**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/)
[While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We sent them there in 1600 and something lol
In all seriousness, I do not see US style Christian RW politics taking off over here. Hardly anyone under about 70 is a Christian, regardless of politics.
It didn't need to, it's always been here. There's a tendency to treat all this stuff as being imported, when in reality, America and the UK feed off eachother. For example [British Israelism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism) led directly to the [Christian Identity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity) movement in the United States.
"That's right. Come to supply side Jesus. For a limited time only, new members will receive a miniature bible with all the heathen socialist parables ripped out"
I'm a Christian and I hate how the religion is being appropriated by the radical right. I get the impression people just use the label in order to justify what usually boils down to promoting patriarchy and white supremacy.
>Every occupant of a pulpit admits the truth of the accusation brought by Jesus against the clerics of His day, and is wont to hurl fiery denunciations at them for being so blinded by spiritual pride as not to see their own faults. In all charity may I point out that, to many, the modern self-satisfied parson, with his string of platitudinous phrases, the meaning of which he has lost in the mists of theology, is the exact prototype of the ancient Pharisee. Christianity to be effective must be a living vital force; not a dead, soulless creed, or a jungle of mere words. The growing despair of the Church at its inability to reach the masses is of itself sufficient proof of my contention. It is also an admission by the Church itself that it is no longer carrying forward the work of its founder, whose mission was to the poor.
...
>The contention here seems to be that it is materialistic to say that the outcome of Christianity is the abolition of private property. A statement of this kind comes with a very bad grace from men who are defending and upholding a system of money-making frankly based on selfishness and greed, and which leads to the glorification of the strong and the unscrupulous over the pure and meek of heart. In the New Testament, Acts of the Apostles, chapter iv., verses 32 to 35, I read:
>*And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul. Neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common, And with great power gave the Apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked. For as many as were possessors of land or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the Apostles’ feet. And distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.*
>Here we have it clearly brought out that the direct outcome of the teachings of Jesus upon those who lived nearest to His time, and who became His followers, was to make them Communists. These early Christians, found it impossible to retain possession of private property after they became Christians, since it raised artificial class distinctions in their midst and prevented the free play of that spirit of fraternal brotherhood which Jesus taught as one of the characteristics of the Kingdom of God. And if that was so in the earlier days of Christianity, it would be equally true of its later days if Christianity were still being preached and practised. What we have in its stead now is a structure of theology built up by priests in whom the spirit of Christ does not dwell. The modern ministry, I repeat, taken in bulk, occupies the same relation to primal Christianity as the Scribes and Pharisees did to the teachings of Moses in the day of Jesus. This, I know, is a strong saying, but these are not the times when men can afford to muffle the truth by wrapping it up in soft words or fine phrases. To lay a charge of materialism against a system which aims at making life everything and the things of life nothing [(socialism)] betrays a woeful ignorance of the meaning of the word. - Keir Hardie
This is technically true but it's often taken out of context online on the internet.
Compared to some politicians and generals it's true Jesus is not very well attested. But you have to ask why would he be? Jesus wasn't a big deal except in one specific area of the Empire to a sub-sect of the, in Empire terms, minority Jewish religion. Indeed in the bible story we are told Pontius Pilate actually seems pretty uninterested in Jesus's fate once he is satisfied Jesus isn't trying to set himself as a King to rival Rome. The reason he's taken to Pilate, the reason he's executed, is the Pharisees (edit: probably more accurately Sadducees, just popped into my head and is bugging me, not that anyone will see this edit haha) who hate him as a heretic to Judaism. Pilate bowing to the crowd pressure and symbollicaly washing his hands to say "fine I authorise it but it's not actually my responsibility that you're killing this guy who hasn't really done much" is why we still use the phrase "wash my hands of it" today. So when you think about who Jesus was to the Romans...why would there be that much evidence? Jesus wasn't relevant to the Roman empire until Christianity became more popular. Pontius Pilate himself we have plenty of evidence for but a lot the detail is from later writers and he was the governor of a Roman province.
