Jesus - Was he anything more than a political figure?

[radhead]

In the first century, religion and politics were considered synonymous. From studying early Christianity it has become more and more clear to me that Jesus was a sort of political revolutionary, fighting against the Roman Empire. All the titles that the gospels used for Jesus Christ had previously been used for Caesar.
(Son of God. Light of the world. Savior. The Way. Etc.)

Caesar had also been said to have died and raised again, and had descended into heaven where he was still ruling at the time of Jesus.

Then, a few centuries after Jesus's death he became a religious figure for that same empire.

Now, he seems to be nothing more than the personification of conservative ideals.
(Though I can't find support for that in the Bible.)

Can anyone see that "God" is really just people projecting their personal political beliefs?

 

[Hammster]

Apparently you can.

 

[radhead]

Apparently you can.

I am not denying the existence of God.

But can't you see from the evidence that people create their own image of God?

 

[Wgw]

I am not denying the existence of God.

But can't you see from the evidence that people create their own image of God?

Willard Decker much?

 

[Oncedeceived]

In the first century, religion and politics were considered synonymous. From studying early Christianity it has become more and more clear to me that Jesus was a sort of political revolutionary, fighting against the Roman Empire. All the titles that the gospels used for Jesus Christ had previously been used for Caesar.
(Son of God. Light of the world. Savior. The Way. Etc.)

Caesar had also been said to have died and raised again, and had descended into heaven where he was still ruling at the time of Jesus.

Then, a few centuries after Jesus's death he became a religious figure for that same empire.

Now, he seems to be nothing more than the personification of conservative ideals.
(Though I can't find support for that in the Bible.)

Can anyone see that "God" is really just people projecting their personal political beliefs?

What is your source that Caesar died and rose again? Also, I would like the material that shows he was called light of the world, Savior, or The way. He was considered a son of God due to his relationship and to his uncle.

 

[radhead]

What is your source that Caesar died and rose again? Also, I would like the material that shows he was called light of the world, Savior, or The way. He was considered a son of God due to his relationship and to his uncle.

I think it's sad that Christians don't know about this already. So I will have to say no. If anyone cared enough about this they would find this on their own. I don't expect anyone to take my word for it anyway, and I'm sure that I would be ridiculed anyway.

Either you care enough about the truth to question your doctrine or you don't.

 

[Moral Orel]

In the first century, religion and politics were considered synonymous. From studying early Christianity it has become more and more clear to me that Jesus was a sort of political revolutionary, fighting against the Roman Empire.

As a non-believer, mind you, this argument falls flat. Jesus wasn't a political revolutionary. He didn't tell his followers to fight against the Roman rule either politically or in a war like fashion. That's why they didn't pay any attention to him, well, until the end. There were plenty of other people around that time popping up and claiming to be the Messiah and doing exactly what you think Jesus was doing, and they killed them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think it's sad that Christians don't know about this already. So I will have to say no. If anyone cared enough about this they would find this on their own. I don't expect anyone to take my word for it anyway, and I'm sure that I would be ridiculed anyway.

Either you care enough about the truth to question your doctrine or you don't.

Actually that is why I am asking for the sources. Atheists come on here and spout around accusations without looking it up themselves. They read some anti-Christian site and spew unsubstantiated muck and never support it. Either supply the sources and I mean the actual documentation for these claims, not some anti-Christian site claiming these things but the documents from antiquity that support their claims.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As a non-believer, mind you, this argument falls flat. Jesus wasn't a political revolutionary. He didn't tell his followers to fight against the Roman rule either politically or in a war like fashion. That's why they didn't pay any attention to him, well, until the end. There were plenty of other people around that time popping up and claiming to be the Messiah and doing exactly what you think Jesus was doing, and they killed them.

Do you have the names of those who were claiming to be the Messiah at the time of Christ?

 

[radhead]

Actually that is why I am asking for the sources. Atheists come on here and spout around accusations without looking it up themselves. They read some anti-Christian site and spew unsubstantiated muck and never support it. Either supply the sources and I mean the actual documentation for these claims, not some anti-Christian site claiming these things but the documents from antiquity that support their claims.

If you can provide anything supporting your beliefs, outside of your religious text, to my satisfaction, then I will.

Keep in mind, much of my own beliefs also come primarily from the Bible. But we have widely varying interpretations. I don't read it as a literalist/fundamentalist, because I don't think it was ever intended to be read that way.

