wirinet: Christianity (teachings of Christ) was supposed to be a social, economic and spiritual revolution. before Christ, philosophy of life centred around exploitative capitalism and despotic monarchy - both socially and religiously. God was at the apex of the herarchy, then you had a pyramid of priest in order of importance until you get to the common man at the base of the pyramid. So for the common man to reach God, he has to go through his local priest or religious leader, who takes his prayers to higher authorities until it gets to the supreme priest who then takes your supplications to God. The governments was also modeled in this way. To reach Caesar, you have to pass through a pyramid of representatives. That was how the pharisees and saduccees were structured.

But Christ's revolutionary teachings knocked down the structure, he teached that you do not need any intermediary to connect to God, that as far as God is concerned, no one is closer to God and everybody is at the same level.

This was a revolutionary teaching never seen before in the history of the world. The religious leaders were in an uproar for fear of losing power, privilege and control. The political leaders were afraid of such revolutionary thinking entering the political sphere: something had to be done to maintain the status quo. The new movement was first brutally suppressed, but when the revolution seemed to powerful to contain, Rome decided to modify, assimilate and adopt it, but in a control manner. Gradually they were able to kill the Christ revolution and build a new pyramid of new heirarchies. This became the new template for the Christian religion. The pope, bishop or G.O is said to be closest to God, while those under him derives authority for the head, while the masses at the base of the pyramid needs to go through the heirachy to get to the G.O to be able to reach God.

That is why I call Christianity the first socialist revolution that never was.

plaetton:

I agree with everything, except that, long before jesus, Buddhism had taken root in parts of India and neighboring regions.
It has been argued, that perhaps Jesus may have travelled to India during his youth, where he encountered and an embraced the Buddhist philosophy. That is was this Buddhist philosophy that he tried to incorporate into and reform the Yahwehist custodian religion of his people.

wirinet:

You might be right about Jesus encountering Buddhism, but Buddhism was more concerned with the question of life like how to live a successful life and how to avoid sufferings, and not how to relate with god. Buddhism did not exactly threaten the existing social order.

But Christ doctrine was almost as revolutionary as communism, no master, no class distinction, everybody was equal before God. Everybody eat and drank together. The rich were told to sell their property and join the common purse. No body enjoyed any special privilege. No body wore any special cloth. Even Jesus was not worshiped or revered as master but simply refered to as rabbi(teacher). Jesus discouraged calling anybody father, papa, pastor, bishop, leader, etc, everybody was simply brethren (brother).

wirinet: Christianity (teachings of Christ) was supposed to be a social, economic and spiritual revolution. before Christ, philosophy of life centred around exploitative capitalism and despotic monarchy - both socially and religiously. God was at the apex of the herarchy, then you had a pyramid of priest in order of importance until you get to the common man at the base of the pyramid. So for the common man to reach God, he has to go through his local priest or religious leader, who takes his prayers to higher authorities until it gets to the supreme priest who then takes your supplications to God. The governments was also modeled in this way. To reach Caesar, you have to pass through a pyramid of representatives. That was how the pharisees and saduccees were structured.

But Christ's revolutionary teachings knocked down the structure, he teached that you do not need any intermediary to connect to God, that as far as God is concerned, no one is closer to God and everybody is at the same level.

This was a revolutionary teaching never seen before in the history of the world. The religious leaders were in an uproar for fear of losing power, privilege and control. The political leaders were afraid of such revolutionary thinking entering the political sphere: something had to be done to maintain the status quo. The new movement was first brutally suppressed, but when the revolution seemed to powerful to contain, Rome decided to modify, assimilate and adopt it, but in a control manner. Gradually they were able to kill the Christ revolution and build a new pyramid of new heirarchies. This became the new template for the Christian religion. The pope, bishop or G.O is said to be closest to God, while those under him derives authority for the head, while the masses at the base of the pyramid needs to go through the heirachy to get to the G.O to be able to reach God.

That is why I call Christianity the first socialist revolution that never was.

Deep Sight:

You watched that series on Jesus this weekend, didnt you?

wirinet:

I honestly do not know the series you are talking about. I hardly watch T.V. If you tell me the series, the station and the time, I would look out for it.

My views of Jesus was as a result of studies I did way back at the University, when I was researching on comparative religion. Abraham brought one God, Moses brought laws and Jesus brought socialism

Deep Sight:

Ok. I see. There was a wonderful series on History Channel talking about how much of a revolutionary activist Jesus was against the norms of his time. It was nice, but I don't know when it will show again.

