What do you take to be the core of Jesus' teachings? Please site a verse or two to support your view. — Bitter Crank

Yeshua ben Yosef vMiri? He was probably an itinerant Jewish craftsman who worked in the nearest urban center of Sephoris in the Northern Judean district of Galilee. There were many sects of Judaism at the time. Their core doctrine was the Torah- the Teachings of Moses. Though they were attributed directly to Moses, the Sinai revelation, and the Passover story in 1200 BCE, the teachings were probably compiled from several oral (and some written) traditions around the time of the Babylonian Captivity and subsequent Persian return to Judea in the 400s BCE. And though the Torah was the founding written document, there were many interpretations in regards to how the Laws of Moses were to be practiced. What does it mean not to do work on the Sabbath? If one is in mortal danger, can one break a law on the Sabbath? What does it mean to be Kosher? These are the kind of interpretations of the Law that were being asked, and they were often answered in very different ways. Saducees were the group mainly represented by the High Priestly class established in Jerusalem. Depending on your reading, they either had a more "personalized" "do it your self" version of the law, or a more "literal" version of the law, with no oral arguments from a long line of rabbis of how to interpret it. If you were a Pharisee, you claimed that there was a long line of rabbis that taught an oral tradition as to how to follow it. If you were an Essene from the Dead Sea Scroll sect, you thought both the Pharasidic and the Sadducee interpretation of the Law was too soft, not to mention their acceptance of foreign rule in YHWH's Holy Land. They thought that Ezekiel, Zachariah and the rest were correct- the End of Days will be near when God's rule will reign supreme, the Jews will rule their ancestral lands, and foreigners will be driven out of the region with the help of a messianic figure.

Similar to the Essenes (or perhaps a low level version of the same core take on the Law), were the zealots. These were people from various backgrounds who often wanted to purify the current system with its corrupt priests, and Temple institution. They wanted to bring back a purity to the law that was being corrupted by foreign influence of both Herodian rule in the Galilee and the direct Roman- Temple Priest Establishment in the Jerusalem. This is where John the Baptist would come in. He was probably a break-off Essene, a head of his sect of Judaism which wanted to purify the laws and the leadership and envisioned the End of Times and the Kingdom of God with its messianic rule was near. A messiah in this case being the original Hebrew meaning of "Anointed One", in other words a king who will reestablish the dynasty of David (the rightful lineage for all Jewish kings), clean the established rule with a purified version of the Law, and bring about The Kingdom of God and the End of Times.. One of John's disciples from the same Galilean region was Yeshua ben Yosef who embraced much of John's message of trying to live righteously by abiding to the intended meaning of the Laws of Moses. He was also known as a local healer of sorts- one of many Jewish miracle-workers of the time.. Usually miracle-workers were paid, but he did it for free which made him in high demand in places with populations of psychological and physical maladies. His interpretation of the Torah plus his miracle-working made him a mild B star celebrity.. Then, he made a fatal error in deciding to go to Jerusalem to rail against the corruption of the Priests and how they were not following the Laws of Moses in the right interpretation.. Some Pharisees thought this guy wasn't bad, an Am Ha-aretz (person from the land), who had some zeal for the Laws of Moses (like many attempted Jewish Messianic figures were doing at the time against Rome and the Establishment).. He did it predictably on Passover, the most politically charged holiday as it commemorates freedom from foreign rule and bondage- something Rome and the prefect Pontius Pilate knew quite well. Pilate was known for his cruelty in rule, but if you read Josephus, his cruelty was the only reason why there were no major rebellions during his long reign.. He crucified thousands of rebellions and would-be messianic claimants trying to reestablish David's kingdom. Jesus met the same fate as many of his countryman during this time.. It was not a good idea to symbolically try to overthrow the Temple establishment (that was closely overseen by the Roman governors) during the most politically tumultuous holiday of Passover, a recipe for being crucified.

