jump to last post 1-17 of 17 discussions (61 posts)

Was Jesus a terrorist?

  1. 0
    Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago

    All right, I all ready have my own beliefs about this, but I want to hear yours. What's the verdict?

    1. Woman Of Courage profile image60
      Woman Of Courageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, Jesus was not a terrorist. He has too much love to offer to be a terrorist.

    2. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Terrorist? No.

      Heretic? Sure. Why? Because he liked to think for himself instead of being told what to think, how to think and figure out what is in his own best interest, which was challenging the authority of his time. tongue smile

      1. 0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oh my gosh cags. That's the best post you've ever posted. Good job.

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol lol lol

    3. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      terrorist ...ofcourse not...he was nice man but simply a man who was elevated to all things like god , son of god and such things...yes he had conviction which if wrongly used can turn people into terrorist...but jesus was ready to give his life , then to harm others...no he was not terrorist...

    4. DoubleScorpion profile image87
      DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I wouldn't call him a terrorist...He wasn't really looking to instill fear into people...I would say that based off of the Roman rule at the time...He was most likely killed because the romans feared he was very capable of building a rebellion and was in thier minds kinda doing so...It just hadn't turned violent on them yet was thier mindset...(IMHO)

  2. 0
    just_curiousposted 5 years ago

    Obviously, he was not. There is nothing in the text to give reason to ask the question. I would be curious as to what your view is (I would assume you think he was) and why.

  3. The Underholt profile image91
    The Underholtposted 5 years ago

    Jesus had never caused damage to any property. I'd classify him as a rogue magician who was turned into a vampire. He did rise from the dead you know.

  4. 0
    BunuBobuposted 5 years ago

    Terrorist - NO
    Zombie - Probably

    1. 0
      Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Lolz.

      To be 100% honest, I never thought he was a terrorist. Some people I know were arguing that Jesus was a terrorist because he created chaos and disorder among the people, but I just wanted to know if anyone else agreed with them or if they were alone in their thoughts.

      Zombie? Lolz. I wrote a hub based on my fear of the Easter Bunny being a zombie because of the relation of Jesus rising from the dead, but I never thought Jesus was one. -_^

      1. 0
        BunuBobuposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I only say he was a zombie because he came back from the dead smile

        The easter bunny!!!! OMG, don't get me started on him.

  5. dutchman1951 profile image60
    dutchman1951posted 5 years ago

    terrorist probly not, but a free thinker and a revolutionary to most thought at the time he is said to exhist.

    problem is, did he. Nothing written until 80 to 150 yearts past and all word of mouth. And now the New Testimate is so watered down, and trying to get itself away from the Old Testimate, the story is getting more un-believeable, so who knows now?

    The proof offerd is sketchy at best. But by faith, as a believer, you would have to say no to terrorist.

  6. WebbyAvatar profile image57
    WebbyAvatarposted 5 years ago

    Masochist wink

  7. 70
    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

    Was Jesus a terrorist?


    Jesus was peaceful person; he harmed nobody physically.

  8. optimus grimlock profile image59
    optimus grimlockposted 5 years ago

    yes you figured it out!!!!! He's currently hanging out with Bin Laden in a cave somewhere!

  9. johnnypenn profile image59
    johnnypennposted 5 years ago

    Nope Jesus wasn't a terrorist.
    He did destroy property. I cannot remember where it is in the Bible but people set up a market place in the Temple - That's supposed to be holy - so Jesus upended tables and went batsh!t on their butts. Which they deserved since they do know the Laws.

  10. 70
    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

    Was Jesus a terrorist?

    Jesus never did any act of terrorism. Did he?

    Like Moses, Krishna and Muhammad; he was always peaceful.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image25
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Jesus was like an amateur shaman as people who do magic, spells, shamanism, etc. Jesus was not a terrorist yet many of his words were wrongly translated and they turned into terrorism acts greater than mankind has ever know .
      For example 

      “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34)

      JESUS OF NAZARETH: I come not to bring PEACE, but a SWORD ... mean to kill and mane like the Muslims say to do because when Peter cut off the man’s ear with a sword Jesus...

      1. 70
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It is the mistake of the scribes or the translators; they are the terror-mongers not Jesus. Jesus was a peaceful man like Moses,Krishna and Muhammad; they never did any act of terrorism or aggression against anybody.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image25
          Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You can put Allah, Bubba and Jesus that sat together at a round table.  I could not imagine them talking about weapons of mass destruction.

          Yet take all manmade Religions, its record of mass destruction is obviously the worst on the face of the earth, in all of human history.

          Is that enough evidence for you, of wrong many translations?

          1. 70
            paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Please collect figures from history of human beings killed in Mao's time in China or Stalin's time in Russia or Hitler’s time in Germany. Please tell us which revealed religion was responsible for the human massacre.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image25
              Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hitler and Germans of that time were predominating Christian. The overall number of kills by non religious people is no way near to religious massacre and kills throughout human history.

              1. 70
                paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Please quote the figures and then see it.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image25
                  Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The list is way too long, and it make me sick to lay it out, you do the math, if the majority of people have been religious God going back 5000 years and it's still the same today. That seems to Simplified it.

