The Christian Thread

dtguitarfan wrote: timothy leary wrote: I also like how when management asked you to leave political agendas at the door you ignored the request. Jesus was political.  Some people not liking his politics does not change that.

dr wu23 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: timothy leary wrote: <SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; COLOR: ; LINE-HEIGHT: 18px">I also like how when management asked you to leave political agendas at the door you ignored the request.</SPAN> Jesus was political.  Some people not liking his politics does not change that. How exactly was Jesus 'political'..?

"My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36)

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 21:21)

These two quotes illustrate Jesus' "politics" in a nutshell.

Edited by someone_else - October 14 2013 at 06:33

dtguitarfan wrote: dr wu23 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: timothy leary wrote: I also like how when management asked you to leave political agendas at the door you ignored the request. Jesus was political.  Some people not liking his politics does not change that. How exactly was Jesus 'political'..? I have written two blog posts in defense of this - this one tracks the theme of social justice through the Bible to Jesus, and this one demonstrates how Jesus used subversive political language in the Lord's Prayer.  I plan on writing a few more like this to demonstrate how other passages use subversive political language.  It's all throughout Paul's writings.

When I get a chance I'll read your blog posts but imho that's interpretive and to me not 'political' in the sense we mean today as I mentioned above. To me he was anti-political or maybe a-political.

Edited by dr wu23 - October 14 2013 at 10:46

dtguitarfan wrote: dr wu23 wrote: When I get a chance I'll read your blog posts but imho that's interpretive and to me not 'political' in the sense we mean today as I mentioned above. To me he was anti-political or maybe a-political. Here's the problem with that view: crucifixion was reserved for enemies of the empire.  For insurgents.  Revolutionaries.  Rebels.  To illustrate this, you need to look into other "messiah" figures around the time of Jesus.  There was another messiah figure named Jesus ben Ananias (the Jesus we usually talk about was Jesus ben Joseph), and this Jesus went around prophesying Jerusalem's destruction, and he was whipped and then released as nothing but a lunatic.  Something about Jesus ben Joseph made him a bit more dangerous to the empire, or they would not have crucified him.

dr wu23 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: dr wu23 wrote: When I get a chance I'll read your blog posts but imho that's interpretive and to me not 'political' in the sense we mean today as I mentioned above. To me he was anti-political or maybe a-political. Here's the problem with that view: crucifixion was reserved for enemies of the empire.  For insurgents.  Revolutionaries.  Rebels.  To illustrate this, you need to look into other "messiah" figures around the time of Jesus.  There was another messiah figure named Jesus ben Ananias (the Jesus we usually talk about was Jesus ben Joseph), and this Jesus went around prophesying Jerusalem's destruction, and he was whipped and then released as nothing but a lunatic.  Something about Jesus ben Joseph made him a bit more dangerous to the empire, or they would not have crucified him. Simply because Jesus' enemies saw him as political does not mean he saw himself that way and I would argue he did not and was on a personal spiritual mission /quest  that just happened to conflich with secular politics. I believe he was a-political but those who did not understand his spiritual mission did not understand that and saw him as a threat on a secular level. To me it depends on how one 'sees' what his mission was. If he had been truly political himself he would have led a physical revolt or ran for  what was considered a public office back then...but he did not.

Jesus was political in that he did present the gospel as a political message; "gospel" (or "evangelium" in Latin) was actually a commonly used word in that culture; literally meaning "good news" it most commonly denoted a message from a political leader when he gained a new territory, basically saying, "there's a new boss in town and things are changing."  Thus all the talk about the "kingdom of God" in the gospels; Jesus was inaugurating his kingdom.  The gospel was politically subversive because it was telling people "don't trust in Caesar, trust in Christ who is coming to make things new."

