Posted on 03/26/2005 5:19:57 PM PST by stan_sipple
According to John Dominic Crossan, a noted Jesus scholar who will be in Nebraska next month, Jesus was a member of the downtrodden class, preaching hope to people living under Roman oppression. His message wasn't primarily about personal salvation, Crossan says, but about replacing a social system of status and power with one based on justice and equality.
He will speak April 5 at Doane College in Crete and April 6 at First-Plymouth Congregational Church in Lincoln. He also will lead a seminar April 15-17 at First United Methodist Church in Omaha.
(Crossan)...clearly identifies Jesus as a political figure. "(Jesus)was asking, ‘What would this world be like if God sat on Caesar's throne?' If Jesus were here today he'd be asking, ‘What would a divine budget be like?"
Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of the Lincoln Catholic Diocese (stated) that Crossan and other members of the Jesus Seminar go counter to revealed Scripture by denying such truths as Jesus' divinity and physical resurrection. While books such as Crossan's "may impress some people as scholarship, (they) are nothing more than re-packaged, tired old anti-Jesus propaganda that the Catholic Church has well refuted many times over her 2,000-year history. We will certainly pray for the conversion of those who hold these fallacious errors," the statement said.
(Excerpt) Read more at journalstar.com ...
If Crossan is suggesting that Jesus had the prescience to realize that his "movement" would eventually convert the Roman Empire, and that his personal sacrifice was required to accomplish it---well, that is giving Jesus a heck of a lot more credit than Crossan usually does.
No. The early Christian church was not hell bent on defying authority save of course the worship of God/Jesus over Caesar.
Bravo Sierra. Crossan is nothing more than a 24 karat kook.
How does this guy explain, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"?
Need some "talking points" I would like to see how this fraud responds to them, he is speaking at a liberal mainstream chuch full of sycophants to religious revisionists
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". John 18:36
Pontius Pilate, a man that no doubt knew what a revolutionary was, questioned Jesus Christ, and was given an answer that led him to say, "I find in him no fault at all".
Once again, scripture exposes another liar.
The Word is POWERFUL.
It was the occupying Romans and their client Saducees that killed him.
*** His message wasn't primarily about personal salvation, Crossan says, but about replacing a social system of status and power with one based on justice and equality..... "(Jesus)was asking, ‘What would this world be like if God sat on Caesar's throne?' If Jesus were here today he'd be asking, ‘What would a divine budget be like?" ***
This stuff is so old!!!
Can't they dream up anything new! I swear, it's like those old hippies dottering around talking about "the Man".
Liberation Theology ran out of steam in the early Eighties.
***It was the occupying Romans and their client Saducees that killed him.***
Matt 12
He went on from there and entered their synagogue. And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"--so that they might accuse him.
He said to them, "Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other.
But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.
There's a lot more to this story though, which is not inconsistent with the First Commandment, though - for me at least - as compelling in its way.
Hyam Maccoby, Revolution In Judaea.
A mind is a terrible thing to close.
"jesus seminar" revisionist types like to point to the dearth of contemporary histories mentioning Christ to dispute his divinit; if Christ was such a threat to their system, there should have been more writing about subversive Christians right?
***Okay. Take the Hellenized Gospels for...gospel.***
Hmmm...
Where exactly do you get your information about Jesus?
*** if Christ was such a threat to their system, there should have been more writing about subversive Christians right?***
Right.
References to early Christians paint them as odd, reclusive, with unorthodox (to a polytheist) beliefs - but not political.
Tacitus, who had no love for Christians, knew the accusations were false.
Tacitus (c. 55 -117 CE)
" Yet no human effort, no princely largess nor offerings to the gods could make that infamous rumor disappear that Nero had somehow ordered the fire. Therefore, in order to abolish that rumor, Nero falsely accused and executed with the most exquisite punishments those people called Christians, who were infamous for their abominations. The originator of the name, Christ, was executed as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius; and though repressed, this destructive superstition erupted again, not only through Judea, which was the origin of this evil, but also through the city of Rome, to which all that is horrible and shameful floods together and is celebrated. Therefore, first those were seized who admitted their faith, and then, using the information they provided, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much for the crime of burning the city, but for hatred of the human race. And perishing they were additionally made into sports: they were killed by dogs by having the hides of beasts attached to them, or they were nailed to crosses or set aflame, and, when the daylight passed away, they were used as nighttime lamps. Nero gave his own gardens for this spectacle and performed a Circus game, in the habit of a charioteer mixing with the plebs or driving about the race-course. Even though they were clearly guilty and merited being made the most recent example of the consequences of crime, people began to pity these sufferers, because they were consumed not for the public good but on account of the fierceness of one man."
