The politics of Jesus

[Shad]

A lack of engagement with the material culture and social milieu of Roman Palestine might account for the misreading of Jesus forwarded by Shad.

No misreading by me. I just pointed out acts of violence by Jesus. Acts of violence Jesus never denounced from the OT. John and Jesus never telling soldiers to quit their jobs. Perhaps open the Bible and read it would help you. You are taking a few verses in isolation to reconstruct Jesus into what you want him to be it seems

 

[pearl]

No misreading by me. I just pointed out acts of violence by Jesus. Acts of violence Jesus never denounced from the OT. John and Jesus never telling soldiers to quit their jobs. Perhaps open the Bible and read it would help you. You are taking a few verses in isolation to reconstruct Jesus into what you want him to be it seems

Reading the Bible is simply not enough for addressing historical questions as it is a document of faith. It ought to be read along with critical historical scholarship concerning the time and culture as Jesus was a man of his time and of his culture.

 

[pearl]

Jewish customs not Roman. It was not about resistance but about humiliation

I agree that the non violent resistance was a way of taking the sting out of humiliation.

 

[Vouthon]

Perhaps open the Bible and read it would help you.

Anyone can do that and come up with nearly anything, if read in isolation from the material culture and social milieu from which the text under discussion arose.

New Testament scholars spend years acquiring proficiency in their field of expertise, including the linguistic skill necessary to read the original texts in Greek, and submit their studies for peer review by other experts in the field.

If I may be so bold as to suggest, you might find it worthwhile to familiarise yourself with the scholarship. I try always to cite scholarship - in addition to primary source material from the text itself and contemporaneous literature - to back up my arguments, from those with the credentials to write authoritatively in this area. Have you done the same?

 

[Shad]

Anyone can do that and come up with nearly anything, if read in isolation from the material culture and social milieu from which the text under discussion arose.

Which is the point I made about so-called pacifism. You never countered my point nor even addressed it.

New Testament scholars spend years acquiring proficiency in their field of expertise, including the linguistic skill necessary to read the original texts in Greek, and submit their studies for peer review by other experts in the field.

So? That does not make their conclusions unchallenged nor correct by default. Your point is moot.

If I may be so bold as to suggest, you might find it worthwhile to familiarise yourself with the scholarship. I try always to cite scholarship - in addition to primary source material from the text itself and contemporaneous literature - to back up my arguments, from those with the credentials to write authoritatively in this area. Have you done the same?

I have referenced by paraphrasing a very verses already. I do not need to cite authorities to point out contradiction with soldiers compared to a claim about Jesus. Now do you have a point or are you just going to use vague authority figures to hide behind?

 

[Shad]

I agree that the non violent resistance was a way of taking the sting out of humiliation.

It is more about the power to humiliate.

 

[Shad]

Reading the Bible is simply not enough for addressing historical questions as it is a document of faith. It ought to be read along with critical historical scholarship concerning the time and culture as Jesus was a man of his time and of his culture.

Irrelevant as per the verses I paraphrased with interaction with soldiers. Not once did John nor Jesus tell a soldier to quit their trade. More so Christian pacifism is irrational on a national and/or global level.

 

[metis]

It is almost impossible to ascertain whether Jesus' peace statements were a reflection of a complete abstaining of using deadly force, and this controversy raged in the 2nd century Church and beyond. At first, those who were in the Church could not join the Romans in even policing actions, but by the end of the 2nd century [going by my memory, which is sometimes rather dubious] matters short of war that may include some of the flock were allowed. However, if war broke out, they had to leave that role. [source: "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson-- Anglican]

Eventually the decision of adhering to what became called the "Just-War Theory" was allowed, which had sharp restrictions on when one could engage in a war, and by-and-large only defensive actions that try to minimize civilian deaths were allowed. Wiki has a good article on this, btw, so one may want to check thoat out for further info.

 

[j1i]

In today's terms, where do you think Jesus would sit on the 'political spectrum' (if transferred into our secular thought) and how would you define his politics?

Here's my take on it (please provide your own with justifications!)

Scholarly reconstructions of the biblical data may assist us here:

"...Jesus' message was controversial and threatening to the established institutions of religious and political power in his society: the message carried with it a fundamental transvaluation of values, an exalting of the humble and a critique of the mighty. The theme of reversal seems to have been pervasive in his thought […] This reversal motif is built into the deep structure of Jesus' message, present in all layers of the tradition […] a foundational element of Jesus' teaching."

