There is a Marx quote like: “I know for sure I’m not a marxist.” Which is supposedly in the context of the necessity of a violent revolution for the transition to communism.
It was deadly toxic populism according to the unsubstantiated tales that did not take hold in any significant way for over two centuries. It was like a Trump rally, Klan meeting, witch burning, or being born Palestinian in Gaza; death by mindless mob violence, hate, and prejudice.
Much as its nice to draw comparisons to modern politics. Im given to understand that modern scholarship doesn’t agree. The romans killed jesus for breaking roman law (claiming to be/being perceived as the ruler of a roman province). Blame was later shifted to jews because Christianity was being preached to a Roman audience who wouldn’t want to see themselves as the bad guys.
We have no Roman legal record of anyone that matches the story of Jesus. Based on the account in the bible, Pontius asked the crowd if they wished to free Barabbas or Jesus. I do not consider the bible a valid source. The original texts are not available and there are no reliable corroborating sources. The book has no ontological knowledge of the universe at a fundamental level, and all information contained within can be explained by human observations and meddling. Pandering to speculation and correlation is to empower cons. I consider anyone that must be interpreted due to ambiguous language as a con artist.
Karl Marx himself was not a marxist.
Was he Jewish like Jesus?
There is a Marx quote like: “I know for sure I’m not a marxist.” Which is supposedly in the context of the necessity of a violent revolution for the transition to communism.
deleted by creator
I thought the Romans crucified Jesus, not the Jewish people.
It was deadly toxic populism according to the unsubstantiated tales that did not take hold in any significant way for over two centuries. It was like a Trump rally, Klan meeting, witch burning, or being born Palestinian in Gaza; death by mindless mob violence, hate, and prejudice.
Much as its nice to draw comparisons to modern politics. Im given to understand that modern scholarship doesn’t agree. The romans killed jesus for breaking roman law (claiming to be/being perceived as the ruler of a roman province). Blame was later shifted to jews because Christianity was being preached to a Roman audience who wouldn’t want to see themselves as the bad guys.
We have no Roman legal record of anyone that matches the story of Jesus. Based on the account in the bible, Pontius asked the crowd if they wished to free Barabbas or Jesus. I do not consider the bible a valid source. The original texts are not available and there are no reliable corroborating sources. The book has no ontological knowledge of the universe at a fundamental level, and all information contained within can be explained by human observations and meddling. Pandering to speculation and correlation is to empower cons. I consider anyone that must be interpreted due to ambiguous language as a con artist.
Im genuinely sorry but i don’t really understand what you’re saying here… Could you maybe rephrase this for me?
You know who else doesn’t belong in nominative determinism? Jesus Christ, Whose name, of course, roughly translates to “oily Josh”.
That’s because “Christ” is a title. Not his name. Hence, “Jesus of Nazareth”.
Jesus Christ? I don’t know Him.
Judas would approve