Pastor AIO: Actuall;y I think that the first socialist revolution that we have on record is Judaism, and the establisment of the people of Israel.

Pastor AIO: Actuall;y I think that the first socialist revolution that we have on record is Judaism, and the establisment of the people of Israel.

wirinet:

I beg to disagree my dear friend. Judaism as established by Moses was highly autocratic, racist and class based. First the religion put the Jews as being closer to God and a special class of people, then it has a highly structural heirarchy of priests with high priests, levitical priests, order of Aaron, etc.

Meanwhile according to christ's teachings, no separation between Jews and gentiles, rich or poor, priests and laymen, sinner or saints(everybody is a sinner), etc

If there was no conquest, where did the Israelites come from?

"Egypt was a mighty empire that ruled here with an iron fist. In the 14th century BCE there are stories about local kings who ask Pharaoh for help against one another, asking him to send 50 soldiers - in other words, that was the number that was sufficient to impose order here. So how did a few foot soldiers from the desert conquer the land? There was certainly no orderly military conquest. According to the archaeological findings, the Israelites came from the local stock: they were actually Canaanites who became Israelites in a socio-economic process."

Pastor AIO:

You should check out the work of a historian/archaeologist called Israel Finckelstein. Although it is highly speculative and I don't buy everything he makes certain very strong points.

Why is there no distinction between the Israelites and the Canaanites that lived in the land before them? The name of the God is the same, El. El Elyon. El Shaddai. etc etc etc.

The construction of the Temple was in the exact same canaanite style. etc etc etc

Why is it that when the plundered Canaanite cities were excavated, that there was no sign of an invasion from the outside?

His conclusion was that the Israelites were Canaanites all along. There was no invasion from without. The Israelites were the lower classes of the Canaanite cities and when they'd had enough of the oppression they rose against their leaders. After the uprising they settled to create a new community and they were open to strangers. That is why in certain early texts of the OT their is much mention of making provisions for the 'Strangers within your gates'.

They had no kings or elite because their ruling classes had been slaughtered. Whenever they needed leadership someone would rise from their midst to take the role for a while. These were the Judges. In the book of Judges their stories are recounted. The Judges could even include a woman prophetess (Deborah) so it was not necessarily a war hero (like Samson).
Slowly with time some Judges started to try to establish a dynastic rule. This can be read between the lines in Judges when the prophet Samuel attempts to start a dynasty with his sons but the people of Israel vehemently reject it. Dejected he moans that the people have rejected him but God tells him that it is not him they rejected by God himself. etc etc etc

King Saul establishes a monarchy but is unable to establish a dynasty.

It is King David that eventually establishes a dynastic monarchy over the Israelites.

I do not think that prior to the destruction of Canaan's cities there was ever such a revolution where so much attention was taken for providing for the poor and disenfranchised, the orphans and the strangers.

This is why I say that Judaism is probably the first sociality revolution that ever was.

plaetton:

First,
Finkelstein has tried every trick in the books to prove the existence of King David, and has failed each time. He has been criticized for his bias in using methods that do not measure up to scientific standards. His theories are nothing but conjectures upon conjectures.
Infact, So far, there has been no evidence of David, Solomom and other kings of Isreal except for one king, Omri, who ruled in the noerthern kingdom.. Interestingly enough, his name is briefly mentioned unfavourably in the bible because he was probably not a Yahwehist king. The yahwehist scribes compliled the old testament books, so we ar enot surprised that they would slander the name of a king from the northern kingdom in their chronicles, while trying to promote the imaginary kingdoms of David and Solomon.

plaetton:
Anyway, back to your analysis.
Even if Finkestein's conjectures are correct, I still do not see how it can be remotely connected to or called a social revolution.A social revolution against unnamed oppressors at an unknown time? I am surprised that you make such a leap of logic from a theory that is very speculative at best.

plaetton:
If you are looking for a social revolution, two ancient revolutionaries come to mind.
Hammurabi(1792-1750bc) of Babylon who established a code of laws establishing the social structure of Babylon.

And then we have Pharoah Amenhotep the lll circa 1300BC, who attempted to restructure the Egyptian Empire by abolishing the worship of Egyptian pantheon of gods, and then replacing it with the worship of just one god, which he called Aten.This would have been the first recorded attempt at monotheism.
He later changed his pharoahnic title from Amen-hotep to Anhk-Aten or Anhknaten and moved his capital to Heleiopolis where he built a magnificent temple dedicated to Aten.


In his story, we can clearly see a documented account of a social revolution that failed.
Or did it?

