Re: Restored (and a final story for Luke and Daniel)

You'll have to be careful about the "political rebel" part when you do respond.
Remember the complexities of politics in Palestine in Christ's day. The Roman
Empire had possession of the territory with a governor over the region. The
Romans, however, allowed Palestinian Jews a great deal of self-governance, which
was represented by their puppet-king Herod (at the time of the birth of Christ)
and by the Sadduccees and Pharisees, who represented both governmental bodies
and religious authority by their governance of the temple and interpretation of
Jewish law (respectively).

NT writers in the Gospels and Acts tend to depict the relationship between Rome
(and its representatives) as benign or at least indifferent. Pilate, you
remember, did not really want to crucify Christ. All problems come from members
of select Jewish groups (the Pharisees in the Gospels, the Sadduccees in the
book of Acts, along with representatives of the Pharisees that are especially
aggressive) in their attempts to discredit or eliminate Christianity.

So you can say Christ was a "political rebel" in the sense that his religious
reform was threatening to religious authorities in Palestine who also held
broader societal power. You can't really say he was a political rebel against
Roman rule. He called himself a king, but then said his kingdom wasn't of this
world. And then there's that passage Luke brought up, and Paul's injunction to
the Christians in Rome of all places to be submissive to governing
authorities.

Jim

tina carson wrote:

> Goodnes, Robbie, there is so much here to refute, where to begin?
> I'll put the kettle on, set back with a cup of tea, & have at it. Back in a
> moment,
> tina

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Jul 24 22:44:37 2003