 

[Moral Orel]

Do you have the names of those who were claiming to be the Messiah at the time of Christ?

Simon of Perea and Athronges were a few. You can start there if you care to learn about them.

 

[Wgw]

I think it's sad that Christians don't know about this already. So I will have to say no. If anyone cared enough about this they would find this on their own. I don't expect anyone to take my word for it anyway, and I'm sure that I would be ridiculed anyway.

Either you care enough about the truth to question your doctrine or you don't.

Most amusing: You make a false claim regarding Caesar Augustus, who, like Julius Caesar, was regarded as divine, but not "resurrected," and when called out on it, refuse to provide youe source and lament over our ignorance. That takes a ceetain degree of chutzpah.

Have you even read the Deeds of the Divine Augustus, or The History of the Gallic Wars by his adoptive father?

 

[Winken]

Can anyone see that "God" is really just people projecting their personal political beliefs?

No.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Simon of Perea and Athronges were a few. You can start there if you care to learn about them.

Good for you! You actually presented names. I will assume you have read about them then.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you can provide anything supporting your beliefs, outside of your religious text, to my satisfaction, then I will.

So you want me to provide support for my position prior to you supporting your own claims already presented. Now why would you think that is something I should do? Ok, I'll play. Thallus who lived around 52AD was a secular writer and was the earliest known mention of Jesus outside of the Bible. He is so early his writings are no longer available but Julius Africanus quoted Thallus as how he explained away the darkness occurring at Jesus's crucifixion. He wrote:

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

Keep in mind, much of my own beliefs also come primarily from the Bible. But we have widely varying interpretations. I don't read it as a literalist/fundamentalist, because I don't think it was ever intended to be read that way.

You are free to interpret it anyway you like. Some of the Bible was indeed meant to be literal, some not.

 

[radhead]

What is your source that Caesar died and rose again? Also, I would like the material that shows he was called light of the world, Savior, or The way. He was considered a son of God due to his relationship and to his uncle.

Caesar was not resurrected. That was just something that they told his followers. Jesus's followers did the same thing. I think they were trying to say that Jesus's way was better than the Empire's.

In the same way, Ronald Reagan has been resurrected today and you could say that he is ruling in heaven. He is ruling those people who call themselves Christian in name, but who possess much different qualities from Jesus. They have replaced the lamb with a different image.

 

[radhead]

You are free to interpret it anyway you like. Some of the Bible was indeed meant to be literal, some not.

I know. You interpret it in whatever way supports your belief. Just as I do.

I believe in Jesus the man. I just don't believe all of the legends that were written about him. The vast majority of words attributed could have never been said by him. And I am most certain that the gospels and the book of Acts were written by highly educated men. Never meant to be taken literally. I don't believe any of the magical or supernatural stories in the Bible. None of them have any support outside of the stories themselves, and they can never be supported.

Allow God to open your eyes to the deeper meaning. Don't believe in the literal meaning of the parables, which are meant to keep the blind in eternal darkness.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Caesar was not resurrected. That was just something that they told his followers. Jesus's followers did the same thing. I think they were trying to say that Jesus's way was better than the Empire's.

I am quite aware he was not resurrected. I want the source that documents that he was said to have died and rose again.

In the same way, Ronald Reagan has been resurrected today and you could say that he is ruling in heaven. He is ruling those people who call themselves Christian in name, but who possess much different qualities from Jesus. They have replaced the lamb with a different image.

This is so bizarre that I am not sure how to even respond.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I know. You interpret it in whatever way supports your belief. Just as I do.

I believe in Jesus the man.

That would be difficult since there are sources that say He lived and died by crucifixion.

I just don't believe all of the legends that were written about him. The vast majority of words attributed could have never been said by him.

Why is that? Why would the vast majority of words attributed could never have been said by Him?

And I am most certain that the gospels and the book of Acts were written by highly educated men. Never meant to be taken literally. I don't believe any of the magical or supernatural stories in the Bible. None of them have any support outside of the stories themselves, and they can never be supported.

So what do you get from the Bible?

Allow God to open your eyes to the deeper meaning. Don't believe in the literal meaning of the parables, which are meant to keep the blind in eternal darkness.

Which god would that be?

 

[radhead]

Which god would that be?

There is only one God. He is good. If you believe that he is good, then you should not be afraid to pray for wisdom and knowledge. Even if that knowledge contradicts your religious beliefs. No one else can hear your prayers. Are you really afraid to ask for wisdom?