LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Warrior Jesus

Pure

Pure

Fiel a Verdad
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Posts
15,135
Anyone catch that NY Times article this weekend.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/weekinreview/04kirk.html

It seems many Christians--somewhat similarly to Mel-- are re-assessing Jesus, the Christ, and finding he was no mild mannered pacifist as left liberals and quakers suppose. He wielded a sword. The old 'portraits' of Jesus mistakely make him seem gentle, even spiritual.

Here's a new 'friendly' one I like, "Smiling Jesus."

http://art4god.com/html/?go=originals&image=smiling-jesus

However there are now new pictures of the sword-wielding Jesus. ** Apparently he, in fact, had no truck with evil, and would favor violently stamping it out. "I come not to bring peace, but a sword." as it says in the Gospels (ignored by liberal scholars).

Some of this thinking is connected to the realization that the end is near; judgement is at hand, and the unrighteous shall be trodden down.

:eek:

** Can anyone find and post a url for this picture???

One picture accompanies the article:

Art for God

The 2004 painting "The Warrior," by Stephen S. Sawyer.

http://art4god.com/html/?go=product&id=warrio&PHPSESSID=6f746f9f0611d719e3458ee8d590a856
 
Last edited:
Catholic Supply's Hockey Jesus and Football Jesus action figures represent the far-end of the violence spectrum, savior-wise, as far as I'm concerned.

I think it's irreponsible to show him without a helmet, though.
 
jesus does't need a helmet he's got the breast plate of righteousness oh and I think he's invincible now that he's dead and all :D
 
Pure said:
Anyone catch that NY Times article this weekend. It seems many Christians--somewhat similarly to Mel-- are re-assessing Jesus, the Christ, and finding he was no mild mannered pacifist as left liberals and quakers suppose. He wielded a sword. The old 'portraits' of Jesus mistakely make him seem gentle, even spiritual. There is a new picture of the sword-wielding Jesus. Apparently he, in fact, had no truck with evil, and would favor violently stamping it out. "I come not to bring peace, but a sword." as it says in the Gospels (ignored by liberal scholars).

Some of this thinking is connected to the realization that the end is near; judgement is at hand, and the unrighteous shall be trodden down.

:eek:
Click to expand...


Pure, I've just finished re-reading "Revolution in Judea": A convincing argument that he was a revolutionary, real name "Jesus Barrabas" (Aramaic for "Son of our Father" or "Son of the Rabbi"); along the lines of many others before and after him; notably Judah Maccabbee, whose bloody revolt was put down by the Romans 150 years later.

His use of Pharisee parables and quotes (e.g. "love thy neighbor as thyself") point to him being an educated Pharisee Rabbi. At that time, the Pharisees were very anti-Roman, and were violently opposed to the ruling puppet government appointed by the Romans.

The Sadducees were Romanized Jews, who had become lax, cynical and corrupt, reminding me of some of thecorrupt Westernised Islamic states who exist in constant threat of uprising from fundamentalist-led movements.

The Gospels, all written after the destruction of the Jewish Temple, paint a different, Romanised picture of this great freedom fighter. They were written in a tone of appeasement; embarrassing episodes and sayings of Jesus's life (e.g. the one you quoted) were sometimes left in one or another Gospel due to the authors' reverence; nevertheless, it's clear that Jesus the man was neither divine nor an appeaser of the Romans. No Jew was ever crucified for heresy at that time; but many Jews who tried to overthrow the Roman oppressors and their stooges did suffer the standard Roman punishment for insurrection.
 
Sub Joe, how might Warrior Jesus have reacted when that kid tried to tackle him?
 
shereads said:
Sub Joe, how might Warrior Jesus have reacted when that kid tried to tackle him?
Click to expand...

He would have gripped him by the wrist before the blow could land and said what any tough kid would have said in the playground: "I am the Way and the Light." Try getting out of that one.
 
By the way, can anyone furnish a url of the picture or model of sword-wielding Jesus.??

{{Added: Here's a nice one, with boxing attire, but no sword:

http://www.christcenteredmall.com/stores/art/sawyer/undefeated.htm

http://www.pantherawebdesign.com/lwud/undefeated.html
===
No Appt Necessary

http://www.art4god.com/html/?go=product&id=nan

=====

Found the Sword: "The Warrior"

http://art4god.com/html/?go=product&id=warrio&PHPSESSID=6f746f9f0611d719e3458ee8d590a856 }}




Yes, Sub Joe, I know the argument that he was a revolutionary leading the peasants, I believe Crossan made the argument.

