The problem is, in a universe where God exists, humanity is certainly not the center. With societal norms properly centered on God and His laws, we find ourselves to be radical whenever we turn from His commands. The underlying selfish perspective inherent in calling Jesus a radical could be no more damning.

I was attempting to not place Mr. Kirk in the company of Buckley and Levin and to acknowledge that he (Kirk) was anti-war; while making my contention that the three of these gentlemen re-defined Conservatism. I (think) that I now understand that what you were saying is that you disagree with my contention. On that, then, we disagree.

I tried an e-mail, but the response was that I should post on the blog. [See Post Update.]

My second post was a failure on my part to understand your response. It was unnecessary and a waste of our time. [See Post Update.]

Ilana, if I misread you, then simply tell me please: how, or why, in your judgment, was Jesus a radical? Jesus argued mostly with His fellow Jews, or, more specifically, His fellow Rabbis. This was more of an internecine conflict between two groups of people that, in large respects, were pretty much on the same page. I don’t see any radicalism there.

Also, Ilana, I am not sure that I understand how the article to which you linked has any connection to what I said regarding my appreciation for the respectful treatment that such non-Christians as Jews and Muslims accord Jesus. Their views are clearly not identical (no conflation here), but they are similar in assigning Jesus a place in the prophetic tradition. That was my point.

It was also my point that in looking at Him as ONLY a prophet, Jews and Muslims have an inadequate understanding of who He is–an understanding that cannot be sustained by a reading of the NT.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Page26.htm

Among other things, the Messiah was to be another King David who would re-establish a Jewish Kingship – not a Kingdom “not of this world”.

As for passive resistance – Jesus was anti-political and recognized no authority in Rome whatsoever – you can pay them taxes but there was no reason to plead with them.

Biblical scholars of various type trace an evolution between the Jewish followers of Jesus in mid 30’s A.D. to the Gospel Jesus 40 years later – hence the promotion from rabbi/prophet to G-d.

Russell Kirk was anti-war; I will not mention the other two names that, with Russell Kirk, re-defined Conservatism. He supported Eugene McCarthy in the 1976 Presidential Campaign, and was somewhat unkind to Libertarians (referred to them as “chirping sectaries”). He, like the other two persons I will not mention, was a great fan of Edmond Burke.

[Thanks. But not sure why you are not mentioning anyone by name. How is anyone to get what you’re saying? Talker Levin has defined nothing much except neoconservatism and his Ego.]

“first they came for the Serbians, then they came for the Iraqism then they came for the Egyptian Copts… …. “ See

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/113592.html

and some older articles

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/113513.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/113517.html

and an “atrocity” that the US blamed on Assad was perpetrated by
our Sunni allies

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/112917.html

As for Ilana’s contention that Jesus was a “radical” because, like the prophets of old, He told “the stiff necked people where to get off in no uncertain terms,” how does that make Jesus, or anyone, a radical? The people with whom He fought, the scribes and Pharisees, had more power than He–but power is not authority (however much we sloppily and inaccurately conflate the two). The only people with both the authority and power to enforce that authority were the Romans, and against them, Jesus uttered not a word. In fact, when He had the chance to do so, when Pontius Pilate questioned Him, He never so much as defended Himself. This doesn’t even register as “passive resistance.”

I appreciate the respect Jews and Muslims show Jesus by identifying Him in the terms that Ilana specifies, but the Jesus that is depicted in the Gospels and characterized throughout the remainder of the New Testament resolutely defies the ascription of “prophet:” “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me”–and a whole bunch of other equally deity-affirming self-references.

What C.S. Lewis is correct. If we accept the NT on its face, then we have two options only: either Jesus was God or He was a madman.

* Were they adhering to the welfare provisions of the Law? Were they generous in making zero interest loans? In observing the Sabbath years? The Jubilee years?

* Had the Pharisees of the day adopted a belief similar to Karma? Did they consider the poor to blame for their plight?

* Was Jesus getting on their case for observing the oral traditions over the written Law?

Members of the libertarian Right need to think hard on the first two points. The prohibitions on theft and coveting were in the context of Georgist land redistribution, gleaner rights and zero interest loans.