Was Jesus a Violent Revolutionary?

[John2]

What else do you make of Mk. 13 and 8:38 (for examples)? I think the only difference between Jesus and other Fourth Philosophers (which is the type of Judaism I place Jesus in) is that Jesus believed in suffering and dying first (in keeping with his interpretations of various OT passages) and then being a violent revolutionary as a spiritual being after his resurrection. And I don't see what difference it makes if Jesus participated in overturning the order of things as a human or as a spiritual being when the end result is the same; the destruction of the Temple, nations fighting against nations, children rising against their parents, his followers being hated, and whoever was ashamed of him being ashamed of by the "son of man" when he "comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”

Consider what Rev. 8:6-13 says regarding these angels.

And the seven angels with the seven trumpets prepared to sound them.

Then the first angel sounded his trumpet, and hail and fire mixed with blood were hurled down upon the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, along with a third of the trees and all the green grass.

Then the second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned to blood, a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.

Then the third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star burning like a torch fell from heaven and landed on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water.The name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter like wormwood oil, and many people died from the bitter waters.

Then the fourth angel sounded his trumpet, and a third of the sun and moon and stars were struck. A third of the stars were darkened, a third of the day was without light, and a third of the night as well.

And as I observed, I heard an eagle flying overhead, calling in a loud voice, “Woe! Woe! Woe to those who dwell on the earth, because of the trumpet blasts about to be sounded by the remaining three angels!”

And consider what Rev. 14:14-20 says about the "son of man."

And I looked and saw a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was One like the Son of Man, with a golden crown on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand.

Then another angel came out of the temple, crying out in a loud voice to the One seated on the cloud, “Swing Your sickle and reap, because the time has come to harvest; for the crop of the earth is ripe.” So the One seated on the cloud swung His sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested.

Then another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. Still another angel, with authority over the fire, came from the altar and called out in a loud voice to the angel with the sharp sickle, “Swing your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from the vine of the earth, because its grapes are ripe.”

So the angel swung his sickle over the earth and gathered the grapes of the earth, and he threw them into the great winepress of God’s wrath. And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and the blood that flowed from it rose as high as the bridles of the horses for a distance of 1,600 stadia.

And Rev. 16:18-21.

And there were flashes of lightning, and rumblings, and peals of thunder, and a great earthquake the likes of which had not occurred since men were upon the earth—so mighty was the great quake. The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. And God remembered Babylon the great and gave her the cup of the wine of the fury of His wrath.

Then every island fled, and no mountain could be found. And great hailstones weighing almost a hundred pounds each rained down on them from above. And men cursed God for the plague of hail, because it was so horrendous.

And Rev. 17:14.

They will make war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will triumph over them, because he is Lord of lords and King of kings; and he will be accompanied by his called and chosen and faithful ones.

And Rev. 19:11-16.

Then I saw heaven standing open, and there before me was a white horse. And its rider is called Faithful and True. With righteousness he judges and wages war. He has eyes like blazing fire, and many royal crowns on his head. He has a name written on him that only he himself knows. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is The Word of God.

The armies of heaven, dressed in fine linen, white and pure, follow him on white horses. And from his mouth proceeds a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with an iron scepter.d He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. And he has a name written on his robe and on his thigh: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

This is exactly the kind of stuff Jesus discusses in Mk. 8:38 and 13. And as he says in Mk. 14:51-52:

Again the high priest questioned him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”

“I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

So I don't know how else to characterize Jesus if not as a violent revolutionary. Whatever meekness he exhibited while he was alive was only the first part of his agenda, to suffer and die before being resurrected as a world conquering spiritual being. And it was only the suffering and dying part that baffled his followers; otherwise Jesus had the same goal as other Fourth Philosophers.

Cf. War 6.5.4:

But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination.

And I find this kind of thinking as ridiculous as Domitian did in Hegesippus' account of the grandsons of Jude in EH 3.20.6-7:

And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.

Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go ...