So after Jesus' death, his brother James took over leadership of this sect of Jews, and taught people that this guy was so good he can't be dead.. They did not see him as a "Son of God", unless in the general sense that it was a messianic (political kingly) title or just a really righteous guy. Anyways, even if he wasn't dead or he was the first to ressurect (which was and is a part of mainstream Jewish belief.. that the dead will rise at the end of times), he was not seen as part of God himself, that came later with Paul.. Paul from Tarsus, got involved with this group, changed the message a bit to mean that Jesus was a real Son of God, whose death and resurrection meant that the Laws of Moses no longer applied. He was having a hard time finding many Jewish adherents to this new interpertation of the Jesus sect.. but he found plenty in the Gentile communiites.. James, being the brother of Jesus and knowing him a bit more closely than Paul, rightly was pissed and basically tried to stop Paul's teachings.. This Pauline version became "Christianity" with mystery cult rites of eating flesh/blood (shades of Mithra cult), and a god who was higher than the Law (shades of Gnosticism where God of light above the Demiurge)..

Anywho, the original Jewish Jesus sect headed by a succession of Jesus' brothers and family died off. They were a bit too far out there for regular synogauge attendance (a Messiah that was dead many years past cannot be the messiah anymore especially if Rome has destroyed the Temple now and Jews are scattered).. But they certainly weren't into the whole paganistic idea of a godman that dies for your sins (Pauline Gentile Christianity).. So they were in a limbo and essentially assimilated in one of the two groups and probably went underground for the first 300 years of Pauline Christianity's reign.

Anyways, long story short, Jesus' message was follow the Torah by keeping close to its intended meaning as the prophets taught. The End.

Say something about Jesus and somebody will disagree--maybe for good reasons, maybe not.

What do you take to be the core of Jesus' teachings? Please site a verse or two to support your view. — Bitter Crank

Can I do this without citing anything? Its “turn your other cheek”: a very worrier-for-peace mentality that was likely sometimes played out in blood by his associates … whose meaning has been badly mauled by the powers that be of history. See, you had a guy that was deemed an impudent infidel about to be slapped as an inferior by some Roman soldier. But being a Gnostic in Jesus’s camp (no Christian existed back in Jesus’s time; these came about much later after the trinity was invented), the Gnostic indicated to the tough Roman soldier “brother, hit me if you deem it just, but slap me with the other side of your hand like you would slap a fellow that's equal in worth to yourself”, this by turning his/her other cheek after having been slapped like a subhuman/slave/inferior. Which, given the way policing often works, likely got at least some of these Gnostics into a lot of trouble. And yes, I have no doubt that sometimes—as was the case with Gandhi’s crowd—it became deadly for the Gnostic who so stood up to the Roman soldier.

So, basically, “turn your other cheek” epitomizes his stance on humanitarian values, like the equality of intrinsic worth between people, etc. Well, as long as it’s interpreted the only way it could have been interpreted back in Roman times by anyone Roman.

OK: all this imo. and I acknowledge differences with scholars on this

---

found the citation:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. —  Matthew 5:38–5:39 KJV

Love others as yourself.

Bitterness had come to Jerusalem since Antiochus put a statue of Zeus in the holy of holies. Rabbis would ponder how long a Gentile has to be tortured in the afterlife to mark justice.

Jesus said let it go. It's not doing any good. It's just twisting your soul.

Truly, truly, I tell you, the hour is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself. And He has given Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear His voice and come out—those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.…John 5:26-29

For me the core of Jesus' teachings will always be that suffering, pain, and damnation await those who do not kowtow to God.

God created Jesus (himself) and then forsook (betrayed IMO) Jesus when he had him crucified in order to make the world right again. (I like to joke that God uses blood magic to do his mysterious works and so dispenses with human life whenever). God is Gargamel and we're the smurfs.

Well now Jesus is paying it forward, and threatens to judge and torture us in a similar manner so that forgiveness can happen (revenge). If Jesus is our heavenly father and God is our heavenly grandfather, Christians are afflicted by inter-generational domestic abuse.

Anyways... The End. — schopenhauer1

Thanks for that.

In order to understand Christianity, it is necessary to "mind the gap" between the time of somebody identified as Jesus (Joshua) and the emergence of the religion "Christianity" some centuries later. Jesus/Joshua was a Jew, not a Christian, and his self-understanding and how he was understood by others was always in the context of variegated Judaism.

Which is not to say there was not a trail of continuity between Jesus and the organized church. There was some sort of continuity; there had to have been, but the trail has been lost in times and places.

The early church compiled, edited, and published the New Testament, without first, second or maybe even third-hand knowledge of the historical, religious, and physical reality of Judah and Israel. What they had was current practice, a pile of mismatched writings, and their own theological needs--the last of which was sometimes read back into the Gospels.

