Jesus was a Radical who Railed against Rome, & we should do the same

[mopaul]

somebody say amen.

[fasttense]

1. Amen.

[HereSince1628]

2. What about that render unto Ceasar stuff?

It seems to me that Jesus really railed against the money changers in the temple.

[Melodybe]

3. Hear that Robertson and Falwell!

Amen

[Old Mouse]

4. and his little riot

was a failure

And didn't he actually riot against his own elders, not Rome?

[mopaul]

5. rome drove in the nails

and yes, rome won that round

[Old Mouse]

11. so... you want to be a wittiness?

find salvation through emulating Christ's actual physical suffering? Personally, I'll pass, but it would make for interesting reality TV.

[LARED]

6. Jesus was a radical against what is known as

sin and the entrenched religion of the day, I don't think he was worried about Rome.

[Yupster]

13. Agree Lared

If anything, Jesus ignored Rome.

His kingdom was not on earth.

I think his attitude was to ignore the government or put up with it while you live out the important parts of your life.

He certainly never organized a march on Caesaria to increase the bread dole.

[Old Mouse]

14. well put n/t

[no_hypocrisy]

7. "Jesus was the first socialist outlaw."

Credit to Woody Guthrie.

[shaniqua6392]

8. Amen to that.

Can I get a witness?

[Art_from_Ark]

9. Actually, he didn't rail against Rome

In fact, that was probably one of the reasons he lost support among the Jews. And Pontius Pilate himself said at Jesus' trial "I find nothing wrong with this man".

Jesus' real targets were the money changers and the Pharisees (hypocrites)

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. I'd be happy to rail against some pharisees. We have plenty in the gov't

[Art_from_Ark]

15. You can say that again!

[Geoff R. Casavant]

10. I suppose it depends on where you're looking

Taking the gospel accounts at face value, Jesus did not rail against Rome but against the Jewish authorities of the day. But the gospels were not written until after the Jewish rebellion of 66 CE and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, when it made good political sense to suck up to Rome and diminish the Roman complicity in Jesus's execution and emphasize the Jewish role.

But bear in mind that crucifixion was a strictly Roman punishment (Jews were big on stoning themselves), and crucifixion was generally reserved for the worst criminals of all, the traitors and rebels who had committed crimes against the Roman state.

[Cleita]

16. Actually, you are a little off here.

Rome conquered Palestine and was an invading nation like we are in Iraq. Jesus wasn't into fighting the Romans but the Jewish establishment priesthood like we have in the Vatican, to try to make them accountable and honest. The Jews called him the Messiah because they looked for a religious figure to battle the Romans, but it wasn't Jesus's mission. Really it wasn't.

A better example would be Rome itself. It was a Republic taken over by fascists whom eventually proclaimed themselves emperors and gods. This is where we are heading.

[Just Me]

21. No. Jesus rejected human oppression by human oppressors.

Period.

His message transcended the reactions of the "powers that be" at that time.

His vision threatened the "powers that be" at that time,...and, to this day, threatens all those who choose allegiance to self over service to humanity.

With respect to Rome,...yes, it became a fascist regime and it fell because its leaders sought to rule the world without any respect for "THE PEOPLE" who laid on the one and only ulimatum: NO NO NO,...WE ARE FREE AND WE WILL FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM!!!

[DerekG]

17. Christ's real opponents were the Sadducees

They were the Hebrew elite who exploited and betrayed their own people. Their respect for Roman sovereignty was sired in the desire to preserve their own clerical, ecclesiastical state. Vichy types.

If you ask me, the Democratic leadership has adopted their cause.

Still, I don't think you're wrong: I'm sure a pacifistic firebrand--nay, THE pacifistic firebrand--had plenty to say about the murderous empire that occupied Judea.

[blonndee]

18. I thought the Pharisees were his main problem. The religious

elite, who were in cahoots w/Roman power...they're the ones Jesus gave the most hell, so to speak.

[DerekG]

22. The Pharisees were the dogmatists, not necessarily the collaborators

True, the synoptic gospels are rife with conflagrations between Jesus and the Pharisees (the debate as to whether the law was made for man, or vice versa, being my favorite). They were dogmatists--or fundamentalists, if you prefer--who held Judaism in a kind of bondage. But to their credit, most of them were hostile to the Roman Empire. It's just that, unlike the Zealots, they opted to bide their time and wait for the cracks to surface in Caesar's feet of clay. This is when their strict adherence to law would pay off.

The Sadducees, on the hand, were the power operators. They were the hierarchs in the temples (incidentally, the high priest always came from their ranks). Christ's rebellion in the courtyard was rightfully construed as a threat to their hold. Jesus was a marked man thereafter.

[Minstrel Boy]

19. something like this:

[Tsiyu]

20. Halleluiah and two Glory Be's

and a side of fettucine, Ramen

[ladylibertee]

23. I'm late but.......AMEN !!!!!!!!!