I find it more convincing that he was *mistaken* for a revolutionary, and, since he thought the world would end soon, he did NOT approve of tackling the bad guys with 'arms.' Why bother?

I agree that the Gospels are purged of antiRoman material, such as it may have been. No fight with Rome was desired by 'mark,' 'matthew,' 'luke'...and least of all, 'john.' (History proves them right; 'attack' with ideas, with a submissive 'gospel'; that worked).

As to

His use of Pharisee parables and quotes (e.g. "love thy neighbor as thyself") point to him being an educated Pharisee Rabbi. At that time, the Pharisees were very anti-Roman, and were violently opposed to the ruling puppet government appointed by the Romans.

The Sadducees were Romanized Jews, who had become lax, cynical and corrupt, reminding me of some of thecorrupt Westernised Islamic states who exist in constant threat of uprising from fundamentalist-led movements.

I agree with you about the Sadducees. Indeed I'm of the view that that's likely what got him killed**, i.e., they may have siccked (sp?) the Romans on him to keep their status. I believe the Pharisees got a 'bad rap', esp. since Jesus' teaching was very similar to theirs (to say the least).

I think your picture of the Pharisees is quite mistaken, unless I misread your phrase 'violently opposed' (if you are implying favoring taking up arms against). Remember it was the Pharisee in the form of Yonathan ben xxx who made peace with the Romans after the destruction of Israel; they sought a modus vivendi.

----
**If it wasn't simply the Romans catching sight of a likely, or just *possible* agitator, and doing the apprehending and executing mostly on their own steam. The Romans were very vigilant about such folks, as you indicate. And deadly.
 
Last edited:
Erm.....Jesus was out to shake things up. He went into the temple ad tipped over tables and roared and shouted and generally was rather violent and angry. Righteous indignation and all that.


Now my mum has told me on many occassions of her vision of Jesus. I think possibly she might have picked it up from a sermon or a book or something but anyway my mum sees Jesus running down a corridor in a school hallway whooping for joy, setting of fire extinguishers and generally shaking things up a bit. I like to share that view. :)
 
There is a book, written by Peter, that claims that Jesus spoke of killing a child in a fit of anger. This was when Jesus himself was a child, not as an adult. But the point is that the book was removed from the Bible because it didn't depict the flawless Jesus that the church wanted to project. How could a person who could be overcome by enough anger to commit murder be perfect? How could God on Earth be anything but perfect?

The questions it raises to me is of the credibility of the Bible as a whole. If this book, supposedly written by Peter, Jesus' best friend, isn't true, why would Peter lie about it? If he is lying, what else in the Bible is a lie? What would give any mortal member of the church the right to change what is allegedly the word of their God? Seems a little presumptuous to assert, "What God meant to say was..."
 
Jesus the historical character was in probably originally a Pharisaic Rabbi; a man whose teaching resembles modern Judaism more closely than any other religion.

Personally, I'm fascinated by this period in History. But most honest historians admit that there's simply not enough evidence to state that he existed at all. Historically, Jesus will always remain a mystery unless better evidence comes to light.

I think the Barabbas hypothesis (namely Jesus and Barabbas were one and the same person) is thought-provoking. But it was more likely that Jesus and his followers were a Jewish sect that believed in the literal prophecy of Zechariah, and that Jesus was the messiah, the King of The Jews whom God would aid directly to rid them of their oppressors. Armed struggle was not necessary for them.

Jesus was unlike other more militant pharisee zealots, who considered a more conventional armed insurguence the most expedient method of defeating their occupiers.

Jesus and his disciples failed in their mission to create a Jewish Independent Kingdom; to rid thier land of the hated Romans and their cronies. The Romans continued to tax and loot the area pretty much unchecked for centuries.

The Hellenic, dualistic Christianity of Paul that eventually dominated the Roman Empire has little connection with the Pharisaic teaching of Jesus himself. I think the followers of Jesus in his lifetime would have been mighty upset if they'd have lived to read the distortion of his teaching by the Gospel writers.
 
Joe you are an educated and enlightened figure. Very perceptive. I find myself agreeing with 90% of what you say in your last posting ;)

:rose:
 
RenzaJones said:
lol well I like the tux but I'm going to hold out for a metrosexual jesus I mean it's 2004 tuxes are so 90's
Click to expand...

I do love the way a man looks in a classic tuxedo, RJ. It's Cary Grant. The original metrosexual.
 
