn't claim that he didn't oppose Western "decadence," but his opposition would not have been characterized by such a violent backlash had he not regarded the existence of financial and military support as an imposition of that decadence. As has been previously noted, he did not choose to attack the significantly more "decadent" Sweden or the Netherlands, for instance.

This reality is certainly confirmed by opinion polling of the Arab populace on the matter. Zogby International's Impressions of America 2004: A Six-Nation Survey summarizes this well, noting that "[w]hen asked whether their overall attitude toward the US was shaped by their feelings about American values or US policies, in all six countries, an overwhelming percentage of respondents indicated that policy played a more important role." This assessment is validated by analyses such as this one (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/renouncing-islamism-to-the-brink-and-back-again-1821215.html):


To my surprise, the ex-jihadis said their rage about Western foreign policy – which was real, and burning – emerged only after their identity crises, and as a result of it. They identified with the story of oppressed Muslims abroad because it seemed to mirror the oppressive disorientation they felt in their own minds. Usman Raja, a bluff, buff boxer who begged to become a suicide bomber in the mid-1990s, tells me: "Your inner life is chaotic and you feel under threat the whole time. And then you're told by Islamists that life for Muslims everywhere is chaotic and under threat. It becomes bigger than you. It's about the world – and that's an amazing relief. The answer isn't inside your confused self. It's out there in the world."

But once they had made that leap to identify with the Umma – the global Muslim community – they got angrier the more abusive our foreign policy came. Every one of them said the Bush administration's response to 9/11 – from Guantanamo to Iraq – made jihadism seem more like an accurate description of the world. Hadiya Masieh, a tiny female former HT organiser, tells me: "You'd see Bush on the television building torture camps and bombing Muslims and you think – anything is justified to stop this. What are we meant to do, just stand still and let him cut our throats?"

But the converse was – they stressed – also true. When they saw ordinary Westerners trying to uphold human rights, their jihadism began to stutter. Almost all of them said that they doubted their Islamism when they saw a million non-Muslims march in London to oppose the Iraq War: "How could we demonise people who obviously opposed aggression against Muslims?" asks Hadiya.

What comes of this is revelation of the fact that there are deeper political motivations for "Islamist" assaults against U.S. targets that can be altered by their realization of the differences between the U.S. political class and the U.S. general population and the consequent immorality of attacking the latter as if it was the former, since they become aware of the divergence between the two when it comes to foreign policy formation. If the basis for their hostility was purely theological in nature, as some assert, this wouldn't make a difference to them one way or the other.

It is problematic, then, that it is incorrectly assumed that "Islamic" radicals are primarily motivated by theological doctrines and hatred of secularism and civil freedoms, when that is contradicted by such substantial evidence. That also means that an impediment to rational analysis and the formation of sound foreign policy by U.S. political regimes will continue to exist so long as this myth is sustained.


If you think Christianity is bad just try living under islam.

As I've mentioned before, I've not yet seen any critical difference between the level of theocracy and authoritarianism that Christian and Muslim scriptures proscribe. It's simply that the formerly "Christian" countries are now characterized by the establishment of separations of church and state, while Muslim countries still mix their religious and political authorities. I've seen nothing that suggests that Christianity couldn't constitute a force every bit as repressive if it was in the place of Islam, and much (the Spanish Inquisition, the forcible conversion of Amerindians, etc.) to suggest that it could, if given the opportunity.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. What we have here is a muzzy trying to be an chineseian.
2. Its becoming clearer all the time.
3. Agnus is an Ayab.:laugh2:


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Agnapostate]

Run along, Cletus. You don't want that outhouse flooding in your absence, boy.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,






Run along, :poke:Cletus. You don't want that outhouse flooding in your absence, boy.



1. Nailed it!!!!:laugh2:
2. I know an ayab when I see one..........:dance:
3. Won't be long till others figure this out too, seeing I just pointed it out.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Mr. P]

les/5903/"]










As I've mentioned before, I've not yet seen any critical difference between the level of theocracy and authoritarianism that Christian and Muslim scriptures proscribe. It's simply that the formerly "Christian" countries are now characterized by the establishment of separations of church and state, while Muslim countries still mix their religious and political authorities. I've seen nothing that suggests that Christianity couldn't constitute a force every bit as repressive if it was in the place of Islam, and much (the Spanish Inquisition, the forcible conversion of Amerindians, etc.) to suggest that it could, if given the opportunity.

Gotta agree.

