So this author (a Muslim) contends Jesus was actually more bloodthirsty than Mohammed. But I'm confused. Wasn't Jesus an Essene?
Was Jesus an Essene, or a Zealot?
>>679276
First of all, the Essenes weren't the "zealots". Zealots were a different group entirely from the Essenes, Sadducees, and Pharisees, and never achieved the prominence of the others, although they became (in)famous during their actions in the siege of Jerusalem.
While it's impossible to fully reconstruct what any historical Jesus was like, at the very least the positions ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels are more akin to Pharisee positions than any of the other 3 sects mentioned.
>>679288
I know the Essenes weren't Zealots, but the author of that book contends Jesus was a Zealot.
I don't know if they were necessarily Pharisee positions per se, unless the Essenes rejected the oral law.
>>679288
can you gimme a tl;dr of the sects? I don't remember catholic school getting into it at all.
>>679294
>I know the Essenes weren't Zealots, but the author of that book contends Jesus was a Zealot.
Oh, my mistake. I can only offer limited insight, having not read the book myself.
>I don't know if they were necessarily Pharisee positions per se, unless the Essenes rejected the oral law.
No, he cites a lot of Pharisee party lines; "The Sabbath was made for man" and the golden rule uttered in Matthew 7:12 are both also spoken in substantially the same words by the Pharisee Hillel some 60 years prior.
Besides, Essenes had a huge focus on ritual purity and the shunning of those that were considered uncouth or impure, which isn't exactly Jesus.
>>679305
>No, he cites a lot of Pharisee party lines; "The Sabbath was made for man" and the golden rule uttered in Matthew 7:12 are both also spoken in substantially the same words by the Pharisee Hillel some 60 years prior.
Isn't that because they're in the oral law? Jesus supported the oral law, that much we know, because he said so himself. The whole Resurrection of the Dead also comes from the oral law (which is why the Sadducees didn't support it).
>>679305
Also, I'm pretty sure Christ's injunction against oaths, his call to give up all own's possession, and to carry naught but a sword, are all distinctly Essene, not in the oral law.
>>679276
did any of the groups ever formally "claim" him? so to speak?
the views shared in the gospels and the generally accepted historical overview of his life doesn't seem to mesh with any of these groups
Besides, how could Jesus possibly be some hard-hitting fuck-you-up mongler on par with Mohammed when he died before the age when Mohammed even started seeing revelations, and what's more, appears on so few unaffiliated documents as to imply that, if he lived at all, he must have been nothing noteworthy in the eyes of his contemporaries.
>>679297
Sadducees = sola scriptura
Pharisees = tradition
Essenes = poverty, asceticism, humility.
Zealots = Jihad
>>679297
VERY tl;dr.
>Sadducees.
Major focus on temple rites and the hereditary priesthood. Reject not only the then current Oral Law, but the idea that there is such a thing. Have been in a fued with the Pharisees for about 300 years by the time Jesus is around. Biggest following was in Jerusalem itself, their major adherents tended to be the priesthood and the nobility. Politically, favored collaborating with Rome, although were somewhat hostile, and would join in the Revolt in 66 despite arguing against it.
>Pharisees.
Ancestors to modern Rabbinic Judaism. Believed in an oral law, which would start to be written down around 120. Broad but unfocused support among the Judean populace, the single largest of the sects. Do not like the Sadducees for trying to place a priest on the Davidic throne after the Maccabean revolt. They view that the Rabbis and the educated are the ultimate spiritual authorities, and that you have to adopt a flexible approach towards scripture. Very opposed towards Roman rule, the great revolt basically started under Pharisee direction.
>>679328
>did any of the groups ever formally "claim" him? so to speak?
It's impossible to know. There are no surviving Essenic writings. The the first mention of the Pharisees is the New Testament, so any later Pharisaic writings would obviously disown Christ. The Zealots tortured and executed Christians with a fervor far beyond the Pharisees, so even if Christ were a Zealot in his own time, by that time he clearly wouldn't be associated with them, and that is when most of the testaments by Zealots dates to.
We know he wasn't a Sadducee for sure, since everything about him is completely incompatible with their position.
>>679297
>Essenes
Much smaller than the other two. Very ascetic and isolationist: a lot of Essenes ran off to live in what were basically proto-monastaries away from large concentrations of people, would sometimes take vows of celibacy and/or poverty, the former of which is viewed as outright sinful in more mainstream sects of Judaism. Large focus on ritual purity (Impurity by the way, isn't sin. It's complicated), would often immerse in a "mikveh" daily, far more than you're really required to by the standards of the other sects. It is generally thought that the Qumran (Dead Sea) scrolls were from an Essenian splinter group, although I'm aware there are some people who challenge that.