- Professor Richard Hays (Moral Vision of the New Testament, p. 164)​

"...a ‘revolutionary’ or ‘subversive’ attitude towards empire, wealth, and inequality is an integral part of the earliest [Jesus] tradition and a product of socio-economic changes in Palestine as Jesus was growing up...the Jesus movement interacted with the[se] social upheavals in Galilee and Judea, as well as the Roman empire more broadly. The earliest Palestinian tradition pitted the kingdom of God against Rome, attacked wealth and privilege, supported the poorest members of society, and saw Jesus as an agent of the kingdom in both present and future [in which] rich and poor would be reversed."

- Professor James G. Crossley (Jesus and the Chaos of History: Redirecting the Life of the Historical Jesus, p.163)


"...The kingdom of God is characterized by the active identification and critique of coercive relations of power, and the enactment of new, egalitarian modes of social life. This is seen, perhaps most acutely, in the recurrent, general motif of reversal which is typical of traditions associated with Jesus [....] The socio-political nature of much of this reversal is obvious to a modern reader without knowledge of the specific political, religious and cultural context of first-century Palestine – though such knowledge is necessary for a fuller exploration of its implications.

In Jesus' vision, the kingdom belonged to the poor, not the rich; to the hungry, not those who were full; to the tax-collectors and prostitutes not chiefs priests and the aristocrats; to children not adults; to sinners and not the righteous. Its values were exemplified by foreigners, beggars, and impoverished widows not the religiously, politically and economically powerful. We find this theme in aphorisms, commandments, and sayings ascribed to the historical Jesus, but, perhaps above all, in the parables [...] But perhaps the most compelling evidence of socio-political reversal in traditions associated with Jesus is the recurrent portrayal of his own praxis, as someone who lived with the outcasts and the socially marginal, and in an almost constant state of conflict with those who were not.

The theme of reversal functions not just to expose a number of inequitable relationships, but also to make visible and valorise the powerless within them, and their needs and their desires. In addition to the theme of reversal we can see a significant cluster of traditions in which exploitation, whether economic, legal, theocratic, military, or medical, is exposed and condemned, and responses advocated or made available that affirm both the agency of the oppressed and their capacity to resist such oppression."

- Professor Justin Meggitt (Anachronism, anarchism and the historical Jesus, p.18-19)

​

For a comprehensive (and now classic) study of the theme of reversal in the ethics of Jesus see Allen Verhey, The Great Reversal: Ethics and the New Testament (Exeter: Paternoster, 1984)

Personally, in light of the clear evidence, I'd have to place Jesus firmly on the left-wing - at least economically and in terms of the social good - and if pushed to be more precise, probably somewhere between pacifist anarchism and revolutionary socialism.

My rationale runs as follows:

One of the things the majority of historical Jesus scholars can agree on (in spite of the myriad of competing and overlapping perspectives, ranging from apocalyptic prophet, prophet of social change, cynic philosopher, charismatic healer etc.), is that his entire worldview was anchored in the belief in something scholars call a "great reversal" of fortune.

This 'reversal', however conceptualised (and that depends on your paradigm of the historical Jesus), would see the traditional hierarchy of society upended and subverted, with those presently at the bottom of the social order - the poor, the dispossessed, the disabled, prostitutes, the socially marginalised - somehow placed at the top in the 'kingdom', whereas those presently at the highest rungs of society - the rich, the kings, rulers, nobility, priests, teachers of the law - would find themselves cast down to the bottom. (In simplistic terms).

There is basically no scholar trying to reconstruct the historical Jesus who doesn't accept this socio-political-moral belief as being paradigmatic of his worldview. This teaching, one might say basic assumption, is woven into so many disparate logia (sayings), parables and stories in the synoptic tradition, that it has to be accepted as a basic axiom of 'Jesusism'. If we can say at least one thing about what the historical Jesus might have taught, then we can would aver that he taught a great social reversal.

And whatever way you cut it, if transplanted to today, a modern-day Jesus would not be a conservative or defender of the status quo with such a radical ideological standpoint. He would be on the 'left': an opponent of the established institutions of privilege, unequal structures, distribution of resources and power relations / exploitative relationships that preyed on the weak in society. Certainly, if 'conservatism' is nowadays defined by capitalist economics, Jesus would not have supported it. I don't think that's seriously contestable.