[Joseph D. L.]

My own personal theory is that "Jesus" is an amalgamation of Lukuas, bar Kochba, and Hadrian, all of whom had their own revolutionary goals in mind. But that's more surface level stuff. Wasn't the fourth philosophy also something along the lines of the Dositheans and Logos believers?

[mlinssen]

Take the IC of Thomas and try to give him shape into Christianity - you'll automatically wind up with the many different compromises that you find throughout the NT

Logion 6, 14, 27, 39, 52, 53, 102, 104

And the IC of Thomas was many times more aggressive than current translations pass down, by the way

https://www.academia.edu/42110001/Inte ... normalised

[John2]

Wasn't the fourth philosophy also something along the lines of the Dositheans and Logos believers?

Well, I suppose the Dositheans could have been Samaritan "fourth philosophers" in the sense that some Samaritans were militant and "messianic" like Fourth Philosophers were, but from the point of view of Josephus Samaritans weren't a "fourth philosophy" of Judaism, and since he says that aside from their militancy and changes to the oral Torah Fourth Philosophers agreed with Pharisaic "notions" and one of their founders was a Pharisee, I'd say that the Fourth Philosophy was rather "something along the lines of" Pharisaism.

[Joseph D. L.]

Wasn't the fourth philosophy also something along the lines of the Dositheans and Logos believers?

Well, I suppose the Dositheans could have been Samaritan "fourth philosophers" in the sense that some Samaritans were militant and "messianic" like Fourth Philosophers were, but from the point of view of Josephus Samaritans weren't a "fourth philosophy" of Judaism, and since he says that aside from their militancy and changes to the oral Torah Fourth Philosophers agreed with Pharisaic "notions" and one of their founders was a Pharisee, I'd say that the Fourth Philosophy was rather "something along the lines of" Pharisaism.

I remember watching an interview that Price gave with Mythvision where he said that the Zealots didn’t just adhere to a militant orthodoxy but beliefs of mysticism, especially in the Logos.

[John2]

Wasn't the fourth philosophy also something along the lines of the Dositheans and Logos believers?

Well, I suppose the Dositheans could have been Samaritan "fourth philosophers" in the sense that some Samaritans were militant and "messianic" like Fourth Philosophers were, but from the point of view of Josephus Samaritans weren't a "fourth philosophy" of Judaism, and since he says that aside from their militancy and changes to the oral Torah Fourth Philosophers agreed with Pharisaic "notions" and one of their founders was a Pharisee, I'd say that the Fourth Philosophy was rather "something along the lines of" Pharisaism.

I remember watching an interview that Price gave with Mythvision where he said that the Zealots didn’t just adhere to a militant orthodoxy but beliefs of mysticism, especially in the Logos.

I haven't seen it. Why does he think this? Just curious.

The Pharisees had mystical beliefs, like Merkabah mysticism, which is also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (which is another Pharisaic "notion" that makes me suspect some of the DSS are Fourth Philosophic writings).

[Joseph D. L.]

Wasn't the fourth philosophy also something along the lines of the Dositheans and Logos believers?

Well, I suppose the Dositheans could have been Samaritan "fourth philosophers" in the sense that some Samaritans were militant and "messianic" like Fourth Philosophers were, but from the point of view of Josephus Samaritans weren't a "fourth philosophy" of Judaism, and since he says that aside from their militancy and changes to the oral Torah Fourth Philosophers agreed with Pharisaic "notions" and one of their founders was a Pharisee, I'd say that the Fourth Philosophy was rather "something along the lines of" Pharisaism.

I remember watching an interview that Price gave with Mythvision where he said that the Zealots didn’t just adhere to a militant orthodoxy but beliefs of mysticism, especially in the Logos.

I haven't seen it. Why does he think this? Just curious.

The Pharisees had mystical beliefs, like Merkabah mysticism, which is also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (which is another Pharisaic "notion" that makes me suspect some of the DSS are Fourth Philosophic writings).