[BoogyMan]

Interesting trolling Gabs. .....sigh

[Abbey Marie]

...
As I've mentioned before, I've not yet seen any critical difference between the level of theocracy and authoritarianism that Christian and Muslim scriptures proscribe. It's simply that the formerly "Christian" countries are now characterized by the establishment of separations of church and state, while Muslim countries still mix their religious and political authorities. I've seen nothing that suggests that Christianity couldn't constitute a force every bit as repressive if it was in the place of Islam, and much (the Spanish Inquisition, the forcible conversion of Amerindians, etc.) to suggest that it could, if given the opportunity.

It's far from "simply that". It is the far more important and complex truth that Christians today are not trying to overthrow non-Christian foreign governments. Especially not by terroristic means. This is an extremely important difference, and not one that can be glossed over with an e-shrug of the shoulders and typing of the word "simply".

If you have indeed "...seen nothing that suggests that Christianity couldn't constitute a force every bit as repressive if it was in the place of Islam...', then you are either only looking in the now-irrelevant past, or you are "simply" not looking. Unfortunately, though you refuse to see it/admit it, Islam on the other hand, has changed little over the ages. Ask any woman who has been beaten (if she were alive to talk about it) for adultery. Or any homosexual who was hanged for being homosexual, etc., etc.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. I call, *MUZZY BULLSHIT*!!!
2. My muzzy alarm went off in this thread.
3. Hope this doesn't derail it, but I just wanted you to know.
4. And I want Agnus to know I know!:coffee:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[chloe]

Sorry bout that,


1. I call, *MUZZY BULLSHIT*!!!
2. My muzzy alarm went off in this thread.
3. Hope this doesn't derail it, but I just wanted you to know.
4. And I want Agnus to know I know!:coffee:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

You think he is a muslim?

[chloe]

Comparison with the Existing Parties


Jesus identified himself with none of the existing trends or parties. Certainly not with the ruling class: neither with the Sadducee collaborationists, who had practically renounced the ideal of the reign of God, nor with the Pharisees, who dominated and exploited the people with their piety and kept them in a state of false religiosity. On the one hand they upheld injustice while they declared on the other that God would find a solution to it. They were the partisans of inactivity who perpetuated the unjust situation.

The Nationalist party was the active one, demanding reforms. Like them, Jesus wanted the reign of God to begin there and then. Similarly, his followers belonged to the oppressed classes. But his position and tactics were totally different.
The deep cleavage between Jesus and all these parties is this: all of them accepted the Jewish system; they believed the monarchy, the temple, and the priesthood were valid and permanent institutions, besides which they upheld the privileged position of the Jewish people among the nations. But Jesus believed in none of these things.

Jesus Holds A Radical Position


The position held by Jesus was radical: he denied the validity of the system. Solutions to the problem of injustice would not be found by inactivity, or through reformation (whether gradual or violent) of existing institutions.

The root of the troubles of humanity lie in the very foundations of the institutions it has created: in the striving for money, desire for prestige and thirst for power; in the three-fold ambition for "holding," "climbing," "commanding," that spurs people on to rivalry, hatred and violence.

Hence Jesus rejected all the Israelite institutions: temple, monarchy and priesthood. He proposed to create a new society, in which people could be free and happy (Mt 5:3-10). To attain this people had to voluntarily renounce the three false values: money (thirst for riches), glory (ambition for recognition), power (desire to dominate). Instead of hoarding, sharing; instead of ambition, equality; instead of domination, solidarity and humble, voluntary service. Where there was rivalry, hatred and violence, there should be fraternity, love and life.

The radicalism of Jesus makes us understand why in the gospel we do not find the plea for justice as commonly as in the prophets. The prophets were reformers too, and they demanded justice because they believed in the validity of the institutions. Jesus did not come to ask for justice, but to offer a final solution to the injustice of the world.

But all this is no more than a beautiful idea and a utopia. However, Jesus did not propose an ideology, and for this reason he did not preach his message to everyone. To the people he spoke in parables, to start them thinking. What he wanted was to form a group where this ideal would be lived. As long as there are no such communities, there can be no salvation, the aim Jesus proposed will be nullified and his doctrine and example become just one more ideology.
Certainly, violence is no way to shape these communities. If it is essential to the group that persons should be free they have to join it through personal conviction.