Moving on to specifics - what kind of 'leftist' would he be in our contemporary, secular terms? (again just my opinion)

(continued....)

The open culture of the people is far from moral integrity and public morality
nations will determine their interests according to the level of consensus between the ideas of Jesus and the people.
It is difficult for societies to agree with Jesus' policy because Jesus loves austerity and altruism and hates bad morals and bad habits and wearing naked women

It will therefore not be acceptable and effective. Unless Jesus took a military remedial package

In Islam, the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is said to say that Jesus asks everyone to submit to god and anyone who refuses will be fighting

Jesuit Military Policy

Because human beings by nature love to object in the most rational things

Note: God sends Jesus to help believers in their war against Satan and Jesus in my culture as man and not God

 

[Vouthon]

Which is the point I made about so-called pacifism. You never countered my point nor even addressed it.

'Pacifism' is a modern anachronism, I concede, the more accurate term would be "non-violent social prophet" or "prophet of non-violent social change". The basic truism here is that he counselled against violent "resistance to evildoers" of any kind or form. One was to love one's enemies, bless those who cursed you, pray for those who abused you, let your abuser hit you on the other cheek rather than retaliating etc. etc.

One of the points you raised, if I recall, is that Jesus's disciples were "armed" with swords when he was arrested (even though the gospels subsequently have him condemning them for using them to try and protect him)?

The more common meaning of the Greek term μάχαιρα (machaira) is actually "knife" - as in the sacrificial knives they would have been using to celebrate the Passover and prepare the paschal lamb. I'll quote the scholar Professor Paula Fredrikssen on this one:

"carrying a μάχαιρα was one of the last things that would have gotten a Jewish male arrested at Passover. One man out of every ten-person group (if we can trust the principles of Josephus’s reckoning for Passover) would have done so: 255,600 is the number that he gives for sheep slain, thus for males sacrificing. μάχαιρα in this context does not mean ‘sword’. It means ‘knife’, specifically the large knife used for slaughtering animals in sacrifice. It translates the Hebrew word מאכלת , as at Gen. 22.6 LXX...The point, however, is that the men on the temple mount would have carried their own knives to do the slaughtering.

If any of Jesus's followers, the night of the meal, indeed carried μάχαιραι as the synoptic evangelists portray, this would align the episode in Gethsemane (Mk 14.47 and parr.) with the preceding story of the disciples’ arrangements for themselves and their teacher ‘to eat the Passover’ (Mk 14. 12-16): they would have come to Jerusalem prepared to offer the corban. So too tens of thousands of other pilgrims would have done. Contending with masses of pilgrims carrying sacrificial knives was part and parcel of dealing with the city at Passover, both for the priests and for the Roman soldiers assisting during the holiday to police the temple precincts...What we can know, if we as historians try to imagine ourselves back in Jerusalem at Pesach before the temple’s destruction, is that, in this earlier and specific Jewish context, μάχαιρα meant ‘knife’. Bearing one aligned its owner with the temple’s cult, and with the festival protocols of Leviticus, of Numbers and of Deuteronomy...Carrying a sacrificial knife at such a holiday implies nothing in terms of armed revolt against Rome. In short: the gospels do not present Jesus's disciples as armed." (Paula Fredriksen, ‘Jesus in Jerusalem: Armed and Not Dangerous’ (p.322 - 324))
​

It would have been very strange for observant Jewish-males not to have had μάχαιρα on the Passover. According to Josephus, 255,600 machairai were carried by Jewish males to offer paschal sacrifice at the Temple on Passover.

It does not suggest that the Jesus movement was "militant", indeed Jesus' disavowal of one of his follower's recourse to violence in an attempt to stop him from being arrested is clearly evidenced in all four gospels:

Matthew 26:52​

Ἀπόστρεψον τὴν μάχαιράν σου εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς, πάντες γὰρ οἱ λαβόντες μάχαιραν ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀπολοῦνται:​

“Put your machaira back in its place; for all who take the machaira will perish by the machaira"​

This is a clear counsel against using the machaira as a weapon of violence in defence of Jesus, because of the cycle of violence that would ensue. Each gospel gives a different response but they all concur in having Jesus condemning the disciple who resorted to force in protecting him i.e.

Luke 22:49-51

When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our machaira?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him
​

There are many other instances where Jesus restrains the violent impulses of his followers i.e.