              2. 0
                just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I honestly feel the need to argue this point. Neither of the two World Wars had anything to do with religion. To make this claim grossly distorts facts. I realize many of recent European descent might feel the need to deflect the blame on this issue, but no thinking person could look at this argument and take it seriously. It is an affront to all who died.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image25
                  Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  just_curious

                  But no thinking person could look at this argument and take it seriously.



                  I built history museum in many countries, I must confront these issues a lot, and then they must be confirmed by top scientist and other historians

                  Have ever check out the Creation Museum, it will never be sponsored or consider your own Government

                  1. 0
                    just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok, I'll be honest I didn't quite follow that. I'm not sure where the creation museum is, but I'm not sure what that has to do with blaming the World Wars on Christianity.

                    It is always nice to be able to point away from yourself, when dealing with unpleasant history, but political history is pretty well documented. I find it curious how many insist on interpreting it to suit their fancies on this forum.

                    I will assume this is all in fun, and not presented as a serious argument.

        2. 0
          Phoebe Pikeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Why do you think people revert to violence instead of just appreciating the thoughts and concepts great minds left behind them?

    2. Ken Barton profile image60
      Ken Bartonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Jesus taught peace with all man and gave His life  on the cross to pay for the sins of all men.

      Muhammad was a warrior that led violent attacks on caravans and forced people to either convert to the faith he taught, or they were killed.

      Muhammad professed that Jesus was a Prophet of God, and the true test of a Prophet is that everything he says is truth.  Jesus said, "He was the way, the truth, and the light, and no man could come to the Father God, except by Him. 

      So, if Muhammad professed Jesus to be a Prophet of God who only spoke the truth, and yet led people to worship Allah, a pagan god of the moon, what does that mean about Muhammad?  He was a liar, and a barbarian, who led thousands astray, and murdered anyone who disagreed with him.

      Jesus gave his life to save man.  Muhammad too lives to lift himself up.

      Sorry, but I don't think these two can be classified in the same category.

      1. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You mean, no matter how many wars have been started in either of their names? smile

      2. 70
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It were the Meccans who did not allow Muhammad freedom of speach; freedom of religions; and persecuted Muhammad and his followers for prefessing their faith. Meccans restricted/arrested Muhammad and his followers for three years in a valley without allowing them to work for a livlihood. They froced Muhammad to go out of Mecca and drove out his followers from Meccan, burnt their houses; tortured and killed many and forced them to take refuge in Medina.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutio … of_Muslims

        In the early days of Islam at Mecca, the new Muslims were often subjected to abuse and persecution. Some were killed, such as Sumayyah bint Khabbab, the seventh convert to Islam, who was tortured first by Abu Jahl.[1] but even Muhammad was subjected to such abuse; while he was praying near the Kaaba, Aqaba Bin Muiitt threw the entrails of a sacrificed camel over him, and Abu Lahab's wife Umm Jamil would regularly dump filth outside his door.[2]
        And if free Muslims were attacked, slaves who converted were subjected to far worse. The master of the Ethiopian Bilal ibn Rabah (who would become the first muezzin) would take him out into the desert in the boiling heat of midday and place a heavy rock on his chest, demanding that he forswear his religion and pray to the polytheists' gods and goddesses, until Abu Bakr bought him and freed him.[3]
        This persecution ultimately provoked the hijra. The Prophet Muhammad's life was in danger multiple times such as when he was going on the hijra he asked Ali ibn Abu Talib to stay in his household while he left to Medina so that the idolators would be unable to kill him. Ali accepted wholeheartedly. Other instances were when the Prophet was pelted with stones by the Arabs of Taif while on the Hijra so Zayd and Ali protected him and when the Jews of Yathrib made several unsuccessful attempts on the Prophet's life.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutio … of_Muslims


        The fault was with Meccans; Muhammad was peaceful.

  11. 0
    BunuBobuposted 5 years ago

    I think the God of the old Testament was definitely a terrorist.

    1. 70
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It is the mentality of the scribes who wrote OT which was terrorist-like. The Creator-God is always Most-Merciful and Kind; He could not have revealed such commandments; the scribes themselves wrote such things in the OT.

  12. marlanasifter profile image60
    marlanasifterposted 5 years ago

    Jesus was not a terrorist - rather a revolutionary and free-speaker. Terrorists instill fear in citizens and/or government and translate the consequent power they gain into violent protest. This definition obviously does not describe Jesus, whose most violent act against another human being was knocking a trading table over inside the temple.

    "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves" (Matthew 21:12).

    His action, hardly life-threatening or resulting in irreversible property damage, was a statement against the practice of secularism within a house of worship. He could have led a militia against the moneychangers or preached death upon those guilty, but instead he made his point with public exposure and non-violent humiliation.

    Compare these actions to Bin Laden's, and there is no comparison:

    "To kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim" (bin Laden's Fatwa from 1998).

    Now THAT is terrorism.

