ivy：我對回教如何視耶穌不清楚，不便評論了。

Eric Tsui：自己對聖經中耶穌的描繪的印象，始終覺得他是「形而上」的居多，或者說是「自立門戶／另起爐灶」，以別於當地的宗教領袖，至於要取他們而代之，我個人認為不太成立。當然，祭師們要設局陷害耶穌（以至於後來在彼拉多前的指控）就是別論了。以此視之，艾氏的耶穌類比，只突顯出他的偏見，以至欲借耶穌來借題發揮的可笑了。

Sunfai：你這樣說我也同意，不過艾氏用來上鋼上線到這樣的程度，就是比喻過了火位矣。

Isleoffools：你不說，我也記不起有人這樣說過了，哈哈！

I suppose Jesus won’t be very keen on wiping Israel from the map.

i see…

我倒一直相信耶穌是個基進份子, 起碼衪當年總是站在受壓迫者的一群當中。當年他讓麻瘋病人、性工作者靠近衪, 並祝福她, 其政治意義不會比今天同性戀者爭取權益要低。

至於今人如何演譯衪的行為及話語, 那又是萬千個版本了。

I have some point to add. While Jesus did not intended to overthrown the Romans, he was hostile to the local religious leaders. His concern could not be said to be simply religious, as religious leaders at the time (or, indeed, in most time throughout the history) are also local political leaders. At many of the recorded teachings of Jesus pointed to the oppression exerted by these religious leaders (e.g. strict regulations, religious tax.)

When Jesus said “to Caesar the things belonged to Caesar”, local religious leaders were trying to set him up, hoping that the Romans could arrest him by provoking him to say something anti-Roman. My interpretation is that he wanted to say that “I concerned about local injustice, don’t mess it up with the problem of Jewish identity or the affairs of foreigners!”

It would be controversial, however, if we attempt to find a modern analoge of Jesus’s thinking. The political system tranformed a lot in last centuries, and it would be inrecognizable for someone living in 1st Century.

Some how these religious discourses are open to interpretation. It may be useful (though many would doubt the usefulness) for self-reflection, to use it to examine our personal values. It yield nothing if we attempt to use religious discourse to prove something. I’d bet that some Americans would say something similar, claiming that their war of terror was an act following the path of Jesus’s righteousness. In the public arena, the only thing that religious discourses could prove are probably the self-righteousness and ignorance of the speaker.

可能他指的是伊斯蘭版本的耶穌。