Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeBass
I know if I was God and I wanted to send my message through a messenger this would be the person to do it.
|
Well, you're not, and probably for good reason.
Seriously though, I could see as how this would be a problem if one adopts a narrowly exclusivist perspective of religion. If we assume that Jesus was the ONLY source for the message (I provided my own single-sentence synopsis of what this message is in post # 731 above), or that the promise of God's kingdom (not "heaven") was reserved for ONLY those who believe in Jesus, then yes, this appears non-sensical and incredulous. I would agree that probably the majority of North American Christians—certainly nearly all of those who would be classified as "evangelical"—do hold to this view. I do not.
It doesn't have to be that way, and while Jesus himself had no real vision outside of his own small nation, I do think that his expectation for radical and beneficial social, economic, and religious change was widely applicable. I don't think that one need agree with everything Jesus said to appreciate the significance of what he was preaching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeBass
But was he really that insignificant wasn't there a big Palm Sunday moment when he entered the city?
|
You are correct, but I am uncertain about how "big" an event Jesus entry into Jerusalem at the beginning of Passover week really was. This is almost certainly what drew him to the attention of the Romans, but it is quite likely that the event itself was greatly exaggerated in the gospel retellings. One must bear in mind the political climate of the day, and the occasion. The Roman prefect would customarily fill the city of Jerusalem for this festival with Roman legions, and it was not uncommon to quickly and mercilessly quell any hint of violence or social unrest during passover. This is most likely what happened. Jesus likely caused a minor stir with his arrival into the city, and word spread about his apocalyptic ideals. The Romans nipped it in the bud.