Wikipedia article on jesus and the Pharisees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees#.22Pharisees.22_and_Christianity
More...
An Illegal but Harmless Association
In 111 Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia on the Black Sea, was returning from an inspection of his rich and well-populated province when a fire devastated his capital, Nicomedia. Much could have been saved, had there been firemen.Pliny reported to the emperor Trajan (98-117): "It is up to you to decide whether it is necessary to create a 150-strong associationof firemen. For my part, I will make sure that such an association will accept only firemen. . ." Trajan replied rejecting the proposal: "Do not forget that your province is prone to societiesof this kind. Whatever their name or purpose, I do not wish to have people united in a body, who then, for whatever reason quickly become an eterie. "The fear of the eterie (the greek name for associations) prevailed over the fires.
This was a phenomenon of ancient times. Associations of any type, which transformed themselves into political groups, had pushed Caesar into forbidding all associations in 7 B.C.: "Whoever establishes an association without special authorisation, is liable to the same penalty as those who, with armed forces, attack public places and temples." The laws were still in force, but the associations continued to flourish; the boatmen on the Seine, the doctorsof Avenches, the wine merchants of Lyons, the buglers of Lamesi. They all defended the interests of their members putting pressure on the public authorities.
Pliny was not slow to apply the interdict on eterie to a particular case presented to him in 112. Bithynia was full of Christians. "They are a crowd of people of all ages, and conditions, dispersed throughout the cities, in the villages and the countryside," he wrote to the Emperor. He goes on to tellof a complaint received from the makers of religious amulets upset by the Christians who preached about the uselessness of such nicknacks. He had set up a special inquiry and found out that they had "the habit of gathering on a fixed day, before sunrise to sing a hymn to Christ as though to a god. They try to live justly, they oblige themselves by oath not to commit crimes, theft or robbery or adultery or deceit with words. They have the customof dining together, and in spite of what others may say, the food is ordinary and harmless." The Christians had not ceased having these meetings even after the governor had reissued the interdict against eterie. Continuing the letter (10,96), Pliny assures the Emperor that he saw no malice in what they are doing. However, the refusal to offer incense and wine before the statue of the Emperor seemed to him an act of public sacrilege. The obstinacy of these Christians seemed "unreasonable and foolish".
From the letter of Pliny it appears clear that the accusations of ritual infanticide and incest had been droped out as absurd. There still remained the accusation of refusing to worship the Emperor (i.e. high treason) and of establishing an eteria.
The Emperor replied, "The Christians ought not to be sought out by the authorities. If, however, they are denounced and found guilty, they will have to be condemned." In other words: Trajan encourages turning a blind eye to them: they are a harmless eteria like the boatmen on the Seine or the wine merchants of Lyon. But since Christians are practising an "unreasonable and foolish superstition" (as Pliny and other intellectuals of the time such as Epictetus said) and continued to refuse to do emperor worship (and thus were considered "outcasts" from civic life), Pliny should not pretend as if nothing happened. If they are denounced, they are to be condemned. Thus there continued the policy (even if in less rigid form)of "It is not legal to be Christians". Certainly victim in this period were Simeon, the Bishop of Jerusalem, crucified at the age of 120, and Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, carried to Rome as a roman citizen and executed there. The same policy towards Christians came to be adopted by the emperors Hadrian (117-138) and Antoninus Pius (138-161).
from:
http://www.catacombe.roma.it/en/ricerche/ricerca2.html
(Interesting stuff)
Very helpful, isnt it true Romans first persecuted Christians because Christians claimed theirs was the only true religion, other diverse religions could "get along" by giving lip service to Roman emperors
The work I mentioned is part of that study.
Jesus should have washed his hands before eating.
***isnt it true Romans first persecuted Christians because Christians claimed theirs was the only true religion, other diverse religions could "get along" by giving lip service to Roman emperors8**
Yes, I believe they got in big trouble for not saying "Ceaser is Lord" and offering his a token sacrifice.
***In the sense of Hillel, who'd been asked by a fraud if he could teach him Judaism while standing on one foot. Hillel responded, "That which is harmful to you, do not onto others. The rest is commentary. Now go and study."***
This doesn't answer my question. Where do you get you knowlege of Jesus except but from the Gospels?
***Jesus should have washed his hands before eating.***
He, being sinless and spotless had no need to wash his hands. Dirt doesn't defile one before God - only a dirty heart does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.