Pastor AIO:

You should check out the work of a historian/archaeologist called Israel Finckelstein. Although it is highly speculative and I don't buy everything he makes certain very strong points.

Why is there no distinction between the Israelites and the Canaanites that lived in the land before them? The name of the God is the same, El. El Elyon. El Shaddai. etc etc etc.

The construction of the Temple was in the exact same canaanite style. etc etc etc

Why is it that when the plundered Canaanite cities were excavated, that there was no sign of an invasion from the outside?

His conclusion was that the Israelites were Canaanites all along. There was no invasion from without. The Israelites were the lower classes of the Canaanite cities and when they'd had enough of the oppression they rose against their leaders. After the uprising they settled to create a new community and they were open to strangers. That is why in certain early texts of the OT their is much mention of making provisions for the 'Strangers within your gates'.

They had no kings or elite because their ruling classes had been slaughtered. Whenever they needed leadership someone would rise from their midst to take the role for a while. These were the Judges. In the book of Judges their stories are recounted. The Judges could even include a woman prophetess (Deborah) so it was not necessarily a war hero (like Samson).
Slowly with time some Judges started to try to establish a dynastic rule. This can be read between the lines in Judges when the prophet Samuel attempts to start a dynasty with his sons but the people of Israel vehemently reject it. Dejected he moans that the people have rejected him but God tells him that it is not him they rejected by God himself. etc etc etc

King Saul establishes a monarchy but is unable to establish a dynasty.

It is King David that eventually establishes a dynastic monarchy over the Israelites.

I do not think that prior to the destruction of Canaan's cities there was ever such a revolution where so much attention was taken for providing for the poor and disenfranchised, the orphans and the strangers.

This is why I say that Judaism is probably the first sociality revolution that ever was.

wirinet:

From your submission, though it postulate, that the various conflicts in the bible might be a result of a socialist revolution against the ruling class, it is not reflected anywhere in the judaic religion, even at that period. During the time of the judges, obviously there was an interegnum, the cause of which is speculative. But the Jewish religion even at that time did not reflect a socialist revolution. The priestly class remained intact with its hierarchical structure.

You will find that in all socialist revolutions, the priestly class and the religion itself is often consumed along with the political elite. Examples are the french and the Bolshevik revolutions.
Christ's teachings had both political and religious implications.

Pastor AIO:

What I've noticed rather is that the priestly class is REPLACED with another priestly class. I actually think hierarchy is essential to human society and that what happens during revolutions is not a destruction of hierarchy but the substitution of one hierarchical structure for another. The process, ie the span of INTERREGNUM, may be short or it may be a long drawn out thing.

I think that traces of what happened can be seen in Judaism. The practice of tithing in order that the have-nots may have something to eat, and the general concept of care for the unfortunate was unprecedented.
Judaism has gone through a long process of development and each stage of its development has left it's mark on the religion we know today. Crisis such as the destruction of the temple, the captivity to babylon etc etc , these all left their mark on Judaism.

plaetton:

In what way was tithing used to cater for the have nots? I have never come across this notion on any Judaic literature. Tithing was a form of tax specially put in place for the exclusive benefit of the priestly class. In no way was it designated as form of wealth distribution mechanism.

Again, I see no scriptural evidence to support the notion that the ancient Israelites instituted any kind of welfare programs for the less fortunate.
And if they did, I don't see how that could be deemed as unprecedented.
Unprecedented in what context?

Long before the Israelites forrayed into Canaan, many great civilizations with good and balanced social structures had Flourished in Babylon, Summer, Egypt, Greece, India, and Yorubaland.

The jews have no doubt gone through a lot in their history. That is what, perhaps, makes them very a versatile people and had helped to hone their strong instincst for unity and survival. But we have to agree that for much of their history, Judaism robbed them of culture,art and their human dignity.

Sorry, but this ancient Israelite socialist revolution that you are touting is appears very very hard to grasp.

plaetton:

In what way was tithing used to cater for the have nots? I have never come across this notion on any Judaic literature. Tithing was a form of tax specially put in place for the exclusive benefit of the priestly class. In no way was it designated as form of wealth distribution mechanism.

Again, I see no scriptural evidence to support the notion that the ancient Israelites instituted any kind of welfare programs for the less fortunate.
And if they did, I don't see how that could be deemed as unprecedented.
Unprecedented in what context?

Long before the Israelites forrayed into Canaan, many great civilizations with good and balanced social structures had Flourished in Babylon, Summer, Egypt, Greece, India, and Yorubaland.