Luke 9:52-55​

"He sent messengers on ahead, who went into a village of the Samaritans to make arrangements for Him. But the people there refused to welcome Him, because He was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do You want us to call down fire from heaven to consume them?”

But Jesus turned and rebuked them, and He said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy the lives of men, but to save them." And they went on to another village"​

 

[pearl]

In around A.D. 27-30 (coterminous with the ministry of John the Baptist and the start of Jesus' ministry), a remarkable event took place in Roman-occupied Judea under the prefecture of Pontius Pilate, which is recorded by the first century Jewish historians Josephus and Philo. Professor Bart Ehrman notes that Pilate was, "a cruel, vicious, hard-headed, insensitive, and brutal ruler".

And it is my understanding that Pilate as procurator was charged with keeping the peace in Jerusalem among the Jews during Passover. There existed an interdependence between Pilate and the High Priest who served at Pilates pleasure.
Many of the 'crowds' mentioned in the Gospels are rebels, zealots, enemies of Roman occupiers who never heard of Jesus. According to Pinchas Lapide Jesus offered a 'practical strategy', thereby breaking the cycle of violence.
The correct context, which is Jewish, is critical in any study of the Gospels as they are the only source for the historical Jesus, all other sources relate only what Christians did and believed. And that context is only found through layer after layer of extant evidence.

Thanks for such an in-depth post.

 

[sooda]

And it is my understanding that Pilate as procurator was charged with keeping the peace in Jerusalem among the Jews during Passover. There existed an interdependence between Pilate and the High Priest who served at Pilates pleasure.
Many of the 'crowds' mentioned in the Gospels are rebels, zealots, enemies of Roman occupiers who never heard of Jesus. According to Pinchas Lapide Jesus offered a 'practical strategy', thereby breaking the cycle of violence.
The correct context, which is Jewish, is critical in any study of the Gospels as they are the only source for the historical Jesus, all other sources relate only what Christians did and believed. And that context is only found through layer after layer of extant evidence.

Thanks for such an in-depth post.

Jesus did offer a practical strategy, but he failed to convince the various Jewish factions that fought each other and the Roman oppression.

 

[Vouthon]

According to Pinchas Lapide Jesus offered a 'practical strategy', thereby breaking the cycle of violence.

Well put, yes indeed.

@Shad's contention that Jesus is a violent would-be insurrectionist has a long pedigree of successful rebuttals in scholarship, as Professor Brian Pounds has noted in a study out earlier this year: "the portrait of Jesus as a violent rebel is not well received among present day scholars and is an example of the over-extension of the criterion of crucifiability" (p.114). The reason it is 'not well-received' is that: "the ubiquitous portrayal of a non-violent Jesus throughout the gospels in combination with more plausible alternative interpretations of sayings supposed to imply violence outweigh the aforementioned one-sided interpretations of these small number of logia" (p.20).

As he writes persuasively at greater length (and this bears close reading):

"Two of Jesus’ sayings containing the term “sword” are metaphorical admonitions concerning the division and opposition that following Jesus entails,635 while another clearly admonishes the use of violence: “Those who take up the sword, will die by the sword” (Matt 26:52).

The prophetic context to which the so-called Triumphal Entry alludes pictures a peaceful messianic figure who rides on a donkey instead of a warhorse and is installed by divine intervention rather than by force of arms.636 The temple action in its gospel contexts functions as a form of economic protest or portent of destruction rather than an armed rebellion. If Jesus had attempted to stage an armed rebellion in the temple, he almost certainly would have been killed there and then by the Temple police and/or Roman cohort stationed in the Antonia Tower.

The sword swipe of the disciple in Gethesemane indicates that broad resistance was not offered at Jesus' arrest, evidenced by the fact that several disciples were not arrested or killed on the spot.638

In addition to these individual contested points, the larger challenge to any hypothesis that Jesus was a violent revolutionary is the lack of any first century sources that unambiguously portray Jesus in a violent manner. There is no question that the overall portrayal of Jesus in the gospels is essentially non-violent.640 Nowhere does Jesus take up a weapon in order to kill, as rebels did. On the contrary, he advocates nonviolence, even in the face of imperial oppression.641 These more plausible interpretations and contexts outweigh the previous set of interpretations used to reconstruct Jesus as a rebel. Moreover, they align with the non-violent representation of Jesus in all other material...

