Jesus was a communist

[alanjjohnstone]

Just try reading my posts, will you? The counter-arguments are all embedded in those….or as Jesus was reported to have said …seek and you shall find.Message #71, however, had no question in it …to refresh your own memory it was a challenge to prove you wrong that you "have an invisible pink monkey sitting on my shoulder and he delivers words of wisdom" and ….i don't have a lot of spare time to waste on such witless exchanges with someone who should know already the position of a Socialist Party member and adherent to historical materialism…unless you are saying that i am a crypto-christian infiltrator because i think on the balance of possibilities someone called Jesus actually existed…as a man who was turned into a myth and made into a god by his believers. So no, i will not indulge you with a reply. If i have been patronising it has been inadvertent and unintentional (except on this occasion)….you, on the other hand, have been deliberately and purposefully disrespectful. That is the big difference in our respective attitudes. 

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

..you, on the other hand, have been deliberately and purposefully disrespectful. That is the big difference in our respective attitudes. 

I have not. Cease your slurs on my personal integrity and address the argument.   

[alanjjohnstone]

But let us move on. Let's try again. This thread was begun by me because i came across a writer who had studied the early Christian movement and determined that the idea of common ownership was widespread. He endeavoured to use this information to convince present day Christians to be communists. Interesting enough, wouldn't you say, for socialists like ourselves to look into a bit more.The thread as threads tend to do spun off into a tangent about the existence or non-existence of Jesus. Not a debate about God and his existence or non-existence. But a discussion on the historicity of a human being. Having read a fair amount of specialist books on the Gospels on the balance of probability i think someone called Jesus, most likely a member a John the Baptist movement, itself a part of a general religious revival/revolution with the Essenes and part of the broad political division Sadducees and Pharisees and Zealots/Sicarri  in an occupied part of the Roman Empire thus religion was being reflected and driven by political and economic realities. (not so different from modern day Israel/Palestine)Now ALB weighed it up on his scales of probability and concluded that Jesus was a fictitious figure…a myth around which a religion developed.No-one has disagreed that Jesus the Christ is a myth but dispute is about Jesus the Man having lived.ALB and myself disagree. We put forth our case. I sought flaws in his argument. He searched for flaws in mine… that is what is called debating…. Neither of us can prove 100% if we are right and the other wrong…so we agree to disagree. Some may consider that ALB got the better. But neither of us have definitive proof of our views. They are opinions only. We comradely came to different conclusions. No acrimonious exchanges took place. None should have. I'm not alone on this thread, at least broadly agreeing are YMS and DaveB who i think share some of my scepticism about the argument that Jesus did not exist. Again no-one is denying that believers like Paul, and also organisationally later through the State – Constantine and the Nicea Council – chose to shape and mould Christianity which was not historically accurate of its early growth – the basis of Roman's book, i think.I say the real Jesus was lost in the mists of time and deliberate shrouded (no, not the Turin Shroud) but a few fragments of his original teaching can be detected in the Gospels. The Q source points to a core message, adopted by extinct Jewish Christian communities.Whether Jesus really existed for me is only of academic interest.More important to me was why and how the movement spawned from a local Jewish heresy turned into a world-wide movement that has existed for hundreds of years. The spread of religious ideas is an important part of the understanding how socialist ideas will spread. Was it all down to Popes and inquisitions and burning at the stake? Or were many Christian always searching for salvation – on Earth – not in some after-life but through common ownership. Secondly, with a audience in their millions, could we, to return to the author's hopes, can we use the early Christian beliefs on common ownership to our advantage.This depends on whether they existed in the first place, and i have not read the book to comment yeah or nay.Add to this summary as you wish if you think i overlook anything of importance. 

[Young Master Smeet]

Anyway, according to the historical texts we can chase up around the time of Mohammed, we believe there were preachers in the wilderness saying similar things to him  So a socio/political account is much more important than any biographical (also, and this is my personal take, it is significant that his generals became the first two Caiphs, and their roles in the formation of the Umma seem to me to be critical, and can be subjected to materialist analysis).Finding out who the early christianms were, and the bext quality evidence we can for them, seems better than a sterile debate about the man Jesus (excepting to the extent that such a debate is necessary to clear the way, a little for getting past the myths).We are on firm ground to simply dismiss the miracles, the biographical info as given is patchy (was there a planned uprising, was there an armed struggle, etc.?).