Maybe it wasn’t Price. It was definitely a Mythvision episode though.

I think there is a more radical distinction between Pharisees and Zealots, at least enough for Josephus. I think the Qumran community were made up of surviving Zealots that morphed into the Ebionites.

[John2]

I think there is a more radical distinction between Pharisees and Zealots, at least enough for Josephus.

Josephus notes the distinctions between Fourth Philosophers and Pharisees, namely militancy and changing some of the oral Torah, but otherwise he says they agreed with Pharisaic "notions" and that one of their founders was a Pharisee. This is why I call Fourth Philosophers "radical Pharisees."

[John2]

I think it makes sense that Fourth Philosophers agreed with Pharisaic "notions" not only because one of their founders was a Pharisee but also because, as Josephus says, "the Pharisees have the multitude on their side," and thus most Jews who joined the Fourth Philosophy would have already agreed with Pharisaic "notions," a situation that is also noted in Mk. 7:3-4:

Now in holding to the tradition of the elders, the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat until they wash their hands ceremonially. And on returning from the market, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions for them to observe, including the washing of cups, pitchers, kettles, and couches for dining.

As in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism, Merkabah mysticism is also a feature of Christianity. As Karlson writes:

G. Vadja, discussing this tradition, understood it was connected with and was a part of the greater Apocalyptic tradition of the time, though its emphasis tended to be less eschatological than other Apocalyptic texts:

]It is undeniable that there exists a certain continuity between the apocalyptic visions (i.e., of the cataclysmic advent of God’s Kingdom), and documents of certain sects (Dead Sea Scrolls) and the writings, preserved in Hebrew, of the “explorers of the supernatural world” (Torde Merkava). The latter comprise ecstatic hymns, descriptions of the “dwellings” (hekhalot) located between the visible world and the ever-inaccessible divinity, whose transcendence is paradoxically expressed by anthropomorphic descriptions consisting in inordinate hyperboles (Shi`ur qoma, “Divine Dimensions”).

...


What the Merkabah literature maps out seems, in part, to be found in Christian Scripture. The idea of the “prince of the power of the air” (cf. Eph. 2:1-2), though often interpreted as representing Satan and demonic powers, nonetheless can be seen as being connected with the various mansions or palaces which impede our ascent to the throne of God. Likewise, when Jesus mentioned that there are many mansions in heaven (cf. Jn. 14:1-4), Jesus is said to be preparing our place within them, indicating, perhaps, once again, this ancient Jewish cosmological view, with the difference that Jesus would do all that was needed to be done for our sake so that we can ascend through them. This then, would also explain why he said:

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man (Jn. 3:12-13 RSV).

Jesus could be seen as indicating that he, and no one else, was the true leader who would take us up through the heavens. Others, like Elijah and Enoch, did not descend all the way from the throne of God, and so cannot ascend all the way to it. They can only lead people to some lesser place in the heavenly realms (however exalted it might be). Therefore, if we want a vision of the most exalted place heaven, if we want to experience it, we need to do so with the direction of Jesus, and this is one way to understand the Apocalypse of John, where the visionary is taken by Jesus to the heavenly courts and the throne of God. In that respect, the New Testament has its own Merkabah text, though its revelation goes much further than what is normally found within the tradition.


https://www.patheos.com/blogs/henrykarl ... istianity/

I think the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christianity and Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism exhibit "notions" like messianism, the resurrection of the dead, Merkabah mysticism and tefillin because the former were offshoots of the latter as factions of the Fourth Philosophy (which had Pharisaic roots). And I think this is also why there were Pharisee (Acts 15:5) and former Pharisee (Paul) Christians and why Jesus is called "Rabbi" and certain prominent Pharisees were tolerant of Christians (e.g., Acts 5:34-39).