Proclamation of the Messiah


On that account Jesus never forced but only invited and started his proclamation by saying: "Happy are those who choose to be poor, for their King is God" (Mt. 5:3). To belong to this kingdom of God, which is the name he gives to this new society, it is not enough to be poor; we have to renounce henceforth all desire of riches, of ambition that imprisons humanity's heart, leads people to injustice and separates them from God (Mt 6:19-21,24).

Every section of the proclamation starts with the word "happy." That is, those who choose to be poor are not going to be among the oppressed. God, who is their king, is going to liberate them. They will be free persons in the kingdom of mutual love, free from need, for all striving for justice will be more than satisfied within the group itself , where each one supports the other and everyone is fully supported by God.

In these sincere hearts, where no rivalry exists, God will make himself present. Those who experience the fraternity will be those who work for peace among all people, and this labour for reconciliation will make them so like God that he will call them his children (his very own sons and daughters). They must expect that the perverse human society will persecute those who do not accept its values. This is no sign of failure, but rather an indication they are on God's side and are treading the right path.
As Jesus explained to the first disciples, the group was not to live for itself, but in order to draw all people of good will (they are the light of the world, visible city, Mt 5: 14-16). It was to become a factor for change in human society (they are the salt of the earth, Mt 5:13; and leaven, 13:33), because the purpose of the coming of the Messiah is not to lead a few people to individual perfection, but it is God's intervention to change the course of history.

http://www.kiev-orthodox.org/site/english/1072/

[Abbey Marie]

Comparison with the Existing Parties

...
The Nationalist party was the active one, demanding reforms. Like them, Jesus wanted the reign of God to begin there and then. Similarly, his followers belonged to the oppressed classes. But his position and tactics were totally different.

The bolded part is untrue. Others wanted Jesus to want this, but he did not. He knew better. Makes the rest kind of suspect.

[chloe]

The bolded part is untrue. Others wanted Jesus to want this, but he did not. He knew better. Makes the rest kind of suspect.

I'm not religious but I don't think he was a terrorist either which is what the original post implies. It is something I read and shared because it gives an alternative view to Jesus being a terrorist.:cool:

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,




The bolded part is untrue. Others wanted Jesus to want this, but he did not. He knew better. Makes the rest kind of suspect.



1. I concur.
2. In a world with all poor, when a tragic event happens, ie. Haiti, no one is able to come and help.
3. So in fact, as there must be those with wealth, also too, there will always be the poor.
4. Thank God, America is a wealthy Nation and its people are so willing.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[chloe]

THE POLITICAL CLIMATE OF GALILEE

Galilee had a tradition of political autonomy. The northern traditions that go into the Hebrew Bible are informed by this political sensibility of autonomy. It's a kind of quasi-anarchistic ideal, that this loose tribal confederacy is ruled directly by God. And those ideas and that ideal continues to be alive and well in northern Palestine. Now some scholars argue about this, but I think we can trace a line from the historical moment that's depicted in the Book of Judges, not when the Book of Judges was written necessarily but the kind of historical moment that it purports to depict, through the cycle of Elijah and the Elijah traditions, 1st Kings, that talk about King making and King breaking, all the way down to Jesus' time. Not necessarily an unbroken line, but a centuries old tradition of political autonomy under the God of Israel. And so this makes foreign imperialism a very problematic proposition in northern Palestine. Because people, I think, have almost a collective consciousness of this ancient Israelite ideal. Not shared by all Israelites, not all over Palestine. But I think a very good case can be made for reconstructing this consciousness in the north. And I think that's the major element by which we can explain the unusual political restiveness in northern Palestine, in the area of Galilee.
And how did it manifest itself?
This word bandit is very problematic. It has all kinds of pejorative connotations in English. And one man's banditry may be another man's terrorism. And it's difficult to tell under certain economic and political conditions where banditry as we usually define it leaves off and where terrorism begins. If you're just rolling people on the highway, I mean that's banditry, as most people define it. But if you're robbing from the rich to give to the poor, that's not quite banditry. Or at least that's banditry with a political edge to it, that means it just can't be dismissed as a problem of law and order per se. And I think this is the difficulty that we enter when we try to historically reconstruct what was going on there. I mean some people were engaged in violent resistance against the status quo and that means under this regime, as most, certain kinds of lawbreaking.
So what the Romans or the authorities might have defined as lawbreaking might have had a social or political content to it?
I think the Romans were perhaps even more astute than many scholars and historians after the fact.... Josephus, the Jewish historian, tells us a number of stories about characters whose career could be crudely summarized as [the] following: some guy wakes up in the morning and he thinks he's the Messiah or something. Or he's a prophet and he gets a group of people to follow him. He says we're going to go out in the desert and we're going to an empty place. We're going to go out there and we're going to wait for God to do something for us. So a whole bunch of people may go with him, maybe thousands, go with him out to this deserted, unsecured place, and they wait for what Josephus calls "the tokens of their deliverance." And the Romans send a vicious police action out there and kill everybody.
Now I think it's important for us to understand the political logic at work. When that kind of police action is perpetrated against what we might consider harmless fanatics, the Romans are really giving us a very good historical lesson in how domination works. They didn't honor the right of assembly, as we might call it, in the provinces. Any group of people that large, even if they were out there for a picnic, constituted a threat to Roman security, and the Romans responded accordingly....
And I think that Josephus has a number of motivations for telling us this, but one of Josephus' motivations and one of his apologia for these stories, ostensibly, is that he wants to show that there were a bunch of fanatics in Palestine who were running around causing trouble, whipping up the local yokels. And that these people were irresponsible and they weren't representative. And that the Romans could deal with them and dispatch them quickly. Josephus' point is that they are fanatics; they're not responsible people. They're not people, for example, like Josephus.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/galilee.html