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

The name "Jesus" means saviour and christianity originated as a saviour religion

not so sure about that. There were on record many Jesuses from that period so not quite a satisfactory defence.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(name)"The archetypal Jewish hero was Joshua ) otherwise known as Yehoshua (Yeshua) bin Nun (‘Jesus of the fish’). Since the name Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu in Hebrew, Iesous in Greek, source of the English spelling) originally was a title (meaning ‘saviour’, derived from ‘Yahweh Saves’) probably every band in the Jewish resistance had its own hero figure sporting this moniker, among others."[so saviour or freedom fighter?] "Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel"http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htmWere they all fictitious because of their name?Should i endow your own name with some religious significance Adam = hebrew "man" or my own =  either "little rock" or "handsome"

The fact that Jesuses, claiming to be saviours and/or messiahs, were 10 a penny in the area at the time (or at least 3 or 4 a penny) strengthens the Jesus is a myth view. Why do think a new saviour cult/sect would name its mythical founder "Jesus". And, no, it doesn't mean everybody called Jesus in the period was fictitious.(Actually, "Adam" does have a religion significance in the context of Northern Ireland where my father was from. There it indicates a Protestant as opposed to a Catholic, not quite so much as Samuel, though)

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

Actually, "Adam" does have a religion significance in the context of Northern Ireland where my father was from. There it indicates a Protestant as opposed to a Catholic, not quite so much as Samuel, though

Quote:

And you'll be aware of the name "Tim" to designate a Catholic but it is in  a more friendly appellation of the Catholic community itself as commandeered as in the Celtic-supporting "Thai Tims"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljBbMJhEyPc

[Dave B]

i There are a lots of Jesus’s in Josephus. I noticed it when I read him and I have not read it all. I will defer to academic opinion on the subject. Thus; Winter asserts that Josephus mentions about twelve others named Jesus. Feldman puts that number at 21. See Paul Winter, “Excursus II: Josephus on Jesus and James: Ant. xviii 3, 3 (63–64) and xx 9,1 (200–203),” in Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3 vols., rev. and ed. by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Matthew Black and Martin Goodman (Edinburgh: Clark, 1973–1987), vol. 1, p. 431; Louis H. Feldman, “Introduction,” in Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1987), p. 56. I wasn’t aware that there was an opinion that it was generally an unusual name. James was a common name as well. I don’t want to muddy the water to much but I guess we need to ‘know’ about this bod. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana The inscription is mentioned is here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana And to confuse things even more? As Appollonius the Pythagorean ?  There is such a thing as Pythagorean communism?  http://listverse.com/2014/10/03/10-communist-societies-that-predated-the-ussr/ I think joining up the dots of 7 and 6 might be a thesis? We are not having a debate here about whether JC was God.  I suspect that some people missed the point with my following quote because Greenwood was phrasing it in intellectual clever dick terms; Thus; …Ultimately, neither Celsus nor any of the polemicists who followed him could scientifically validate the existence of Christ, but at every turn when historical issues were raised, neither he nor they ever claimed that Christ was a myth… The point was; saying JC was a myth in 180AD, it was an open goal. As in slotting it in the back of the net as in the philosophers football match. With Leibniz in goal for the Germans, as an expert on relativity of space time and orientation out of position at the near post.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2gJamguN04  Actually Greenwood was being a double clever dick. Because in contra celsum, Origen the Christian himself went into a detailed rational and materialist discussion as to how you can’t prove anything actually happened. In response to something Celsum had said; throwing in back in his face so to speak. It was an interesting argument. Without then unimaginable multiple contemporary personal accounts in printed literature and photo’s film etc etc; it was impossible.  Greenwood was plagarising that argument from contra celsum. The only reason that Celsus could have for not taking the simple approach of mythism was that no-one, then, would have taken him seriously or he would have had no ‘credibility’ with anti christians had he done so. On Spartacus the multiple references are quite good and reasonably contemporary. But it was as one of them said it was the biggest event to hit the Roman empire since Hannibal. There is no archaeological evidence, nor of the crucifixions. Crucifixion wasn’t a myth though it was described by cicero and seneca. I suppose ironically the only archaeological evidence comes from the Palestine region. The unfortunate bod had a nail driven through his feet I think; they general idea is that it had bent when driving it trough a knot in the wood and they ran out of patience getting it out of his feet again. Metal was money. I think that there were probably Jesus type events happening all they time around then. One of them and its associated narratives had ‘legs’ and developed; if it wasn’t that particular one it would have just been another. I have no interest in over doing this one but actually as regards JC claiming to be the son of god etc it is not as ‘explicit’ in the gospel material as you might expect.