    1. marlanasifter profile image60
      marlanasifterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Also, [paarsarrey], I wouldn't say Muhammed was among the peaceful prophets, such as Jesus and Moses - remember he led a raid of warriors against Meccan tribes in the year 624AD in order to support his struggling converts.

      1. 70
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Please mention the name of the battle; you mean Uhud or Badr.

        The Battle of Uhud (Arabic: غزوة أحد‎ Ġazwat ‘Uḥud) was fought on March 19, 625 (3 Shawwal 3 AH in the Islamic calendar) at the valley located in front of Mount Uhud, in what is now northwestern Arabia.[1] It occurred between a force from the Muslim community of Medina led by the Islamic prophet Muhammad, and a force led by Abu Sufyan ibn Harb from Mecca, the town from which many of the Muslims had previously emigrated. The Battle of ‘Uḥud was the second military encounter between the Meccans and the Muslims, preceded by the Battle of Badr in 624, where a small Muslim army had defeated the much larger Meccan army.

        Marching out from Mecca towards Medina on March 11, 625 AD, the Meccans desired to avenge their losses at Badr and strike back at Muhammad and his followers. The Muslims readied for war soon afterwards and the two armies fought on the slopes and plains of Mount ‘Uḥud.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Uhud

        It was the Meccans who attacked Medina where Muslims lived. Please remember that Medina is 210 miles (340 km) north of Mecca.

        1. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          From the link:

          Most of the information available about the events is derived from the sira—maghazi  traditions (biographical narratives and documentation of military campaigns) of the early centures of Islam. The general sequence of the events gained consensus early on, as demonstrated in the text of Ibn Ishaq, an early biographer of Muhammad. Accounts of the battle are derived mainly from descendants of the participants.

          History written by Muslims. smile

      2. marlanasifter profile image60
        marlanasifterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        @paarsurrey, the 624AD battle I referenced was indeed Badr.
        Yes the Meccans initiated conflict when they seized Muslim properties, but it is also true that Muhammed reciprocated with violence when he led soldiers against them.
        Therefore Muhammed, (while obviously NOT terrorist), was not a preacher of meekness, peace, and worldly poverty as was Jesus or Moses, (or Gandhi for that matter).

        1. 70
          paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The agressor Meccan were well prepared, they were out numbered that is why they travelled a long distance to perish the inhabitants of Medina.

          Muhammad was humble as you could see rationally.

          1. 70
            paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this
    2. Castlepaloma profile image25
      Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Still can't find Bin Laden's to prove him wrong, but Americas did find a way to kill a million Iraqi on their soil, wail no Iraqi have killed an American on their soil.

      Compare that

  13. 70
    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

    It was the Meccans who attacked Medina where Muslims lived. Please remember that Medina is 210 miles (340 km) north of Mecca.

    1. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      sounds like Islamic in-fighting to me, nothing more.

  14. thirdmillenium profile image71
    thirdmilleniumposted 5 years ago

    Not just a mere terrorist. He was a rapist, pedophile, a consummated womanizer, a thief that stole even bath soaps, a plotter to kill Pilate, a sodomizer, a murderer,  a glutton, a backbiter, a blasphemer, a cheat, a coward.. you name it, he was that

  15. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "What of  Mussolini?" Mussolini was at one time a British intelligence agent, so it has recently been revealed. So maybe he always was one run by Brittani.

    1. 0
      just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Cool. Let's blame the brits. I like the idea. The Christians have been the scapegoat too long on this. smile

  16. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "Cool. Let's blame the brits. I like the idea.". Actually an interesting theory. It is a known fact that the capitalist aristocracies of US and Britain supported Hitler. The idea being that he should destroy Communist Russia and provoke him into attacking it. The Mussolini thing is as an already fascist country, they did not want Hitler to go south, but to go east. Actually there is pretty good documentation for this theory called treaties of the day.

  17. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "Jesus gave his life to save man." So would of he have done it if the Romans hadn't arrested him and put him to death?

    1. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Excellent point. smile

      1. Castlepaloma profile image25
        Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Then Romans created Satan, Christianity: a love story

        1. Castlepaloma profile image25
          Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          it could of been he was also a very old man at age 33, people at that time lived to their mid 20s.

      2. 0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It is an excellent point, but not for reason you think. I just realized, that wouldn't have played out that way if religion hadn't forced his hand. Pilate didn't want to do it. He was appeasing the religious element within his sphere of control. I think I'm beginning to get the point you all have so poorly articulated thus far. I guess maybe it is the religious mindset that helps guide the secular world to violence. (but you have to concede that there is no deity involved. It is man's mindset still)

        Wow. I'm glad you gave a bogus kudo to someone. Made me stop and look. smile

        1. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not at all, if we were to go by the fairy tale presented by Christians, Pilate was simply washing his hands of it and allowing the Jews to make the decision, a political move, not a religious one.



          lol Good one.

          1. 0
            just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, it was political move. What other reason would he have?

            Why do you say good one? Simply because I can see various motivations for violence and you focus on one alone? Open minds make for the ability to discern the underlying causes of strife within our relationships. I don't see this as a bad thing.

 
working