In fact, during [Jesus's] life critics called him a lestes — a word that meant an insurrectionist, rebel, pirate, bandit. Though the label was often associated with violent thievery, Jesus practiced what anthropologists call “social banditry” — groups of men operating on the margins of society who refuse to submit to the control and value system of the ruling elite, and who fight for the justice, independence, and emancipation of the common people. While the existing power structure considers them criminals, the exploited see these outlaws as their champions.
That sounds familiar. Given his peripatetic life, I can easily imagine Jesus and the apostles riding down the road on motorcycles.
9 comments:
Funny you bring this upI
I just added this article to my list of to read and its on the same topic.
Emasculated West Primed for A Muscular, Muslim Takeover
http://www.unz.com/imercer/emasculated-west-primed-for-a-muscular-muslim-takeover/
Was Alexandr Solzhenitsyn right about our decline in courage, that he delivered in his Harvard University Commencement speech in 1978?
........A decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outside
observer notices in the West in our days..........
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/alexandersolzhenitsynharvard.htm
- Mississippi
Well we all know, thanks to Bakuon!, that Jesus likes motorcycles.
http://i.imgur.com/IkTBVS8.jpg
I have heard it argued that the reason he sent his disciples for swords right before his arrest was so that he could better fit the profile of a bandit. There's supposed to be some prophecy that satisfies, according to the argument, although I can't tell you which prophecy it was off the top of my head.
Umnnhhhh.....
Let's be careful with this. JC was, yes, opposed to some of the "establishment" but not in any political sense whatsoever. He was opposed to the 'establishment of sin'--and led us from slavery to sin, not from 'slavery to Romans' or any other such twaddle.
Yeah, Dad29, I agree we need to be very careful with that. I just think the "Jesus as Outlaw archetype" is interesting.
I got the "Jesus-as-outlaw-or-revolutionary" thing in high school 40 years ago from a bunch of Franciscan nuns. I made jokes about issuing AK47s for the revolution which were not appreciated.
But everybody keeps missing his point--which he said himself if you believe the gospels--his kingdom is not of this world.
I'd heard of Jesus-as-revolutionary, but not outlaw. I'd heard he was accused of insurrection, in part because there was apparently some Jewish insurrection at the time and in some ways he fit that category. However, what I thought was more interesting was the discussion of the word lestes, being not just 'rebel' but 'bandit,' and the Robin Hood-like description of the social role.
I know a lot of people make comparisons and analogies about Jesus as a form of political rhetoric, but I'm not, and the author of the article I quoted was talking about masculinity, not politics. His broader point is that Jesus was quite masculine, and that given the gender ratios in Christianity it might be good to emphasize that a bit more.
Jesus Christ obeys Divine laws, which are like unto secular and human laws as a state's law is to the US's federal layer. Unlike a state's ability to nullify higher laws or appeal them, however, divine laws can abrogate and nullify any lower tier law, but lower tier laws cannot abrogate divine or even natural laws.
As such, Jesus, the Holy One of Israel, and the God of Christians and the God of the House of Israel, the Abrahamic and Ark Covenants, is not outside human law. But rather above human law. Thus he is not an "outlaw". As a rebel, the relationship the flipped. It was the Israeli clerics, lawyers, authorities, religious leaders, faction leaders, who rebelled against the Holy One of Israel, plus the God of Israel. Israel, meaning the House of Israel from Jacob, even means one who has rebelled against god but lived to tell about it. As a result of Judaism rejecting the the predicted and expected coming of Moses' Second Messiah, Jesus, the House of Israel, specifically the tribe of Judah and Benjamine (the Jews), were dealt a near fatal blow. Complete exile from the land of Judea and Jerusalem itself. The War against Varus around 4 BC, another rebellion lead by false Jewish prophets against Nero in around 70 AD, and then another one during or around Hadrian's time, after 100 AD.
The last one was lead by Judaism's beloved false messiah, a Maccabee. Such actions stripped the House of Israel of their divine protections and grace from their god. The Jews thought they were obeying their god's prophecies in rebelling against Rome, but they had rejected Jesus' advice about giving unto Caesar what was Caesar's (money and human powers). Unfortunately, there is a very easy way to tell whether the Jewish tribe of the 12/13 tribes of the House of Israel, chose correctly. If they had chose correctly, they would have been blessed with divine level miracles and favors, such as what Jean De Arc acquired. Inhuman knowledge and transference, martial power, luck, and skills, as well as fortunate aid from allies and others obedient to the same god.
Jesus Christ is not the rebel, the rebels would have been the Jews originally, and later on other humans. The reason why this image is favorable to Marxists is because Marxists and Leftists believe their only god is a Deus ex Machina. They do not submit to the authority of humanity's Heavenly King, although there is a lot of evidence they do obey the King of the Earth, Lucifer.
Judaism would become a Christian branch or heresy, if they began to accept that Jesus was the Christ, the promised messiah in Moses and various others like Isaiah. However, given many self proclaimed Christians like Hussein's pastor, Rev Jackson and Sharpton, and Westboro Baptists are followers of Satan/Lucifer, this question of ultimate allegiance has become shadowed by human self deception. If good is called evil, and evil is called good, who is to know who actually follows which god.
There's other things, like Fake messiahs back around 4 BC, and also Herod, and also the issue with King of the Jews, but I'll leave that for another time.
Two secular stories that have the capability to reconstruct the context that the Bible may lack, are the House in Fata Morgana and Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy.
Christianity and Islam share the system of modeling believers after role models, for the former it is Jesus Christ or Jesus the Savior of humanity and promised messiah, and for the latter it is Mohammed, the warlord and priest-king.
Genghis Khan was also a warlord, but Muslims do not revere Khan, nor do they model their behavior after Khan in hopes of heavenly rewards. Militaries can adopt the tricks of their enemies for gain, but religions can't do that with ease.
Because Christianity fractured and cleansed itself of heresies and diverging points of view, when Islam came on the scene, it finished wiping out 1st AD Christendom if only by preventing stories from accurately being written down. What was left, was wiped out by Christianity as a state religion, the orthodox or Chalcedon lines. Thus without the culture and the corroborating testimonies and evidence of the world Jesus was in (the Jewish society back then got annihilated by the Romans at least twice), the Bible cannot be interpreted or translated with the full testimony and truth. Thus various branches of Christianity interpret different doctrines from the same scripture. Islam came up with an interesting adaptation to a similar problem.
In such a case, either direct divine revelation is required, once again, to shed light on the past, or a more accurate or more ancient record is needed.
Absent that, humans will have to reverse engineer the problem of human salvation from the end point first. Such as writing fiction while asking the question "given human nature, what would it take to save humanity". Without assuming that what saves humanity can or cannot exist, no limits.
After reading the article, I would think that this is another attempt at taking human culture as we know of it, and attempting to transpose it around a historical figure. This method has its limits although is better than many doctrines or dogmas.
Post a Comment