The Jesus of Christmas 2020 - Radical or Revolutionary?

My perspective of Jesus' life and the various organized religion denominations collectively referred to as Christianity, differs from that of many.

Although it is possible to understand the well-intended thought process associated with labeling Jesus as a "radical", imho, that label misses the mark by labeling him in the way "the enemy" chose.  Because words have power, I experience it is a semantic difference associated with the connotative and denotative meaning of words in the English language. 

It is difficult to deny that the English word "radical" has earned a reputation of being closely associate with violent anarchy.  For that reason the label of "revolutionary", more precisely "spiritual revolutionary" seems much more fitting as a way to describe the historical Jesus.

As a Jewish friend reminded, Jesus was born and raised in Occupied Palestine, so although he was labeled as a dangerous vocal rabble rouser who threatened the political aspirations of the occupiers, Jesus is not known to have advocated resorting to violence in response to those who feared the success of non-violent spiritual resistance; that hardly seems "radical" and riotously reactionary.

When an understanding of the purpose of Jesus' life moves beyond the obstacle of it being primarily defined in terms of the political environment of place and time in Palestine, which aimed to limit that purpose and the breadth and depth of his work, then the revolutionary concept of collectively overcoming through spiritual transformation at the individual level, seems much more clear.

I suggest it remains a revolutionary concept when first recognized by all who choose to take the path of spiritual transformation in life.  Only dictatorial occupiers would consider those who choose to live their lives in ways that empower spiritual evolution, to be ill-intended reactionary radical "threats".  History repeatedly demonstrates that the political intent at the time backfired, and continued to when it intended to silence recognition and teaching about the concept of spiritual evolution through an organized collusive effort to first victimize an outspoken leader whose life's work was to promote individual and collective spiritual evolution, then targeted later leaders under the banner of Christianity, as martyrs also.

Whatever the combination of fact and mythology about Jesus' life at the basis of each denomination of Christianity, altogether it becomes a collective cultural history of Christianity that, as intended, leads to individuals recognizing the concept of personal and collective spiritual transformation.  Although the unfortunate politicalization of organized religions has popularized the concept within Christian denominations that only the Christian approach to teaching about spiritual evolution is valid, what Jesus taught neither negates nor limits earlier and later effective approaches to understanding and teaching about spiritual evolution.

One does not need to embrace Christian theology, in general, or the religious tenants of any specific Christian denomination to be able to appreciate, love, and respect the work that is attributed to Jesus as an outspoken advocate and leader of spiritual evolution in time and place as his purpose for living.  And that purpose, friends, remains a revolutionary concept of personal discovery, regardless of one's religion or lack thereof.

What We Still Need To Know About mRNA Vaccines

If anyone else is uncomfortable about the lack of transparency regarding the vaccines, here is a very brief definition  that informs about mRNA, i.e. Messenger RNA, which has been synthetically created to create functional vaccines that genetically engineer the DNA of everyone who is inoculated.  At least that is what can be understood from learning basic elementary information about mRNA and how it is used in vaccines.

Personally, this eases my mind - some, but not enough to continue to stop being very dubious about the end result of the debacle that was 2020 - covid-19 vaccines.  There are still too many questions to feel comfortable about the intense pressure to be vaccinated.

The definition states that mRNA is "one of the types of RNA" . . . and mentions "this particular" type of RNA.

That information, alone, is way too vague and leaves room for too many possible assumptions.  Granted I am not a Biologist, and have never had an interest in biology so am one of the most uninformed people about the subject of biology.  Even so it is very clear to me, as one of the most uninformed, that we are lacking in basic information about mRNA which everyone is capable of understanding if presented.  So, questions arise:

1) So not all RNA is "messenger" RNA, as the statement seems to be saying?

2) IF mRNA it is the ONLY "messenger" RNA, then wouldn't it carry all messages to our DNA?

3) IF mRNA is the ONLY "messenger" RNA, then when mRNA is bioengineered how do we know what effect it has on all the rest of the messages that are carried to DNA, given that everything is interrelated and interdependent?

MOST importantly the definition states: "in general, one gene, the DNA for one gene, can be transcribed into an mRNA molecule that will end up making one specific protein."  And the accompanying article seems to be saying a "synthetic mRNA that codes" for an additional protein is being inserted into a specific gene.  So, again, questions arise.

1) Which gene is being bioengineered, and what else does the gene do - what are its other functions?

2) How do we know what effect that gene has on all the rest of our DNA - especially when it is altered through bioengineering and changes how everything that gene does is interrelated and interdependent in ways that either no one knows, or is not revealing.

3) Next generation does it turn everyone's hair green, or everyone's eyes purple?  In other words has a seemingly healthy child been born whose parents were vaccinated before conception?  This question is not as silly as it may seem.

Inquiring minds need to know - that means more detailed, basic, information should be readily available as part of news reports, provided for all, especially because the vaccine is being pushed so hard and fast - with only minimal descriptive information other than labeling it as an "mRNA" vaccine.  

If the answers are NOT known, then we all deserve to be honestly told.  Scientists probably have a non-disclosure agreement, so pharmaceutical companies need to stop trying to play "God" (so do scientists and so do governments) when it comes to what we do NOT know about what else the additional protein does to our DNA and its long term effects.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brief definition of mRNA:  Messenger RNA (mRNA)

A little more clarity about how mRNA is used in vaccines:  COVID-19 Vaccination - What Is Messenger RNA?