Was Jesus a good Jew or a Roman collaborator?
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.philosophy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

alt.philosophy Profile…
 Up
Was Jesus a good Jew or a Roman collaborator?         


Author: donquijote1954
Date: Mar 19, 2008 07:20

"To Rome what belongs to Rome," he said, meaning "let's collaborate
with the oppressor." Is that why Jews don't like him? The Jews have
been put down for not standing with him, but maybe they had their own
reasons. He was a Roman collaborator...

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
28 Comments
Re: Was Jesus a good Jew or a Roman collaborator?         


Author: Paul Hands
Date: Mar 19, 2008 08:00

He didn't exist. Even if he did he would have been a deranged
fuckwit.

Who cares.
no comments
Re: Was Jesus a good Jew or a Roman collaborator?         


Author: John Locke
Date: Mar 19, 2008 10:13

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:20:49 -0700 (PDT), donquijote1954
hotmail.com> wrote:
>"To Rome what belongs to Rome," he said, meaning "let's collaborate
>with the oppressor." Is that why Jews don't like him? The Jews have
>been put down for not standing with him, but maybe they had their own
>reasons. He was a Roman collaborator...
>
Who knows. Probably just an everyday normal Joe. But positively
nothing like the apparition conjured up by the Christian witch
doctors.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
no comments
Re: Was Jesus a good Jew or a Roman collaborator?         


Author: chazwin
Date: Mar 19, 2008 10:14

On Mar 19, 2:20 pm, donquijote1954 hotmail.com>
wrote:
> "To Rome what belongs to Rome," he said, meaning "let's collaborate
> with the oppressor." Is that why Jews don't like him? The Jews have
> been put down for not standing with him, but maybe they had their own
> reasons. He was a Roman collaborator...
>
> WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

So where was Jesus reported to have said that? Do you mean "render
unto Caesar, that which is Caesar"? By which he meant coins are made
by Rome, so pay your taxes.
Which Jews don't like him?
no comments
Re: Was Jesus a good Jew or a Roman collaborator?         


Author: chazwin
Date: Mar 19, 2008 10:16

On Mar 19, 3:00 pm, Paul Hands gmail.com> wrote:
> He didn't exist.  Even if he did he would have been a deranged
> fuckwit.
>
> Who cares.

It is highly likely that Jesus of Nazareth did exist. What is unlikely
is miracles, rising from the dead etc..
Some of the stuff he is reported to have said was good advice. Shame
that so few Christians want to heed his advice on peaceful co-
existence.
no comments
Re: Was Jesus a good Jew or a Roman collaborator?         


Author: chazwin
Date: Mar 19, 2008 10:18

On Mar 19, 3:41 pm, ComandanteBanana yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 19, 11:00 am, Paul Hands gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> He didn't exist.  Even if he did he would have been a deranged
>> fuckwit.
>
>> Who cares.
>
> Yeah, but his legacy is still around.
>
> Why the Jews are still hated by the Christians (as in the movie 'The
> Passion of the Christ')?

There were no Christians in the "Passion of Christ", Jesus was just an
other rabbi amoungst many others.
> Didn't such hatred inspired the expulsion of
> the Jews from Spain, and maybe inspired Hitler to finish them off?

Have you ever studied any history?
no comments
Re: Was Jesus a good Jew or a Roman collaborator?         


Author: Immortalist
Date: Mar 19, 2008 10:48

On Mar 19, 7:20 am, donquijote1954 hotmail.com>
wrote:
> "To Rome what belongs to Rome," he said, meaning "let's collaborate
> with the oppressor." Is that why Jews don't like him? The Jews have
> been put down for not standing with him, but maybe they had their own
> reasons. He was a Roman collaborator...
>
> WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

I think that the give to rome what is rome's and to god what is god's
argument was a saying of Apostle Paul and not Jesus. Augustine made a
whole philosophy out of it;

Augustine argued that Christianity should be concerned with the
mystical, heavenly City of Jerusalem (the New Jerusalem) rather than
with Earthly politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City_of_God
Show full article (6.14Kb)
no comments
Re: Was Jesus a good Jew or a Roman collaborator?         


Author: Bill Dukenfield
Date: Mar 19, 2008 10:52

ComandanteBanana wrote:
>
> On Mar 19, 11:00 am, Paul Hands gmail.com> wrote:
>> He didn't exist. Even if he did he would have been a deranged
>> fuckwit.
>>
>> Who cares.
>
> Yeah, but his legacy is still around.
>
> Why the Jews are still hated by the Christians (as in the movie 'The
> Passion of the Christ')? Didn't such hatred inspired the expulsion of
> the Jews from Spain, and maybe inspired Hitler to finish them off?

The mythical Jesus was born, lived and died a jew.

JAM
no comments
Re: Was Jesus a good Jew or a Roman collaborator?         


Author: raven1
Date: Mar 19, 2008 11:20

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:48:12 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mar 19, 7:20 am, donquijote1954 hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> "To Rome what belongs to Rome," he said, meaning "let's collaborate
>> with the oppressor." Is that why Jews don't like him? The Jews have
>> been put down for not standing with him, but maybe they had their own
>> reasons. He was a Roman collaborator...
>>
>> WELCOME TO THE JUNGLEhttp://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
>
>I think that the give to rome what is rome's and to god what is god's
>argument was a saying of Apostle Paul and not Jesus.

It was Jesus: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and
unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21)
no comments
Re: Was Jesus a good Jew or a Roman collaborator?         


Author: Ye Old One
Date: Mar 19, 2008 11:50

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:20:49 -0700 (PDT), donquijote1954
hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>"To Rome what belongs to Rome," he said,

Almost certainly he did not. First off you would need to show that he
actually lived, nobody has yet been able to find any strong evidence
for that. Second, that phrase sounds far to much like a later addition
used to placate Rome as the church grew. There was a time when the
early church was getting way to much money.
> meaning "let's collaborate
>with the oppressor."

It meant nothing of the sort.

--
Bob.
no comments
1 2 3