>Zealots
Smaller even than the Essenes. Primarily a political, not a theological movement, a lot of their positions were similar to the Pharisees, although they rejected a lot of the Oral Law as practiced, preferring instead to only acknowledge the authority of their own sages rather than mainstream Pharisee ones. Extremely violent. One of the few groups in Judea who would actually fatally attack other Jewish groups over theological disputes. Tended to live as brigands and wild-men. Most infamous for burning down the grain sheds during the Siege of Jerusalem, as well as trying to murder several high priests.
>>679309
The thing is, there's no unified Oral Law in Judaism, especially not in the 1st century. You have a bunch of Rabbis running around saying things, and eventually, the teachings of the most influential Rabbis became a kind of canon. But back then, the mere fact that Hillel said something wouldn't make it Oral Law, especially not if you were say, one of Shammai's students. (A rival Rabbi to Hillel)
>>679276
>>679319
Caution around oaths is very, very old in Judea, going all the way back to some of the lessons included in Judges and Samuel. Poverty is more Essene. Carrying weapons is most associated with Zealots, the Essenes tended to be more of a "withdraw from the world" sort of position. None of them are really part of what you'd think of in the oral law.
>>679328
>did any of the groups ever formally "claim" him? so to speak?
Not that I'm aware of. He's generally regarded as a heretic and maybe a sorcerer in most Jewish circles, but admittedly, most writing about him tends to be centuries after the fact when divisions with Christianity were already deep and bitter. The few positive mentions of him in the Gemara tend to portray him more as an itinerant teacher and faith healer, not really associated with any of the "parties"
>>679344
This poster>>679331
is not me.
I wrote>>679335 and >>679348
>In either case, Jesus (in his popular image) was an Essenes, no?
He has certain Essenic views, but others that are quite anti-Essene. Running around and trying to uplift prostitutes and other notorious sinners would have been anathema to mainstream Essenism.
>>679348
>The thing is, there's no unified Oral Law in Judaism
I'm talking about the (hypothetical) oral law passed down by Moses.
>>679350
>Running around and trying to uplift prostitutes and other notorious sinners would have been anathema to mainstream Essenism.
Because it was highly public and also impure?
>>679350
>Carrying weapons is most associated with Zealots,
Josephus says the Essenes always carried swords, but little else.
>>679350
>Running around and trying to uplift prostitutes and other notorious sinners would have been anathema to mainstream Essenism.
Uh, why do you think that?
>>679362
>I'm talking about the (hypothetical) oral law passed down by Moses.
But even that, part of said Oral Law was a chain of transmission as to who was empowered to make further rulings, laws, adaptations to the times, etc, You had certain things that supposedly went all the way back to Moses, like how to properly slaughter an animal, and what species of fruit you were supposed to use as an etrog, but you had other rulings that were much newer, like how a proper religious court was supposed to operate.
A lot of say, Hillel's views are Hillel's, and would have been understood as such by contemporaries, Jesus quoting him is something of a declaration of allegiance to a specific school of thought. (Assuming those quotes are in fact genuine, of course)
>>679363
Not just that, but because you were supposed to be trying to achieve the highest possible personal standard, with little thought to a community outside the Essenes themselves. They were kind of elitist, at least in the writings we have of them (Very little Essenic material survives, mostly we have what other groups wrote about them, so you have to take such proclamations with a grain of salt).
>>679366
If you say so. I hardly have Josephus memorized. Still, they weren't militant to the extent of other goups, and I seem to recall from long-ago perusal of Josephus that they were supposed to be peacemakers and never lose their tempers, and while not completely pacifistic, weren't the sort to condone militant opposition to Rome or other public ills, just personal self defense.
>>679371
Because they viewed ordinary townspeople as impure enough and spiritually dangerous enough that the model Essene fled from such people to live in the wilderness with only other Essenes. Actually going out and mingling with such polluted people? You'd probably be kicked out of the sect.
>>679375
>But even that, part of said Oral Law was a chain of transmission as to who was empowered to make further rulings, laws, adaptations to the times, etc,
These are court ruling, not individual rabbinic opinion. It's not like Judaism today.
>>679389
Most of what you say, see in the Mishnah or Gemara were not court rulings.The proclamations as to how to properly build a sukkah and eat in and around it never saw a Sanhedrin ruling.