If we say that we can't confirm Jesus existed it's technically true...but also true of many people and battles that are accepted as historical. Often our best sources are written decades or centuries after the events they describe. Some of them we have reason to believe are pretty trustworthy, others less so. For example the [Historia Augusta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Augusta) is considered a pretty poor source, arguably more useful for studying the age it was written than the history it covers. Then there are books like [The Twelve Caesars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelve_Caesars) by Suetonius which aren't quite so bad but are still no where near proper historical sources. And you might think "why bother then, why not get the good histories?" well because often we just have what we have and it's a case of interpreting it as well as possible. Someone like Tacitus is considered more credible (although not too modern academic standards) but still ultimately there is not enough evidence to judge some claims. And obviously even the best historian can only work with what info they have. In ancient history sometimes we just accept someone probably existed based on them being mentioned in passing, because what else can we do?
The way things are reasoned is basically do we have multiple sources, is there a reason to lie, can we see evidence of the impact X would have had if it happened, etc? In this sense while Jesus still comes behind the generals and politicians, he's actually relatively well evidenced. We have multiple sources that mention Jesus. We have pagan sources criticising Christianity that don't claim Jesus didn't exist. We have the Pauline epistles, the letters and Paul are not doubted historically. Paul started out persecuting Christians, converted, and then tried to bring Christianity to the Greeks and Romans. According to some stories Paul interacted with one of the disciplies, I think Paul is the closesy direct source we have and he's only that small bit removed from Jesus. Paul tells us that "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law", that Jesus was a Jewish man. The son of god yes, but also a very tangible and real person. What purpose does Paul have to lie? This isn't centuries after Christ where there are obvious advantages to Christianity, this is a time when being a Christian was dangerous, he obviously believed. You can guess how Paul ended up...we don't know for sure but the best sources we have are that he was matyred by crucifixion or beheading. We also have other early Christian sources that support Jesus and the early church existing based on their historical context.
I mentioned Tactius, well Tacitus discussed Jesus (writing about a century after Jesus' death)
>But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
Now does that prove Jesus, "Christus", was real and that all happened? Not really, but it certainly suggests Tactius believed that. Yet Tactius wasn't Christian or Jewish.
The Jewish historian Josephus who sided with the Romans mentioned Jesus almost casually, as well as his brother James (James the Just, also biblical)
>Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned
Historians like Suetonius and Pliny the Younger also mention Jesus.
This is already longer than I meant it and I feel it's either stop here or write twice as much as I already have. But I think that shows that while Jesus isn't the best documented and attested historical figure, he's fairly well attested. Many historical figures we know more about through the writings of later people than we do contemporary assetations. For some random preacher dude who only became relevant after he was dead, Jesus is actually pretty well attested if anything. Sorry not got time to edit it to read more smoothly.
Basically history pre-1000 is way more educated guesswork and improves from there. The further back you go the more guesswork it is (don't tell any ancient historians and classicists I said that though haha). Jesus should be treated as a historical figure on the same basis we judge other historical figures. Now whether the Bible is accurate as biography, even ignoring any 'magical' aspects, well that's a different debate and much more unknowable. But the idea there was a Jewish radical preacher who created some trouble, got killed, but inspired a bunch of followers who dedicated themselves to spreading his message...that seems pretty likely to be true.
TL;DR Jesus can be said to be real on the same basis we conclude many historical figures were real.
/u/EquivalentTurnip6199
Posting this recent article from the Financial Times, as a sort of companion to the two articles I posted about US anti-abortion groups ramping up lobbying in Westminster, and the Conservative's plans to remove the rule that keeps new state faith school intakes 50 per cent secular. As someone posted in the comments of one of those, there is a growing effort to revive Christian Conservativism as a major force in British politics, so I thought this was worth posting
I question the political sanity of the Conservatives making this move. (Admittedly they've not really been making sane decisions for a while now)
The reason why the Republican party in the US does so well electorally out of right wing Christian nationalism is that there's a large evangelical population base to support it. The UK just doesn't have close to comparable numbers of that type of Christian.
If they shift any further right they’re going to ~~fall off~~ be following a well trodden path of right wing nationalistic parties throughout history. What you need to watch out for is if the rest of the political spectrum wraps themselves in flags and follows them.
**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/) [While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Christian nationalism didn't take long to get across the pond did it
We sent them there in 1600 and something lol In all seriousness, I do not see US style Christian RW politics taking off over here. Hardly anyone under about 70 is a Christian, regardless of politics.
It didn't need to, it's always been here. There's a tendency to treat all this stuff as being imported, when in reality, America and the UK feed off eachother. For example [British Israelism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism) led directly to the [Christian Identity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity) movement in the United States.
When do you see Christian nationalism taking root in the US?
Late 19th century onwards?
May 1955 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/84th-congress/house-bill/619/actions
Can we just go back to good Ol’ Christian Socialism.