Whether Jesus actually “took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" or not is unknown. The sayings could have grown out of the communal meal the early Christians ate (it was a real meal, not just a liturgy) and it could have been can actual quote. We just don't, won't, and can't know for sure. Compare the liturgy to Exodus 24:8 "Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

What do you take to be the core of Jesus' teachings? Please site a verse or two to support your view. — Bitter Crank

Rather than respond directly to that, I think it might be helpful to consider what kind of human being He was. Of course the dogma was thrashed out over centuries in answer this question, and in fact considerable blood was shed in arriving at the final formulation (see The Jesus Wars). But from the viewpoint of philosophical anthropology and comparative religion, where does Jesus fit? What kind of man was he?

I think the answer is that he was the God-realised being. That expression itself is much more characteristic of the neo-Vedanta associated with the likes of Paramahansa Yogananda, who formed the Self-Realisation Fellowship in Los Angeles in the 1920's (which is still in existence). But according to the Hindu view of life, the divine manifests in human form as an avatar (a term which has now entered pop culture), of which Jesus Christ was an example. As evidence for that, they point to the 'three wise men from the East' who appeared at the scene of Christ's birth (those crafty orientals know a thing or two).

I noticed, when I became familiar with the writings of and about the still highly-regarded Hindu sage, Sri Ramana Maharishi, that he frequently referred to Biblical texts and teachings, and to the person of Jesus Christ as the exemplar of the realised being. However he would never agree with the idea of salvation by 'vicarious atonement'. More it was a matter of realising the same state that Jesus spoke of, which the Vedantins identify with mokṣa, liberation or enlightenment. Read that way, all of Jesus' teachings are references to that state of being; 'I and the Father are One' is a re-statement of the non-dual (advaita) nature of such a realisation, where all sense of separate selfhood is lost. In that interpretation, the crucifiction is the death of the ego, and the resurrection being reborn into real life.

I suppose from an orthodox Christian view, such a view is deeply offensive, as Christians are inordinately attached to the idea that Jesus Christ is the only instance of such a being in the whole history of the planet. I think the Hindu response to that would be that this amounts to a misunderstanding of the sense of 'only' - Christ is truth as distinct from falsehood, not Christian as distinct from some other religion. Religions are after all just the 'footprints of the ox', to allude to another Eastern metaphor. So in this view, Jesus was a peripatetic sage (as is well-known, there is a large period of his life which is unaccounted for in the Bible, heaven knows where he was then), who realised the state of supreme enlightenment, which he teaches to others, and which is so utterly subversive of the religious orders of his day, that he is put to death for his efforts, but then is resurrected, due to the power of his realisation, thereby forming the basis for the Christian faith.

but I think a case can be made that he didn't require good people to be ascetics — Bitter Crank

You've subtly shifted your claim here. You originally said that Jesus didn't preach asceticism. Now you're saying that he didn't require people to be ascetics. I think the first claim is still false. He did preach asceticism, and he even practiced asceticism. Did he require his followers to do so? His answer seems to be, yes, but only if one is able (Matthew 19:12).

You've subtly shifted your claim here. — Thorongil

I wasn't trying to weasel out of an earlier statement. I still think that Jesus didn't preach asceticism and indifference, and that he didn't require good people to be ascetics. However, I'll grant you, what Jesus said and did can be used for and against a claim about Jesus and asceticism.

For instance, in TSOTM, Jesus says, "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." These are strong words in favor of asceticism.

Still in TSOTM, Jesus says, "Be not therefore anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? For after all these things do the Gentiles seek; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things." These words do not direct people to do without, but rather, to trust that God will provide what is needed.

What Jesus did definitely preach is the coming Kingdom of God. Our ordinary lives are just not going to lead to the Kingdom. Neither prosperity and consumption nor poverty and self-denial will get one into the kingdom; asceticism is beside the point. So is doing a good business.

The final judgement on our lives isn't based on our substantial or negligible net worth. It's "for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ (Matthew 25:31–36" Again, asceticism is beside the point -- as are a good many other concerns.

I find in the final judgement passage a very concise statement of Jesus' core teachings.

What Jesus did definitely preach is the coming Kingdom of God. — Bitter Crank

How do you interpret that? As a political revolution and an overthrowing of the establishment? As an 'end of the world' cataclysm?