They pretty much were individual rabbis spouting their opinions, and which ones became accepted and which ones didn't was an anarchic process, not something the religious courts ruled on.
>>679385
>Because they viewed ordinary townspeople as impure enough and spiritually dangerous enough that the model Essene fled from such people to live in the wilderness with only other Essenes. Actually going out and mingling with such polluted people? You'd probably be kicked out of the sect.
This seems like an inference. They were sort of like monks, but there are plenty of monks who minister to people who aren't monks. If they didn't, then how would people like Josephus and Philo know anything about them?
>>679392
>Most of what you say, see in the Mishnah or Gemara were not court rulings
Those were written after diaspora, when the court was practically defunct.
>>679276
John the Baptist and Jesus might have been influenced by the Essenes, but scholars are basically just guessing.
>>679395
They weren't all living monastically, like I said, that was merely the ideal, not something that everyone actually went out and did.
>>679403
Not the debates between Shammai and Hillel's schools, which were around concurrently with the Sanhedrin. And there are hundreds of those. Quite a few of the other Zugoth and Tanaaim were around before the diaspora.
>>679419
But these rabbinic debates you're talking about were not necessarily considered the same as oral law. There's a big difference between a lawyer's legal commentary, and court rulings, I'm sure they made the distinction.
>>679443
>But these rabbinic debates you're talking about were not necessarily considered the same as oral law
Yes. But unlike say, modern American common law, you had a much more fluid system as to how one became the other. The Sanhedrin would not be sitting around, gathering everyone from all across the country, to determine if Simon the woodcutter built his Sukkah too high. They debated, they made their proclamations, and people did what the more influential rabbi said, and as the years lengthened and you got a consensus in fact, that became part of the oral law.
It was a pretty anarchic system, and if you look in what was eventually written down, you don't see any evidence of such a distinction, just the opinions and what arguments were used to back them up. Often times you don't even get a pronouncement as to which Rabbi was right, because it wasn't settled at the time of writing.
>>679461
>if you look in what was eventually written down, you don't see any evidence of such a distinction
Yeah, but that's partly because it was written after the effective collapse of the Sanhedrin. If the Sanhedrin were still a powerful institution that had absolute and continual authority over all Jews, then I'm sure there would be a significant distinction in the writings. Because Rabbis *don't* have an absolute consensus, they disagree tremendously.
>>679472
>Yeah, but that's partly because it was written after the effective collapse of the Sanhedrin. If the Sanhedrin were still a powerful institution that had absolute and continual authority over all Jews, then I'm sure there would be a significant distinction in the writings. Because Rabbis *don't* have an absolute consensus, they disagree tremendously.
Which is one of the reasons why practice, even in the Sanhedrin "dominated" Judea, was so divergent. This whole conversation got started because you have several major (not to mention the dozens of smaller groups) sects all bickering with each other nonstop over matters of doctrine and theology.
Ultimately, the Sanhedrin just wasn't that powerful of an institution, certainly not powerful enough to bring everyone in Palestine to heel with the views of its senior people (The Av Beit Din were usually Hillel's students, at least by Jesus's time.) And even before the main diaspora, you still had fairly significant communities outside of Israel proper, over whom the Sanhedrin had virtually no practical reach whatsoever.
>>679276
>Muslim
>bashes Christianity
Does /his/ think this guy realises how transparent his agenda is?
>>679563
Plenty of Christian scholars right works sympathetic to their points of view on Jesus.
>>679563
I haven't read the book (and I'm guessing you haven't either) but why would a Muslim want to bash Jesus? Islam acknowledges Him as prophet and Messiah, to outright attack Jesus would be seen as a blasphemy.
>>679563
It's not an attack, Aslan is as liberal as Muslims come. He just argues that Jesus was a political radical
>>679335
>Have been in a fued with the Pharisees for about 300 years by the time Jesus is around
where does the figure of 300 years come from?
>>679601
Yes. How is that relevant to what I said? I'm just pointing out that obvious Islamic supremacist agenda is obvious.
>>679603
Portraying Jesus as a violent radical serves the purpose of distracting from the crimes of Islam.
>>679687
How? Jesus is a representative of Islam to Muslims.
>>679604
>it's not an attack
How are you this naive?
>>679691
That's why Islamic State murders Christians where it finds them right?
>>679608
An error on my part, I'm afraid. The Maccabean revolt started in 167 B.C.E., which would make the fued a bit younger than 200 years, not 300. But it started with the Maccabes and how the rabbinic establishment thought they were using the revolt to gather too much power to the priesthood.
