What is Reddit's opinion of The Politics of Jesus?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Jesus was going to be arrested anyway, even without the betrayal. He proclaimed a political Kingdom and was associated with zealots i.e. the Hebrews who wanted a violent revolt. (Getting my information from <em>The Politics of Jesus</em> by John Howard Yoder as well as <em>Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel: Abridged Edition</em> by Alexandre Christoyannopoulos. If Judas was doing anything, it would be fulfilling prophecy like how the the disciples were to get swords (two only) so Jesus can be counted amongst criminals.

Jesus was going to be arrested anyway, even without the betrayal. He proclaimed a political Kingdom and was associated with zealots i.e. the Hebrews who wanted a violent revolt. (Getting my information from <em>The Politics of Jesus</em> by John Howard Yoder as well as <em>Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel: Abridged Edition</em> by Alexandre Christoyannopoulos. If Judas was doing anything, it would be fulfilling prophecy like how the the disciples were to get swords (two only) so Jesus can be counted amongst criminals. Or Judas could be trying to push Jesus into the realm of a violent revolt - as he was (I think) a Zealot himself (Judas).

>Try Matthew 5:17

Throughout that chapter (and the Gospels generally) Jesus consisently makes a distinction between the letter of the law (i.e. what it had traditionally been interpreted to mean up until that point) and its true intent (i.e. his interpretation). His teachings, like turning the other cheek instead of an eye for an eye, are supposed to clarify the real thrust of the original law, thus bringing it out more clearly and not destroying it.

What happens, though, is that some Christians forget the distinction Jesus made and try to say that the original interpretations of the law are still 100% valid and even if Jesus said something which completely changes it you can still do the older version and be OK. This completely ignores Jesus' own explanation that he's giving the real meaning for you to follow--and if you're a Christian then why wouldn't you follow Jesus' version?

Also, if Jesus truly endorsed fighting, then why in the New Testament did none of his disciples do so when they were threatened with violence and death? The Jewish scriptures were available then as now, and if Jesus supported the Old Testament's teachings on war then his disciples could easily have done that. But there is no evidence that they resisted physically or went to war against their persecutors (even with all those weapons they carried); in fact, some allowed themselves to be killed rather than resist. Did they somehow miss Jesus' memo to kick ass and take names?

>why did he allow his disciples to carry weapons?

Hunting? Cutting rope? Who knows? But it's clear that when Peter actually draws his weapon and cuts off someone's ear, Jesus tells him to stop fighting and put it back in its sheath. So there's no evidence that he endorsed their use for harming people.

>Why did he kill those defenseless pigs?

He didn't, demons did. Jesus cast out the demons from two possessed men and placed them in the pigs as the demons requested. The demons then took over the pigs and ran into the lake to drown themselves.

Personally I find the whole "demonology" crap (and theism itself) completely unbelievable, but the point remains that--according to the story--Jesus didn't kill them.

>why does Ecclesiastes 3:8 mention a time for war?

Because the author of Ecclesiastes is not Jesus. Jesus acknowledged that wars must happen but never advocated to participate in them.

>Why has every single notable Christian scholar ever advocated warfare?

Not every notable Christian scholar advocated warfare--here's an example. But those who do are probably just following in footsteps of the Constantinian shift, when Christianity first became a state religion and justifying war to a hiterto non-violent religious group became necessary.

Edit: minor spelling/grammar