The jews have no doubt gone through a lot in their history. That is what, perhaps, makes them very a versatile people and had helped to hone their strong instincst for unity and survival. But we have to agree that for much of their history, Judaism robbed them of culture,art and their human dignity.

Sorry, but this ancient Israelite socialist revolution that you are touting is appears very very hard to grasp.

wirinet: Christianity (teachings of Christ) was supposed to be a social, economic and spiritual revolution. before Christ, philosophy of life centred around exploitative capitalism and despotic monarchy - both socially and religiously. God was at the apex of the herarchy, then you had a pyramid of priest in order of importance until you get to the common man at the base of the pyramid. So for the common man to reach God, he has to go through his local priest or religious leader, who takes his prayers to higher authorities until it gets to the supreme priest who then takes your supplications to God. The governments was also modeled in this way. To reach Caesar, you have to pass through a pyramid of representatives. That was how the pharisees and saduccees were structured.

But Christ's revolutionary teachings knocked down the structure, he teached that you do not need any intermediary to connect to God, that as far as God is concerned, no one is closer to God and everybody is at the same level.

This was a revolutionary teaching never seen before in the history of the world. The religious leaders were in an uproar for fear of losing power, privilege and control. The political leaders were afraid of such revolutionary thinking entering the political sphere: something had to be done to maintain the status quo. The new movement was first brutally suppressed, but when the revolution seemed to powerful to contain, Rome decided to modify, assimilate and adopt it, but in a control manner. Gradually they were able to kill the Christ revolution and build a new pyramid of new heirarchies. This became the new template for the Christian religion. The pope, bishop or G.O is said to be closest to God, while those under him derives authority for the head, while the masses at the base of the pyramid needs to go through the heirachy to get to the G.O to be able to reach God.

That is why I call Christianity the first socialist revolution that never was.

Jenwitemi: The teaching of direct connection to the creator is hardly a christian revolutionary teaching, hardly. This teaching was being taught around the world by other spiritual schools of thought long long long before the existence of Christianity. Your claim is made out of complete ignorance hence totally untrue. Read history of the world more properly, please.

wirinet:
You made a claim without providing us with any example. Why not give us an example of a prior religion that taught the worship of God by the common man without going through any priest or intermediary. Which other teachings made no distinction between classes, sexes, races in regard of closeness to God.

Please add value to the debate as had been done by others by providing us with concrete examples.

wirinet:
You made a claim without providing us with any example. Why not give us an example of a prior religion that taught the worship of God by the common man without going through any priest or intermediary. Which other teachings made no distinction between classes, sexes, races in regard of closeness to God.

Please add value to the debate as had been done by others by providing us with concrete examples.

plaetton: ^^^^^
Jesus can be seen as a revolutionary in the context of Judaism. Without the Roman adoption of Christianity as a state reliogion, and the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, it is very doubtful that we would have heard of or be discussing Jesus 2000yrs later, especially given the odd fact that he did not himself write any religious or philosophical treatise for posterity.

plaetton: ^^^^^
Jesus can be seen as a revolutionary in the context of Judaism. Without the Roman adoption of Christianity as a state reliogion, and the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, it is very doubtful that we would have heard of or be discussing Jesus 2000yrs later, especially given the odd fact that he did not himself write any religious or philosophical treatise for posterity.

plaetton: I am still of the opinion that jesus teachings might have seemed revolutionary to the Judaic traditons, but in a global perspective, even for that era, his teachings were not in any way unique against the prevailing and competing philosophical ideals that were already established by many teachers long before him, and also contemporary to him in other parts of the known world.

This would greatly account for why there is a dearth of written material, other than the religious gospels, on the man jesus and his great socialist revolution in that era by the writers and historical chroniclers of that era.

Ii would be an exageration to say that because his teachings were gaining wide acceptance in Palestine, therefore it was revolutionary.
The teachings of Jesus were mere reminders of age-long philosophical and perhaps, mystical ethos.
There was nothing particularly new or revolutionary about them in the broader sense.
Plato had come and gone, Pythogoras had come and gone, Socrates had come and gone, Buddhaism had firmly established itself, Zoroastrianism was dominant in Persian and elsewhere.

As an analogy, the efcc can be said to revolutionary in the Nigerian context only because it was the first of its kind in Nigeria and will be so in the annals of Nigerian History only because corruption and economic sabotage are endemic in Nigeria.
Whereas, in places like Britain, fighting corruption and jailing people for corruption is nothing new or revolutionary to them.