>>679350
By the sounds of things, Jesus and his followers seemed to have tapped in to a lot of the popular appeal of a lot of these movements, synchrotizing them into a whole, which might explain in part Christianities success.
>>679702
The hell is this non-sequitur? If a Christian put a heretic to death, would you think he rejected Christ?
>>679276
>Rezla Aslan
>A muslim
he's a heretic by most Muslim standards
>>679716
And yet he sympathises enough to lie in favor of muslims every time he show his face on any form of media.
>>679713
Do you recognise the global confrontation between Islam and Christianity or not? If not, you're too naive to properly interpret what a muslim author is doing when he attacks Jesus and tries to make him seem as violent as Mohammed.
>>679276
Did it occur to you to, I don't know, read the fucking book to find out?
>>679723
And yet all every ass-devastated /pol/io can do is say Aslan is a liar without ever actually producing an argument as to where he's both wrong and knows he's wrong but pretends not to know the difference.
Hint: it's because the books is actually well reasoned and, frankly, convincing. This triggers the idiot.
>>679749
>And yet all every ass-devastated /pol/io can do is say Aslan is a liar
Kek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9RmAo6XVAA
If you read his books you're a victim of a propagandist.
>>679276
That Reza Aslan fella is a notorious liar.
He is a professor of creative writing, his PhD is in sociology.
He lied about having a PhD in "religious studies", which the university he studied at does not even offer.
That dude is an islamist apologist. Don't believe he wrote this in good faith for a second.
>>679726
Of course there is a confrontation between Islam and Christianity, this wasn't the argument. I was disputing your implication that a Muslim was trying to defame a figure venerated in his own religion, which you've suddenly decided to drop.
>>679749
>well reasoned
It's not even good for pop Jesus history.
>>679749
>/pol/io
Why don't you just say racist like a good little goy?
>>679749
Worst things commited by:
Jesus : chase a few banker out of a temple with a whip.
Muhammed : (just one of many many more) put heated nails into peoples eyes and cut their limbs off and let them bleed out
http://www.quranexplorer.com/hadith/english/Hadith/bukhari/004.052.261.html
But lets all agree that jesus was the bloodthirsty one, in case we offend anybody.
>>679782
You mean this one of course.
>>679761
>He lied about having a PhD in "religious studies", which the university he studied at does not even offer.
What they said was they don't offer a specific Ph.D. in religious studies but that he's correct to characterize himself in that way because his sociology doctorate focused on religion.
Dumb Christfags
>>679787
hadith are not Islamic canon, plebby
/his/ is full of /pol/ shitheads tonight isn't it?
>>679770
It's a good pop Jesus history, and it's well reasoned.
>>679800
Of course they're not, that would be inconvinient. They are a jewish ploy to make muhammad look bad, he'd never do that and its entirely out of character for him as a peaceful pacifist. Also he was the first feminist.
On being a christfag, I think christianity is more toxic in general, because its pretends to be compatible with modern society. With islam at least its immideately obvious that its incompatible.
>>679276
He claimed the title "messiah" (the same title that Simon Bar Kokhba claimed) and the Romans crucified him and mocked him as the "king of the Jews"
So yes, I think it's safe to say he was a Zealot.
>>679800
>hadith are not Islamic canon, plebby
Yes there are, unless you want to posit that there is no Islamic canon just like there is no Christian one
>wuh wuh wuh every sect picks its own writings therefore none of them have merit
I suppose how he conquered the arabian peninsula and half the Mediterranean while spreading Islam at the tip of the sword is also a misrepresentation, fabrication and exaggeration?
>>679816
>Of course they're not, that would be inconvinient.
You got it, it's all a conspiracy to get you. Also, Muslims are actually aliens and they built the pyramids. Also, precious bodily fluids.
>>679603
He's trying to show Jesus as violent. Which is not necessarily an insult in Islam, in fact it makes Jesus much more in line with Mohammed. For those who aren't sympathetic toward Islam, it helps invalidate Christian criticism of Mohammed as violent compared to a non-violent Jesus.
>>679834
>Yes there are
They really aren't though. This is like Islam 101
>>679842
>He's trying to show Jesus as violent.
Need a page citation.
>>679844
Then there isn't any canon for anything.
>>679800
Quranists are a minority, aren't they?
>>679821
Didn't Bar Kokhba hate Christians because they refused to fight Rome?
>>679799
If they don't offer that Ph.D., then he doesn't have it. The bobs and weaves after that are irrelevant. The doctorate is not the entirety of your studies.