Jesus wasn't political in the sense that we often think about it, though; it would be more accurate to say that his political message transcends earthly politics.  It's a call to stop trusting earthly politicians and to trust in Him.  His nation is the Church (1 Peter 2:9) and he didn't come to tell us who to vote for or what opinions to have in earthly politics.  We're never forbidden in Scripture from engaging in politics but we should not trust in it.  The kingdom of God is built on the cornerstone of Christ, who washed us clean with His blood and invites us into his family with His Word.  This kingdom comes by grace, though faith, in the Word and Sacraments administered in the church.  As members of God's kingdom, Christians are called to live out our calling by loving one another and serving others.   The kingdom of God will finally come fully when Christ returns to make all things new.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: dr wu23 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: dr wu23 wrote: When I get a chance I'll read your blog posts but imho that's interpretive and to me not 'political' in the sense we mean today as I mentioned above. To me he was anti-political or maybe a-political. Here's the problem with that view: crucifixion was reserved for enemies of the empire.  For insurgents.  Revolutionaries.  Rebels.  To illustrate this, you need to look into other "messiah" figures around the time of Jesus.  There was another messiah figure named Jesus ben Ananias (the Jesus we usually talk about was Jesus ben Joseph), and this Jesus went around prophesying Jerusalem's destruction, and he was whipped and then released as nothing but a lunatic.  Something about Jesus ben Joseph made him a bit more dangerous to the empire, or they would not have crucified him. Simply because Jesus' enemies saw him as political does not mean he saw himself that way and I would argue he did not and was on a personal spiritual mission /quest  that just happened to conflich with secular politics. I believe he was a-political but those who did not understand his spiritual mission did not understand that and saw him as a threat on a secular level. To me it depends on how one 'sees' what his mission was. If he had been truly political himself he would have led a physical revolt or ran for  what was considered a public office back then...but he did not. Jesus was political in that he did present the gospel as a political message; "gospel" (or "evangelium" in Latin) was actually a commonly used word in that culture; literally meaning "good news" it most commonly denoted a message from a political leader when he gained a new territory, basically saying, "there's a new boss in town and things are changing."  Thus all the talk about the "kingdom of God" in the gospels; Jesus was inaugurating his kingdom.  The gospel was politically subversive because it was telling people "don't trust in Caesar, trust in Christ who is coming to make things new." Jesus wasn't political in the sense that we often think about it, though; it would be more accurate to say that his political message transcends earthly politics.  It's a call to stop trusting earthly politicians and to trust in Him.  His nation is the Church (1 Peter 2:9) and he didn't come to tell us who to vote for or what opinions to have in earthly politics.  We're never forbidden in Scripture from engaging in politics but we should not trust in it.  The kingdom of God is built on the cornerstone of Christ, who washed us clean with His blood and invites us into his family with His Word.  This kingdom comes by grace, though faith, in the Word and Sacraments administered in the church.  As members of God's kingdom, Christians are called to live out our calling by loving one another and serving others.   The kingdom of God will finally come fully when Christ returns to make all things new.

The Gospel or 'good news' does not translate as political imho. As you mentioned his message transcended politics in any secular way. But I agree with your second paragraph but I don't believe in the literal sense of him being divine.

dtguitarfan wrote: dr wu23 wrote: timothy leary wrote: Since Israel at that time was a theocracy what office would Jesus have held? He was not a poitician. Well that was my point in that he was not a politician nor political in any real sense. Ralph Nader never held and office, therefore he was not political.  Michael Moore never held or ran for an office, therefore he was not political.  Shall I go on? Jesus was political.  Get over it.

dr wu23 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: dr wu23 wrote: timothy leary wrote: Since Israel at that time was a theocracy what office would Jesus have held? He was not a poitician. Well that was my point in that he was not a politician nor political in any real sense. Ralph Nader never held and office, therefore he was not political.  Michael Moore never held or ran for an office, therefore he was not political.  Shall I go on? Jesus was political.  Get over it. Nader ran for office several times and interacted on several poltical levels and did not have a religious message as Jesus did. Michael Moore also gears his work towards a poltical point of view and message and not religion once again. I think perhaps you are misinterpreting  what politics is and isn't.   As Dean mentioned try having a better attitude and then you can try to explain your point of view....again.

I am not sure exactly what was so controversial about my prior statement except for the fact that Dean doesn't like me.  It's ok when he or Rob or anyone else is sarcastic or short, but when I am even the slightest bit... 

But you are missing my point.  A person does not have to hold an office to be political, nor do they have to run for office to be political.  Politics and religious beliefs are inseparable, and the sooner we come to terms with this, the sooner we can start fixing some of the problems in society.  Our politics shape our religions beliefs and our religious beliefs shape our politics, and all of that determines how we treat people.  We are not compartmentalized beings, as much as society tries to tell us we should be.

As far as explaining my point of view - READ MY BLOG!  I have given a sturdy defense for Jesus' politics within.  I'm tired of restating myself over and over and over again.  I put a bit of work into that post, and find it incredible that you want me to defend my views when IT'S ALL THERE.

Point of order - Dean is an equal opportunities misanthrope - he doesn't like everyone equally.

self RIGHTeousness