Feel free to post some political information you have from Jesus time.

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm not religious but I don't think he was a terrorist either which is what the original post implies. It is something I read and shared because it gives an alternative view to Jesus being a terrorist.:cool:

Abbey is right....there is nothing in scripture to support the claim he wanted a kingdom there and then and very much, including his own words, to contradict it......

[chloe]

Abbey is right....there is nothing in scripture to support the claim he wanted a kingdom there and then and very much, including his own words, to contradict it......

Was there anything in the scripture supporting he was a terrorist?

[chloe]

If you read the Scriptures and apply the modern definitions of terrorism, then yes he was.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/359206/was_jesus_a_1st_century_terrorist.html?cat=34

There are further pieces of evidence within the Bible (http://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/11883/the_bible.html) to support historical knowledge of the people of this time in Palestine. Judas Iscariot for example, whose surname means stabber and refers to the sicarii knives of the Zealots - was he the weapons maker/supplier of Jesus terrorist organisation? Other disciples were known to carry knives/swords with with them. At the time of his arrest, one disciple was armed with a weapon with which he cut off a Roman soldiers ear.

Jesus had another disciple, Simon the Zealot. That is a word I have mentioned twice now. Who are these Zealots? The word is still used today, to refer to a fanatical partisan. The Zealots were one of four Jewish sects. They rebelled in the Great Jewish Revolt of 66, and committed acts of terrorism against both the occupying Romans and other Jews. They were renowned for their aggression, violence and general appreciation of killing. After Roman intervention they scattered and became known as the Sicarii, after the Roman daggers they carried with them. They believed that Israel belonged only to a Jewish king, descended from David, which in itself adds weight to the theory of Jesus being a terrorist. Zealots became men, according to their beliefs, at the age of 30. That is when they become warriors. Is it simply a coincidence that Jesus, who had disappeared after his birth, reappears at the age of 30?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/359206/was_jesus_a_1st_century_terrorist_pg2.html?cat=34

Interesting article Gabosaurus. I don't think he was a terrorist, but the article lists alot of things from the bible then implies he could have been. Everyone is saying you have to go by the bible so I guess then it boils down to interpretation.

[PostmodernProphet]

only if you make up a really silly definition of terrorist, which was the attempt of the OP......he overthrew some tables in the temple that the money changers had set up.....called some of the high mucketymucks in the Sanhedrin "vipers".....that's about as extreme as it got......

[PostmodernProphet]

T but the article lists alot of things from the bible then implies he could have been.

lol.....I just noticed something interesting....implies.....imp lies.....isn't "imp" another name for the Devil?....yeah, I know that's lousy scholarship....but it's on a par with the OP.....

[chloe]

only if you make up a really silly definition of terrorist, which was the attempt of the OP......he overthrew some tables in the temple that the money changers had set up.....called some of the high mucketymucks in the Sanhedrin "vipers".....that's about as extreme as it got......

I think he was the one who said to turn the other cheek.

[chloe]

lol.....I just noticed something interesting....implies.....imp lies.....isn't "imp" another name for the Devil?....yeah, I know that's lousy scholarship....but it's on a par with the OP.....