>>679849
>>679853
>>679862
Listen, you dumb cunt, it doesn't work that way. Usul al-fiqh is derived from the Qur'an, the Sunnah, legal consensus, and interpretation of those three things. The Qur'an is the canonical word of God. All hadith, excluding the hadith qudsi, are just sayings that have been passed down WITH the knowledge by even their chroniclers that none of them are without doubt trustworthy and MAY or MAY NOT be usable in jurisprudence.
>>679875
>Degree granting institution agrees with him
>THEY'RE WRONG I'M RIGHT I SAW IT ON THE INTERNETS
>>679882
>degree granting institutions can't be biased
Are you aware what kind of SJW infested age of academia we are in?
How about we stick with the facts and not "how you can characterize them", 'kay buddy?
>>679710
The one thing I would point out is that Christainity was relatively unsuccessful until they started proselytizing to non-Jews. It was Paul and his followers among the Gentiles that became the dominant Christian faction, not James and his Jerusalem community.
And I would also caution that using the Gospels as demonstration of what Jesus actually preached might not be accurate. The first manuscripts start popping up way, way later, and might have reflected what was in vogue of the Christians of the day, which might or might not have been what Jesus was running around preaching.
>>679877
I really, really don't care about your historical dressing of a desert fairy. The vast majority of imams and believers think the hadith are true, and it forms their ideology.
>>679888
>The first manuscripts start popping up way, way later,
the Gospels are more accurate in terms of continuity form the earliest times than any other ancient text, as well as the Quran which was not recorded for hundreds of years afterward, meanwhile the gospels were written within the same generation, something fairly unheard of in the Roman era
>>679888
>The one thing I would point out is that Christainity was relatively unsuccessful until they started proselytizing to non-Jews.
The necessity of the Council of Jerusalem shows that Jews had a pretty large presence in early Christianity.
>>679877
Go tell an actual Muslim how non-canon you think the Hadith is. Until then, back to >>>/co/ to discuss your retarded continuity.
>>679900
>caesar
>1000 AD
yeah cool.
>bible
>talking snakes
>"but so many were written, it must be real!"
There is more evidence for alien abductions, millions. And those have less contradiction and magic zombie jews in them, just technology.
Like, do you seriously think jesus ever said he hated figs? Or was that something that somebody made up maybe to present people with a metaphor for the temple cult being "out of season"?
How can anyone think these are actually reliable after 2000 years of being sanitized and rewritten by fanatical monks?
That book is fucking atrocious.
>Zealots were active in Galilee so Jesus was a Zealot because he's from there :DDD
>>679847
>Implying he actually bothered to read it
It's just the "Guns, Germs, & Steel" of Biblical Studies these days. There's nothing novel in it, it's just a synopsis of other scholars dumbed down for the public.
>>679847
Been a while since I've read it, but I distinctly recall him citing Christ saying he did not come to bring peace, but a sword, and saying Christ wanted to put a bunch of people to death. He also said that is why Christ wanted his followers to carry swords.
I will download it and find the page number for you, if you'd really like me to, but I do not think you have read it, because if you did, then you missed the whole premise.
I recall that too but he meant he would bring a sword and ride a steed in his second coming to fight the anti Christ
>>680359
So literally what Eisenman was saying almost twenty years ago
>>680412
Or Maccoby even further back. (1973, IIRC)
>>681918
>The people of the Old Testament were not Jews.
Then who were they?
>>681959
>tfw the first nationalist literature in history was black nationalism
Pretty interesting really. I actually didn't know this. Thanks.
>>679702
Murdering Christians doesn't mean they don't claim Jesus as their own. You might sperg out at this, but most Muslims dislike ISIS anyway, even if lots of things they do are Quranic.
>>679276
I've read this and I've read the case for an apocalyptic Jesus, and I just find the argument for an apocalyptic Jesus to be much more convincing.
Also, I think trying to sort Jews of the second temple period into belief nice boxes probably ignores the vast overlap of belief between those boxes.
>>681966
>Taking a meme seriously
>>679276
He was a bloody carpenter from a family of carpenters, he had no relations to the politicial-religious movements prior to his baptism
>>682169
Unless you're willing to say that the Gospel-Jesus figure has 0 relation to the historical Jesus, you can't really say that. He's very clearly religiously educated.
>>682186
He doesn't seem to have any allies in the gospels besides his Apostles and those he converts. I doubt he had any serious affiliation with any definite group, let alone with Zealots.
>>682253
Oh for sure. Like the guy upthread noted, he seems to be kind of syncretic from a lot of existing Hewish theological trends.
I only meant to contest the "carpenter" part.