[Young Master Smeet]

Obviously, special mention needs to go out to Karl kautsky's book on Christianity:https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/index.htm(he is very skeptical regarding Josephus)

[Young Master Smeet]

Kautsky wrote:

THE factual core of the early Christian reports about Jesus is at best no more than what Tacitus tells us: that in the days of Tiberius a prophet was executed, from whom the sect of Christians took their inspiration. As to what this prophet taught and did, we are not yet able, even today, to say anything definite. Certainly he could not have made the sensation the early Christian reports describe, or Josephus who relates so many trivialities, would certainly have spoken of it. Jesus’ agitation and his execution did not get the slightest attention from his contemporaries. But if Jesus really was an agitator that a sect honored as its champion and guide, the significance of his person must have grown as the sect grew. Now a garland of legends began to form around this person, pious minds weaving into it anything they wished their model had said and done. The more this idealization went on, the more each of the many currents within the sect tried to put into the picture those features that were dearest to it, ill order to lend them the authority of Jesus. The picture of Jesus, at it was painted in the legends that were first passed from mouth to mouth, and then put down in writing, became more and more the picture of a superhuman person, the epitome of all the ideals the new sect developed; but in the process it became an increasingly contradictory picture, whose several features no longer harmonized.

And, of course, an long section on the communism of the early church:https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/ch09.htm#s3

[Young Master Smeet]

http://i-cias.com/e.o/mazdakism.htmMazdak is an interestign character from history, and we have about, it apppears, as much evidence for his existence as Jesus' (certainly, the wikipedia page for King Kavadh features his coin, so we can attest to him).However, his existence is also disputed:https://www.hs.ias.edu/files/Crone_Articles/Crone_Mazdak.pdf

[roman]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But let us move on. Let's try again. This thread was begun by me because i came across a writer who had studied the early Christian movement and determined that the idea of common ownership was widespread. He endeavoured to use this information to convince present day Christians to be communists. Interesting enough, wouldn't you say, for socialists like ourselves to look into a bit more.The thread as threads tend to do spun off into a tangent about the existence or non-existence of Jesus. Not a debate about God and his existence or non-existence. But a discussion on the historicity of a human being. Having read a fair amount of specialist books on the Gospels on the balance of probability i think someone called Jesus, most likely a member a John the Baptist movement, itself a part of a general religious revival/revolution with the Essenes and part of the broad political division Sadducees and Pharisees and Zealots/Sicarri  in an occupied part of the Roman Empire thus religion was being reflected and driven by political and economic realities. (not so different from modern day Israel/Palestine)Now ALB weighed it up on his scales of probability and concluded that Jesus was a fictitious figure…a myth around which a religion developed.No-one has disagreed that Jesus the Christ is a myth but dispute is about Jesus the Man having lived.ALB and myself disagree. We put forth our case. I sought flaws in his argument. He searched for flaws in mine… that is what is called debating…. Neither of us can prove 100% if we are right and the other wrong…so we agree to disagree. Some may consider that ALB got the better. But neither of us have definitive proof of our views. They are opinions only. We comradely came to different conclusions. No acrimonious exchanges took place. None should have. I'm not alone on this thread, at least broadly agreeing are YMS and DaveB who i think share some of my scepticism about the argument that Jesus did not exist. Again no-one is denying that believers like Paul, and also organisationally later through the State – Constantine and the Nicea Council – chose to shape and mould Christianity which was not historically accurate of its early growth – the basis of Roman's book, i think.I say the real Jesus was lost in the mists of time and deliberate shrouded (no, not the Turin Shroud) but a few fragments of his original teaching can be detected in the Gospels. The Q source points to a core message, adopted by extinct Jewish Christian communities.Whether Jesus really existed for me is only of academic interest.More important to me was why and how the movement spawned from a local Jewish heresy turned into a world-wide movement that has existed for hundreds of years. The spread of religious ideas is an important part of the understanding how socialist ideas will spread. Was it all down to Popes and inquisitions and burning at the stake? Or were many Christian always searching for salvation – on Earth – not in some after-life but through common ownership. Secondly, with a audience in their millions, could we, to return to the author's hopes, can we use the early Christian beliefs on common ownership to our advantage.This depends on whether they existed in the first place, and i have not read the book to comment yeah or nay.Add to this summary as you wish if you think i overlook anything of importance. 