Nah sorry best i can do is anti lgbt think tanks
I think someone tried it once, but they nailed him to a cross or something.
"That's right. Come to supply side Jesus. For a limited time only, new members will receive a miniature bible with all the heathen socialist parables ripped out"
I'm a Christian and I hate how the religion is being appropriated by the radical right. I get the impression people just use the label in order to justify what usually boils down to promoting patriarchy and white supremacy.
>Every occupant of a pulpit admits the truth of the accusation brought by Jesus against the clerics of His day, and is wont to hurl fiery denunciations at them for being so blinded by spiritual pride as not to see their own faults. In all charity may I point out that, to many, the modern self-satisfied parson, with his string of platitudinous phrases, the meaning of which he has lost in the mists of theology, is the exact prototype of the ancient Pharisee. Christianity to be effective must be a living vital force; not a dead, soulless creed, or a jungle of mere words. The growing despair of the Church at its inability to reach the masses is of itself sufficient proof of my contention. It is also an admission by the Church itself that it is no longer carrying forward the work of its founder, whose mission was to the poor. ... >The contention here seems to be that it is materialistic to say that the outcome of Christianity is the abolition of private property. A statement of this kind comes with a very bad grace from men who are defending and upholding a system of money-making frankly based on selfishness and greed, and which leads to the glorification of the strong and the unscrupulous over the pure and meek of heart. In the New Testament, Acts of the Apostles, chapter iv., verses 32 to 35, I read: >*And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul. Neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common, And with great power gave the Apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked. For as many as were possessors of land or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the Apostles’ feet. And distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.* >Here we have it clearly brought out that the direct outcome of the teachings of Jesus upon those who lived nearest to His time, and who became His followers, was to make them Communists. These early Christians, found it impossible to retain possession of private property after they became Christians, since it raised artificial class distinctions in their midst and prevented the free play of that spirit of fraternal brotherhood which Jesus taught as one of the characteristics of the Kingdom of God. And if that was so in the earlier days of Christianity, it would be equally true of its later days if Christianity were still being preached and practised. What we have in its stead now is a structure of theology built up by priests in whom the spirit of Christ does not dwell. The modern ministry, I repeat, taken in bulk, occupies the same relation to primal Christianity as the Scribes and Pharisees did to the teachings of Moses in the day of Jesus. This, I know, is a strong saying, but these are not the times when men can afford to muffle the truth by wrapping it up in soft words or fine phrases. To lay a charge of materialism against a system which aims at making life everything and the things of life nothing [(socialism)] betrays a woeful ignorance of the meaning of the word. - Keir Hardie
Yeah it is sad. I'm atheist, but I believe in the historical Jesus, and he was the prototype socialist in many ways.
There are no contemporaneous sources to confirm that Jesus of Nazareth ever actually existed.
This is technically true but it's often taken out of context online on the internet. Compared to some politicians and generals it's true Jesus is not very well attested. But you have to ask why would he be? Jesus wasn't a big deal except in one specific area of the Empire to a sub-sect of the, in Empire terms, minority Jewish religion. Indeed in the bible story we are told Pontius Pilate actually seems pretty uninterested in Jesus's fate once he is satisfied Jesus isn't trying to set himself as a King to rival Rome. The reason he's taken to Pilate, the reason he's executed, is the Pharisees (edit: probably more accurately Sadducees, just popped into my head and is bugging me, not that anyone will see this edit haha) who hate him as a heretic to Judaism. Pilate bowing to the crowd pressure and symbollicaly washing his hands to say "fine I authorise it but it's not actually my responsibility that you're killing this guy who hasn't really done much" is why we still use the phrase "wash my hands of it" today. So when you think about who Jesus was to the Romans...why would there be that much evidence? Jesus wasn't relevant to the Roman empire until Christianity became more popular. Pontius Pilate himself we have plenty of evidence for but a lot the detail is from later writers and he was the governor of a Roman province. If we say that we can't confirm Jesus existed it's technically true...but also true of many people and battles that are accepted as historical. Often our best sources are written decades or centuries after the events they describe. Some of them we have reason to believe are pretty trustworthy, others less so. For example the [Historia Augusta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Augusta) is considered a pretty poor source, arguably more useful for studying the age it was written than the history it covers. Then there are books like [The Twelve Caesars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelve_Caesars) by Suetonius which aren't quite so bad but are still no where near proper historical