The article is 3 pages long. It was a good read. It does list references in the bible for the argument. Jesus may have been percieved radical in those days but man is not his master anyway. He proved that by his Resurection.

[PostmodernProphet]

The article is 3 pages long. It was a good read. It does list references in the bible for the argument. Jesus may have been percieved radical in those days but man is not his master anyway. He proved that by his Resurection.

I read the article....I saw no logical reason to come to the "imp lies" the author did from the text.....of course his teachings were radical.....that does not translate to "terrorist"......quite simply he took no violent action nor did he propose it.....if dissension was destined to arise from his teachings between members of a family it was because he opposed violence, not because he advocated it.....

[chloe]

I read the article....I saw no logical reason to come to the "imp lies" the author did from the text.....of course his teachings were radical.....that does not translate to "terrorist"......quite simply he took no violent action nor did he propose it.....if dissension was destined to arise from his teachings between members of a family it was because he opposed violence, not because he advocated it.....

ok well you and abbey are more an expert on the bible then I am.

[PostmodernProphet]

the primary passage the author used to make his claim was from Matthew 10

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[e]

but look at the rest of what he said in that passage


7As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' 8Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[b]drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.

11"Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. 12As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. 16I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
17"Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. 18On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

21"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

24"A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub,[c] how much more the members of his household!

26"So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny[d]? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

does that sound like a terrorist sending out his minions with marching orders?

and following the passage used by the imp liar....

37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

40"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. 41Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. 42And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward."

I suppose if you try to translate "give a cup of cold water to one of these little ones" into "throws a bomb into a crowded school bus" you might be able to make the claim that Jesus was a terrorist.......

[chloe]

the primary passage the author used to make his claim was from Matthew 10


but look at the rest of what he said in that passage



does that sound like a terrorist sending out his minions with marching orders?

No but I told you a long time ago that I have tried to read the bible and don't understand it so I read other peoples interpretations of the bible passages. I will just take you and Abbeys word on it since you are religious and study the bible I am sure you understand it better. The article gabosaurus posted did make me wonder historically what the politics were in Jesus time frame and if he was affiliated with any political group, so I googled and read those things to share them. I guess they were wrong. sorry.

[PostmodernProphet]

No but I told you a long time ago that I have tried to read the bible and don't understand it so I read other peoples interpretations of the bible passages.

there are some confusing things, but for the most part a careful reading makes things clear.....at least read the parts AROUND what people try to use to make sure what they are saying is consistent with what your gut feeling is about what YOU have read.....

access is easy, if you type a bible cite in google like "Matthew 10" you can go to Bible Gateway and read the chapter in whatever translation you prefer....

[chloe]

there are some confusing things, but for the most part a careful reading makes things clear.....at least read the parts AROUND what people try to use to make sure what they are saying is consistent with what your gut feeling is about what YOU have read.....

access is easy, if you type a bible cite in google like "Matthew 10" you can go to Bible Gateway and read the chapter in whatever translation you prefer....

Thanks, I said I don't think Jesus was a terrorist. He was a healer.

[KarlMarx]

If you read the Scriptures and apply the modern definitions of terrorism, then yes he was.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/359206/was_jesus_a_1st_century_terrorist.html?cat=34

No. However, the Zeolots of the time were terrorists They would kill and destroy property in order to acheive their ends. In fact, the Zeolot uprising in A.D. 70 was responsible for the sack of Jerusalem and the exile of the Jews from their homeland until A.D. 1948.

[BoogyMan]

Abbey is right....there is nothing in scripture to support the claim he wanted a kingdom there and then and very much, including his own words, to contradict it......

Christ's answer to Pilate puts it pretty clearly.


Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

[HogTrash]

So the hate monger comes to the defense of radical islam.Have you ever heard the rules of war?

The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[gabosaurus]

As Christians, we view Jesus as the Prince of Peace. He is the Savior of all mankind.
But the Romans viewed Jesus as a terrorist. He was against everything they stood for and threatened their empire and their way of life.

[chloe]

As Christians, we view Jesus as the Prince of Peace. He is the Savior of all mankind.
But the Romans viewed Jesus as a terrorist. He was against everything they stood for and threatened their empire and their way of life.

I get what you mean and that sounds reasonable.

[Agnapostate]

It's far from "simply that". It is the far more important and complex truth that Christians today are not trying to overthrow non-Christian foreign governments. Especially not by terroristic means. This is an extremely important difference, and not one that can be glossed over with an e-shrug of the shoulders and typing of the word "simply".