As opposed to these attempts to portray Jesus as a violent rebel, in recent decades a new portrait has
emerged of Jesus as a non-violent anti-imperialist....

Taking Jesus' crucifixion together with isolated details such as the armed resistance at his arrest and gospel sayings that mention “swords” does not warrant sweeping away the overall consistency of the gospel portraits of Jesus as essentially nonviolent. This is a poignant example of the overapplication of Jesus’ crucifixion as a criterion to the point that other highly probable historical evidence is excluded...

We found that the more recent reconstruction of Jesus as a nonviolent anti-imperialist, represented in the works of Richard A. Horsley, is worthy of deeper consideration...His emphasis upon Jesus' economic conflicts has an historically plausible basis and has explanatory value for Jesus' crucifixion because it connects to the shared ruling interest of the Judaean aristocracy and the Roman provincial administration. If Jesus implicitly questioned the right of Roman tribute, denied the validity of an annual temple tax, and publicly critiqued the oppression of wealthy ruling élites, these together fit quite naturally with the gospels’ representation of Jesus’ action in the temple as a form of economic protest." (The Crucifiable Jesus (2019) p.147)​

By the 'criterion of crucifiability' what Pounds is saying here is that the one thing 'armed-rebel-Jesus' proponents do have going for their deeply flawed thesis is that it takes seriously the crucifiability of Jesus - against which every model of his life must be weighed and account for. To quote Professor Larry Hurtado, “Indeed, one criterion that ought to be applied rigorously in modern scholarly proposals about the historical Jesus is what we might call the condition of 'crucifiability': You ought to produce a picture of Jesus that accounts for him being crucified.” (Hurtado, Larry. “Why Was Jesus Crucified?” Slate Magazine April 9, 2009).

Professor Richard Horsley likewise emphasises that Jesus' manner of death demonstrates “[h]is program of resistance to the imperial order.” Conversely, he views certain other Jesuses to be invalid on the basis of their uncrucifiability:

"It is hard to image, however, that either a visionary or an itinerant teacher would have been sufficiently threatening to the Roman imperial order that he would have been crucified"​

In this respect, though, even the minority of scholarly 'armed-Jesus-movement' advocates like Dale Martin would strongly disagree with Shad when he describes Jesus as the "bum at the bottom of the imperial order". No way - the Romans would not bother crucifying a 'bum'. That's why Jesus ben Ananias was released by the Prefect Albinus, deemed a harmless 'madman'.

The Romans took Jesus far more seriously. As Pounds notes in relation to the very different treatment of the two 'Jesuses':

"Josephus' account of one Jesus son of Ananias: Josephus depicts this Jesus as continuously proclaiming woe on Jerusalem until he is apprehended by Judaean authorities who in turn hand him over to the Roman procurator. Albinus has him severely flogged, but amidst Jesus' unyielding proclamation of woes against Jerusalem, the governor releases him on the grounds of his insanity (mani,an; J.W. 6.305)

Both figures are depicted as pronouncing doom, subsequently apprehended by Judaean authorities, and then handed over to the Roman governor.729 However, it is pertinent to note that despite the similarity that both Jesuses are apprehended at least partially on the basis of a similar offence, one Jesus is let go whilst the other is crucified. It is precisely because of his perceived insanity, not in spite of it, that the former Jesus is released.730"
​

They perceived Jesus of Nazareth as a genuine threat to the status quo, not some harnless, insane "bum" like Jesus ben Ananias.

Likewise, those Christians and others who try to present a "lovey-dovey" purely religious characterisation of Jesus as someone who got along with everyone and didn't challenge the entrenched inequities and powers-that-be in his society, as well as the imperial - priestly order, completely fails the crucifiability criterion. Both are implausible in the extreme and evidence a lack of understanding of the rationale behind crucifixion.

As Professor Pounds rightly states:

"Victims of the cross are often depicted as those who participated in seditious or treasonous activities, such as defamation of the emperor, military desertion, or outright rebellion...​

Certain crucifixion scenarios can be eliminated as pertaining to Jesus of Nazareth because they defy other probabilities of his historical context. Jesus neither died during the time of a Jewish revolt against Rome nor did he die during the persecution of a religious group, thereby eliminating the possibility that he was captured as a victim of circumstance during those two scenarios.