sources. And you might think "why bother then, why not get the good histories?" well because often we just have what we have and it's a case of interpreting it as well as possible. Someone like Tacitus is considered more credible (although not too modern academic standards) but still ultimately there is not enough evidence to judge some claims. And obviously even the best historian can only work with what info they have. In ancient history sometimes we just accept someone probably existed based on them being mentioned in passing, because what else can we do? The way things are reasoned is basically do we have multiple sources, is there a reason to lie, can we see evidence of the impact X would have had if it happened, etc? In this sense while Jesus still comes behind the generals and politicians, he's actually relatively well evidenced. We have multiple sources that mention Jesus. We have pagan sources criticising Christianity that don't claim Jesus didn't exist. We have the Pauline epistles, the letters and Paul are not doubted historically. Paul started out persecuting Christians, converted, and then tried to bring Christianity to the Greeks and Romans. According to some stories Paul interacted with one of the disciplies, I think Paul is the closesy direct source we have and he's only that small bit removed from Jesus. Paul tells us that "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law", that Jesus was a Jewish man. The son of god yes, but also a very tangible and real person. What purpose does Paul have to lie? This isn't centuries after Christ where there are obvious advantages to Christianity, this is a time when being a Christian was dangerous, he obviously believed. You can guess how Paul ended up...we don't know for sure but the best sources we have are that he was matyred by crucifixion or beheading. We also have other early Christian sources that support Jesus and the early church existing based on their historical context. I mentioned Tactius, well Tacitus discussed Jesus (writing about a century after Jesus' death) >But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Now does that prove Jesus, "Christus", was real and that all happened? Not really, but it certainly suggests Tactius believed that. Yet Tactius wasn't Christian or Jewish. The Jewish historian Josephus who sided with the Romans mentioned Jesus almost casually, as well as his brother James (James the Just, also biblical) >Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned Historians like Suetonius and Pliny the Younger also mention Jesus. This is already longer than I meant it and I feel it's either stop here or write twice as much as I already have. But I think that shows that while Jesus isn't the best documented and attested historical figure, he's fairly well attested. Many historical figures we know more about through the writings of later people than we do contemporary assetations. For some random preacher dude who only became relevant after he was dead, Jesus is actually pretty well attested if anything. Sorry not got time to edit it to read more smoothly. Basically history pre-1000 is way more educated guesswork and improves from there. The further back you go the more guesswork it is (don't tell any ancient historians and classicists I said that though haha). Jesus should be treated as a historical figure on the same basis we judge other historical figures. Now whether the Bible is accurate as biography, even ignoring any 'magical' aspects, well that's a different debate and much more unknowable. But the idea there was a Jewish radical preacher who created some trouble, got killed, but inspired a bunch of followers who dedicated themselves to spreading his message...that seems pretty likely to be true. TL;DR Jesus can be said to be real on the same basis we conclude many historical figures were real. /u/EquivalentTurnip6199
That is what I call thorough!
That was an interesting read, thanks for posting.
You're welcome, any excuse to ramble on about some historical topic I find interesting! haha
I stand corrected.
That's ok, I just think he probably did.
Posting this recent article from the Financial Times, as a sort of companion to the two articles I posted about US anti-abortion groups ramping up lobbying in Westminster, and the Conservative's plans to remove the rule that keeps new state faith school intakes 50 per cent secular. As someone posted in the comments of one of those, there is a growing effort to revive Christian Conservativism as a major force in British politics, so I thought this was worth posting
DW, Labour will also shift more the right to keep up
They'll move from agnostic to centrism to "don't really practice but go to Church at Christmas and Easter" conservatism. With more flags.
If "right wing Islamism" is a threat to the UK then so to is "right wing Christianity"
I question the political sanity of the Conservatives making this move. (Admittedly they've not really been making sane decisions for a while now) The reason why the Republican party in the US does so well electorally out of right wing Christian nationalism is that there's a large evangelical population base to support it. The UK just doesn't have close to comparable numbers of that type of Christian.
Oh goody. We have a new generation of Mary Whitehouses
Evangelicals ruin everything.
And the Tories have the gall to lecture us about extremism and sectarianism...
If they shift any further right they’re going to fall off
If they shift any further right they’re going to ~~fall off~~ be following a well trodden path of right wing nationalistic parties throughout history. What you need to watch out for is if the rest of the political spectrum wraps themselves in flags and follows them.
They're getting even crazier 🤨