I joined up to see if anyone had any questions on the actual scholarship in the book, or historical questions, not to endlessly argue about the historicty of Jesus (which isn't even a question in academic scholarship).I'm not trying to convert people to Christianity, nor am I really trying to make christians communists (maybe slightly), my main interest, at least as it concerns my book, is the actual scholarship on early Christianity and their practices and standing in society and so on.It's not really worthy my time to argue about the historicity of Jesus with people who haven't read the scholarship on it.

[ALB]

DaveB, you say that Celsus didn't employ the jesus was a myth argument as he wouldn't have been taken seriously. But why not?  Wasn't this the argument that Christians used to debunk the Greek and Roman gods? According to my Oxford Classical Dictionary someone called Eusebiu did this but you are the expert on these early christian polemicists. 

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Josephus (possibly) referenced Jesus, so it's' not completely accurate to say that it is definite that a non-Christian writer never mentioned him as a historical figure.

No, he didn't. Except by fanatical christians, this reference is generally accepted as a forgery. Did you read Nicholas Walter's letter where he points our:

Quote:

The early Christians were acutely aware of the absence of good evidence for the life and death of Jesus, so they perpetrated what were called “pious frauds” to fill the gap. In the second century Justin and Tertullian referred to official reports by Pontius Pilate, and in the fourth century Eusebius quoted letters between Paul and Seneca. Above all, some time between the early third century and the early fourth century, the famous reference to Jesus was interpolated into Josephus's history of the Jews. This forgery destroys itself, since it makes Josephus, who was a religious Jew, refer to Jesus as if he were the Messiah and a divine being. None of this material is accepted by any serious Christian scholar today.

Of course in the end it doesn't matter whether or not Jesus existed. Even if he did, christianity is still a load of crap. After all, Mohammed existed as a historical figure and that doesn't stop islam being a load of crap too.

The mentioning of Jesus on Josephus works is an interpolation.( the bible has 2,700 interpolations )  He never mentioned him because he never existed.Christianity was a working class movement which existed in Rome. Paul existed and he wrote ( or others wrote for him )  a lot of crap too, and he was not killed because of his beliefs, they killed him becausehe was part of the Herodian family and he was considered a criminal. He was not a Jewish either, he was a  Syrian and a citizen of Rome. He suffered from Syphilis and the medication to treat it was  Opium or Hashi and that is the reason why he had those illusions about the third heaven and his encounter with Jesus. It is all crap too

[Anonymous]

Marcos wrote:

ALB wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Josephus (possibly) referenced Jesus, so it's' not completely accurate to say that it is definite that a non-Christian writer never mentioned him as a historical figure.

No, he didn't. Except by fanatical christians, this reference is generally accepted as a forgery. Did you read Nicholas Walter's letter where he points our:

Quote:

The early Christians were acutely aware of the absence of good evidence for the life and death of Jesus, so they perpetrated what were called “pious frauds” to fill the gap. In the second century Justin and Tertullian referred to official reports by Pontius Pilate, and in the fourth century Eusebius quoted letters between Paul and Seneca. Above all, some time between the early third century and the early fourth century, the famous reference to Jesus was interpolated into Josephus's history of the Jews. This forgery destroys itself, since it makes Josephus, who was a religious Jew, refer to Jesus as if he were the Messiah and a divine being. None of this material is accepted by any serious Christian scholar today.

Of course in the end it doesn't matter whether or not Jesus existed. Even if he did, christianity is still a load of crap. After all, Mohammed existed as a historical figure and that doesn't stop islam being a load of crap too.

The mentioning of Jesus on Josephus works is an interpolation.( the bible has 2,700 interpolations )  He never mentioned him because he never existed.Christianity was a working class movement which existed in Rome. Paul existed and he wrote ( or others wrote for him )  a lot of crap too, and he was not killed because of his beliefs, they killed him becausehe was part of the Herodian family and he was considered a criminal. He was not a Jewish either, he was a  Syrian and a citizen of Rome. He suffered from Syphilis and the medication to treat it was  Opium or Hashi and that is the reason why he had those illusions about the third heaven and his encounter with Jesus. It is all crap too

The Boliviaran propagated the idea that Jesus was the first communist in order to win the sympathy of the Venezuelan peasants and the general population. 

[Anonymous]

roman wrote:

‘Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.’

I would be interested to know what your take on this qoute is. I see it as a fine religious sentiment with nothing whatsover to do with communism/socialism.

[Author]

Posts