There is no reasonable evidence that Jesus was engaged in banditry, eliminating that crucifiable offence. In addition, we should note the obvious fact that Jesus was not a slave. This is significant because slaves were more likely than free people to be arbitrarily crucified, as the former were sometimes threatened with crucifixion on the whims of their masters.

We are left with the manageable alternatives that Jesus was either considered a seditionist or a rebel".​

 

[Vouthon]

In addition to all that, I would add the testimony of the first century 'memories' of the historical Jesus outside the four gospels that are preserved in the epistles section of the New Testament. Some of these, such as the Pauline letters and Hebrews, are older than or concurrent with the earliest of the synoptic gospels - and are thus some of our most primitive records of the character of Jesus.

In none of these do we find him 'remembered' as having been a militant, violent person in his lifetime - quite the contrary, they are unanimous in depicting him as non-violent.

Firstly, St. Paul whose letters dating from the 50s AD are our earliest Christian texts (pre-dating the gospel accounts). In 2 Corinthians Paul tells us about the exemplary "meekness and gentleness of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:1), which can hardly be construed as militant. In his letters, Paul thus counsels that followers of Christ - imitating his 'gentleness' - must never "repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all [...] live peaceably with all" (Romans 12:17). In 1 Corinthians, he describes the conduct of people who are "wise in Christ [...] When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we speak kindly" (1 Corinthians 4:12-13).

Hebrews 12:3 informs us: "Consider him [Jesus] who endured such hostility against himself from sinners".

Here Jesus is described as passively enduring hostility from 'sinners', not retaliating violently.

1 Peter 2:23: "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps [...] When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly".

Again, the first century community that gave us the letter of Peter had no memory or notion of a 'violent' Jesus but once more a Jesus who patiently endured abuse and never retaliated.

This all works to further buttress the numerous occasions in the actual gospels where Jesus is recorded as having advocated nonviolence even in the face of imperial oppression i.e. Mark 14:48; Matt 5:9, 26:52; Matt 5:39-44= Luke 6:29-6:35.

 

[Shad]

Well put, yes indeed.

@Shad's contention that Jesus is a violent would-be insurrectionist

I never said that. You are attacking a strawman, Impressive how you could create such a claim from what I said. All I am saying is Jesus was not a pacific nor was non-violence an absolute.

 

[Shad]

'Pacifism' is a modern anachronism, I concede, the more accurate term would be "non-violent social prophet" or "prophet of non-violent social change". The basic truism here is that he counselled against violent "resistance to evildoers" of any kind or form. One was to love one's enemies, bless those who cursed you, pray for those who abused you, let your abuser hit you on the other cheek rather than retaliating etc. etc.

Yet was violent when the need required it. Toss in OT stuff as well. Again you going into points I didn't actually make such as being a militant like the Zealots. You forget that Peter was going to use the weapon. More so you forgot he was fulfilling what he saw as prophecy so fighting back at that time was against the goal of martyrdom.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Jesus was a lot like Trump:

Helping those who need help (poverty stricken, unemployed).

Confronting the wicked and old from the prior status quo (Crooked Hillary).

Sacrificing himself for the good of mankind (had he stayed out of politics, his legacy would have been less polarizing).

And all round making the world a better place.

I hope this is a joke...

 

[Sand Dancer]

In today's terms, where do you think Jesus would sit on the 'political spectrum' (if transferred into our secular thought) and how would you define his politics?

Helping the poor, sick, marginalized and despised, putting the first last and last first, and sharing what you have and giving your goods to the poor does not sound at all conservative. He was always at odds with the conservative and legalistic religious leaders of the day who wanted to get in people's faces and moralize, all while giving themselves the best and leaving crumbs for the rest of society.

 

[Vouthon]

Helping the poor, sick, marginalized and despised, putting the first last and last first, and sharing what you have and giving your goods to the poor does not sound at all conservative. He was always at odds with the conservative and legalistic religious leaders of the day who wanted to get in people's faces and moralize, all while giving themselves the best and leaving crumbs for the rest of society.

Succinctly and brilliantly put

 

[whirlingmerc]

You need to add a "Yuge" in there.

Jesus is in a sense apolitical and in a sense ultimately political in that he offers mercy and is ruling now and more visibly ruling in the future.

When he comes again he will be seen as what he is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. That He already is.

"Why do the nations rage and rulers conspire together against the Lord and against His anointed... the Lord laughs... Kiss the Son lest he be angry and you perish in the way" Psalm 2