Sub Joe said:
Jesus the historical character was in probably originally a Pharisaic Rabbi; a man whose teaching resembles modern Judaism more closely than any other religion.

Personally, I'm fascinated by this period in History. But most honest historians admit that there's simply not enough evidence to state that he existed at all. Historically, Jesus will always remain a mystery unless better evidence comes to light.

I think the Barabbas hypothesis (namely Jesus and Barabbas were one and the same person) is thought-provoking. But it was more likely that Jesus and his followers were a Jewish sect that believed in the literal prophecy of Zechariah, and that Jesus was the messiah, the King of The Jews whom God would aid directly to rid them of their oppressors. Armed struggle was not necessary for them.

Jesus was unlike other more militant pharisee zealots, who considered a more conventional armed insurguence the most expedient method of defeating their occupiers.

Jesus and his disciples failed in their mission to create a Jewish Independent Kingdom; to rid thier land of the hated Romans and their cronies. The Romans continued to tax and loot the area pretty much unchecked for centuries.

The Hellenic, dualistic Christianity of Paul that eventually dominated the Roman Empire has little connection with the Pharisaic teaching of Jesus himself. I think the followers of Jesus in his lifetime would have been mighty upset if they'd have lived to read the distortion of his teaching by the Gospel writers.
Click to expand...

Of all the Jesus stories I learned as a child, the one that meant the most was that he embraced lepers, the untouchables of his time. Kindness isn't typical of the Bible stories we memorized in Sunday School. Abraham preparing to kill his son, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, the crucifiction. There's a purity about a man who defies society in the gentlest and most meaningful way, by reaching out to its powerless. It's a story that takes on a deeper meaning with time, and that doesn't need to be taken as historical fact to be moving. Someone wrote it, inspired by whatever reason to "shake things up" as English Lady puts it. Someone who had a rare empathy for society's rejects and the courage, at least on the page, to contaminate himself with the lowest of the low.

Still, he ought to wear a helmet if he's going to coach kids' sports.
 
Last edited:
Hey sher, I realize you're reporting sunday school lessons, and not necessarily subcribing to them. But the idea of being kind or helping the less fortunate is not original to Jesus (or the early Gospel writers whose names we don't know), nor unheard of, with Jews.

Someone wrote it, inspired by whatever reason to

Yes, probably hundreds of years before Jesus' time.

If you look today at how Jewish 'charities' operate, the idea of helping the poor, the widowed, the orphaned is a longstanding Jewish value. There is the old maxim, for instance, about not harvesting every inch of your field, but leaving the corners; i.e., to be had by those who need the food.

It's slightly less mainstream to speak of being kind and doing nice things to/for your enemies. OTOH, hardly any Christians practice this. Hence the Warrior Jesus thread.

J.

Sher:
Of all the Jesus stories I learned as a child, the one that meant the most was that he embraced lepers, the untouchables of his time. Kindness isn't typical of the Bible stories we memorized in Sunday School. Abraham preparing to kill his son, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, the crucifiction. There's a purity about a man who defies society in the gentlest and most meaningful way, by reaching out to its powerless. It's a story that takes on a deeper meaning with time, and that doesn't need to be taken as historical fact to be moving. Someone wrote it, inspired by whatever reason to "shake things up" as English Lady puts it. Someone who had a rare empathy for society's rejects and the courage, at least on the page, to contaminate himself with the lowest of the low.
 
Warrior Jesus my ass, that guy needs an electric guitar and three more dudes to fill out his Hair Band.
 
ohmygod, Renza that is too funny!

I should really bugger off and stop being silly in a serious thread, but I just can't help it.

I spent too many years in Episcopal school and church. I'm a a snob. I want real art for religious icons, not Precious Moments and Wal-Mart Jesus for Middle America.

The very idea that Jesus would be happy to sit back on the porch and pop a PBR and talk about how the faggots and the liberals are ruining America just makes my skin crawl and fair or not, correct or not, that's what so much of modern Jesus Art makes me think of.

shudder.


-B
 
I should point out that I find the Rocker Jesus pictures far more benign than my previous post might lead one to believe. It seems that the artist is quite a nice person, but I'm never going to see the reverent holiness in a painting of Jesus as a Boxer.

-B
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Obama_Sucks
Your Assignment: Compile Obama’s Flip-Flops
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
Pad_Foot
Pad_Foot
Spermaceti
Lizard King information
Replies
0
Views
1K
Spermaceti
Spermaceti
Back
Top