As I mentioned earlier today, U.S. ruling administrations have traditionally been and continue to be among the foremost of political regimes directly or indirectly responsible for anti-democratic coups and support of dictatorial political conditions throughout the world. This pattern has been particularly stark in Latin America, with the CIA-backed removals of democratically elected leftists Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala and Salvador Allende in Chile (who was to be replaced by the brutal military dictator Augusto Pinochet), and support of the Contras and the Somoza family of Nicaragua, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, the Duvalier father and son pair of Haiti, Fulgencio Batista of Cuba, etc. Then we have the CIA-backed removal of democratically elected prime minister Mohamed Mossadeq from Iran in 1953. According to your standards of ascribing any violent acts committed by Muslims to their religious beliefs, these were all instances of "Christian terrorism," since they were orchestrated by Christian heads of state. According to a somewhat more sophisticated analysis, they were not, but neither is "Muslim terrorism" solely motivated by religious doctrines when more conventional political motivations exist.


If you have indeed "...seen nothing that suggests that Christianity couldn't constitute a force every bit as repressive if it was in the place of Islam...', then you are either only looking in the now-irrelevant past, or you are "simply" not looking. Unfortunately, though you refuse to see it/admit it, Islam on the other hand, has changed little over the ages. Ask any woman who has been beaten (if she were alive to talk about it) for adultery. Or any homosexual who was hanged for being homosexual, etc., etc.

Actually, there is very little to suggest that the fundamental nature of either religion has "changed"; they both contain the same authoritarian prescriptions in their doctrines, and have both seen those prescriptions enacted at one point or another. What has changed is the degree of influence that Christianity is permitted to have over civil society. The enactment of separations between church and state in "Christian" countries has prevented that religion from exercising the same theocratic influence that Islam does in "Muslim" countries, in which political and religious authority is often intertwined. I do not doubt that Christianity would be quite similar if it were permitted to have the same influence; James Dobson and Pat Robertson would be wholly comfortable enforcing prohibitions of sodomy, adultery, and fornication, I suspect, and more radical fundamentalists like Rousas John Rushdoony may even fit in with the Taliban, routinely executing those who deviate from certain religious doctrines. Do not forget that Christianity has had such influence in the past and the consequences were the Spanish Inquisition, the violent destruction and forcible conversion of non-Christians, and other such atrocities, with the Pope still technically being the absolute monarch of Vatican City. What if he were to rule over a country of 100 million, as the Supreme Leader of Iran does?

[KarlMarx]

But the Romans viewed Jesus as a terrorist. He was against everything they stood for and threatened their empire and their way of life.

Sorry, that's not true. The Romans could not have cared less about Jesus. In fact, when Jesus was brought before Pontius Pilate he returned Him back to the Jews claiming "I find no fault in this Man". When the Jews chose to spare Barabbas over Jesus, Pilate asked "Why? What has this Man done?".

That implies that the Romans did not view Jesus as a threat. If they had, Pilate would not have been asking those questions.

No, some of the Jews saw Jesus as a threat. Why? Because many misinterpreted His remarks about God's Kingdom as meaning that He was about to re-establish David's throne on Earth. As I said before, the Zealots were the real terrorists.

The Jews (actually, the Jewish elite) saw Christ's presence as a threat because they were afraid that the Zealots would do something that would bring the Romans down on them. That's one reason they wanted him crucified. The other reason was that Christ claimed He was God, which was considered blasphemy. Under Jewish law, the punishment for blasphemy was death. However, under Roman law, only the Romans could kill anyone..

[PostmodernProphet]

As Christians, we view Jesus as the Prince of Peace. He is the Savior of all mankind.
But the Romans viewed Jesus as a terrorist. He was against everything they stood for and threatened their empire and their way of life.

actually, I would say that Pilate (Rome) acted not because he saw Jesus as a threat, but because he saw that the Sanhedrin would become a threat if he didn't give in to their demands......remember that only a generation earlier there had been an uprising in Israel that had to be put down by force......

[PostmodernProphet]

and more radical fundamentalists like Rousas John Rushdoony may even fit in with the Taliban

shocked me to see Rushdoony listed as a radical fundamentalist.....hadn't read any of his works since my college days and he certainly didn't qualify at that point.....looked up the wiki article, and if it's accurate he certainly slid downhill.....his early works fit him alongside Dooyeweerd, who is my personal favorite, and Van Til.....sound Christian philosophy......