And while Jesus criticizes Pharisees for their faults, so do Rabbinic writings (Sotah 22b). As Flusser notes (pg. 91), "The similarity between the negative qualities of the Pharisees in the rabbinic list and Jesus' characterization of the Pharisees in Matthew 23 is astonishing."


https://www.google.com/books/edition/Eu ... frontcover


http://www.come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_22.html#PARTb


And while some Pharisees tried to kill Jesus, others tried to help him, like in Lk. 13:31:

At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, "Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you."

As also noted here:

The high purity standards of Pharisees led some to form exclusive fraternities whose members were known as chaverim (friends). They were choosy about who could join them.

Some Pharisees criticized Yeshua for the company he kept. This indicates that they perceived Yeshua as being a Pharisee like them, not like the sinners who were beneath them. Immediately they called him a “friend of tax collectors and sinners,” we read,

One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table. (Luke 7:36)

An invitation to eat in a Pharisee’s home? They did not grace just anyone with such an honor. And yet, it happened over and over again:

While Jesus was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him, so he went in and reclined at table. (Luke 11:37)

One Sabbath, when he went to dine at the house of a ruler of the Pharisees, they were watching him carefully. (Luke 14:1)

Even though his teachings and behavior sometimes astonished them, it speaks volumes about the Pharisees’ perception of Yeshua that their elite circles welcomed him ...

Hence, it should not surprise us that many Pharisees accepted Yeshua. This includes Nicodemus, who admitted that Yeshua came from God (John 3:2), and stood up for him in front of other leaders (John 7:50-52). Gamaliel similarly stood up for the believers in the Council (Acts 5:34-39).

Many disciples among the Pharisees retained their identity with the Pharisees after they became believers (Acts 15:5). This even included Paul (Acts 23:6, 26:5, Philippians 3:5).

The Pharisees of the Gospels certainly deserved the condemnation they received ... But to avoid being equally contemptible ourselves, it is important for us to understand exactly what the charges were. Simply being a Pharisee is by no means a reproachable behavior ...


https://ffoz.org/discover/gospels/jesus ... isees.html

All things considered, I see Jesus as being a "radical Pharisee," one who agreed with Pharisaic "notions" like messianism, the resurrection of the dead and tefillin (see Mt. 23:5, where Jesus criticizes Pharisees only for wearing big tefillin) but changed some of the oral Torah (when it conflicted with the written Torah) and believed in a violent overthrow of the social order like other Fourth Philosophers (in his case as a world conquering spiritual being after his resurrection, which, as Mk. 8:32 says, "he spoke plainly about").

[John2]

Another example of a Pharisaic "notion" in Christianity is something Ben (following Gundry) has pointed out elsewhere (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2397&hilit=mishnah+mark+blasphemy), that Jesus' trial in Mark 15 resembles the procedure for blasphemy in the MIshnah. As he writes:

Which brings me to an interesting question: does Mark himself understand what the blasphemy was?

If he does, then why does he not give some sort of explanation? Is this really the same author who patiently explains to his (apparently gentile) readership that the Jews observe fastidious purity customs (7.3-4), that two lepta are worth a quadrans (12.42), that a courtyard/palace is also called a praetorium (15.16), and that the day before the sabbath is known as the day of preparation (15.42)?

If he does not, then does that not imply that he is actually passing on a story that he drew from a native Judaic tradition whose tradents presumably did understand the point of the circumlocution and the high priest's reaction?

I'm now leaning towards the second option, and that Mark heard about this custom from Peter, who presumably "did understand the point of the circumlocution and the high priest's reaction."

But in any event, I think Jesus' response to the high priest in MK. 14:61-62 is the ultimate evidence that he was a violent revolutionary.

Again the high priest questioned him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”

“I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

From a believer's point of view this is the most violent threat that can be made, and it is the final expression of what he had taught during his ministry, that:

Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, as well as famines. These are the beginning of birth pains ... How miserable those days will be for pregnant and nursing mothers! Pray that this will not occur in the winter ... For those will be days of tribulation unmatched from the beginning of God’s creation until now, and never to be seen again ... At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.