by Bridgette 12 Replies latest jw friends
All I know is that if Jesus was not out to start a new religion, he failed miserably. If he was the son of God with the full backing from God, he could not have possibly failed in his mission. Therefore, he WAS out to start a new religion, and succeeded.
Logically speaking, that is.
Farkel
"When in doubt, duck!"
Jesus' mission was more political than spiritual. Judaism in the first century was not about pleasing God or atonement, but about power and prestige.
If you believe the nonsense about Jesus' message of 'charity' and the story of the 'suffering Messiah' you might as well believe everything Gary Condit and Bill Clinton has ever said.
"Jesus' mission was more political than spiritual."
Good point, Cygnus. Christianity definitely seemed to serve a more political purpose--whether by design or not, I don't know. But it took a religion (old Judaism) that no longer really "worked" under the then pagan Romans and the vastly changing world, and made it more palatable (Christianity's rejection of the law, and the allowance for Gentiles to come in en masse with little "discomfort") It mass marketed Judaism, to the world of that time, so to speak. You can definitely see where Paul took, the political angle of Christianity and ran with it.
Then when the Catholics wrestled thier form of Christianity with that of the Gnostics', it evolved once again into even more political than spiritual.
Interesting points all. The consensus seems to be that Jesus was not out to form a break away religion. So, how did we get this monstrosity known as Christianity today? Is that what Jesus wanted all along? And what of the Jews?
Bridgette
p.s. Farkel, I think that this person known as Jesus was just a man. Jesus ben Pantera was a historical figure who lived at the time and was a political dissident as well as *gasp* the son of a prostitute and a Roman Soldier. It has been conjectured that Jesus Pantera and Jesus of Nazareth are one in the same (hence the virgin birth story). Any-hoo, I do think that he was probably a pretty enlightened person sans all the agenda'd additions attributed to him (many linguists do not believe much of what's attributed to him in the gospels are his words). But who knows?