My interpretation is more-or-less this, though it is kind of shabby in explanation by itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingship_of_God_(Judaism)

If Jesus was a student under John the Immerser's (the "Baptist's) interpreation of the Laws of Moses, and John was a subsect/break-off or even full practitioner of a type of Essenic interpretation, then it would be reasonable that views as espoused in the Dead Sea Scroll sect were probably similar to what John/Jesus were talking about with terms like "Kingdom of God". Here is a text that may even be misconstrued as "Early Christian".. that is to say the very earliest Jesus Movement before Pauline Christianity..

Column 2 (1)[... The Hea]vens and the earth will obey His Messiah, (2) [... and all th]at is in them. He will not turn aside from the Commandments of the Holy Ones. (3) Take strength in His service, (you) who seek the Lord. (4) Shall you not find the Lord in this, all you who wait patiently in your hearts? (5) For the Lord will visit the Pious Ones (Hassidim) and the Righteous (Zaddikim) will He call by name. (6) Over the Meek will His Spirit hover, and the Faithful will He restore by His power. (7) He shall glorify the Pious Ones (Hassidim) on the Throne of the Eternal Kingdom. (8) He shall release the captives, make the blind see, raise up the do[wntrodden.] (9) For[ev]er will I cling [to Him ...], and in His Piety (Hesed, also ‘Grace’), (10) and [His] Goo[dness...] of Holiness will not delay ...(11) And as for the wonders that are not the work of the Lord, when He ... (12) then He will heal the sick, resurrect the dead, and to the Meek announce glad tidings. (13)... He will lead the [Holly Ones; He will shepherd [th]em; He will do (14)...and all of it... Fragment l Column 3 (1) and the Law will be pursued. I will free them ... (2) Among men the fathers are honored above the sons ...(3)I will sing (?)the blessing of the Lord with his favor...(4) The 1[an]d went into exile (possibly, ‘rejoiced) every-wh[ere...] (5) And all Israel in exil[e (possibly ‘rejoicing’) ...] (6) ... (7) ...

Fragment 2
(1) ... their inheritan[ce...] (2) from him ...
Fragment 3 Column 1 (4) ... he will not serve these people (5) ... strength () ... they will be great Fragment 3 Column 2 (1) And... (3) And ... (5) And ... (6) And which ... (7) They gathered the noble[s...] (8) And the eastern parts of the heavens ... (9) [And] to all yo[ur] fathers ... Fragment 4 (5) ... they will shine (6)... a man (7) ... Jacob (8)... and all of His Holy implements (9)... and all her anointed ones (10)... the Lord will speak... (11) the Lord in [his] might (12)... the eyes of Fragment 5 (1)... they [will] see all... (2) and everything in it... (3) and all the fountains of water, and the canals... (4) and those who make... for the sons of Ad[am...] (5) among these curs[ed ones.] And what ...(6) the soothsayers of my people ... (7) for you ... the Lord ... (8) and He opened...v — Fragment 1 in Dead Sea Scrolls translation by Robert Eisenman

It's definitely "end of the world", but I wouldn't call it cataclysm. It's for the good.

Other stuff from Dead Sea Scrolls:

Column 1
(1) [Now, hear me, all my sons, and I will speak] about that Wisdom which God gave me... (2) [For 13e gave me the Knowledge of Wisdom and instruc[tion] to teach [all the sons of Truth]...

Column 2
(1) [Blessed is he who walks] with a pure heart and who doesn’t slander with his Tongue. Blessed are they who hold fast to her Laws and do not hold (2) to the ways of Evil. Bless[ed] are they who rejoice in her and do not overflow with the ways of folly. Blessed are they who ask for her (3) with clean hands and do not seek her with a deceitful [heart]. Blessed is the man who grasps hold of Wisdom and walks (4) in the Torah of the Most High and directs his heart to her Ways and restrains himself with her disciplines and always accepts her chastisements. (5) and doesn’t cast her off in the misery of [his] afflictions nor forsake her in a time of trouble, nor forget her in [days of terror, (6) and in the Meekness of his soul, doesn’t despis[e her], but rather always meditates on her, and when in affliction, occupies himself [with God’s Torah; who al]1 (7) his life [meditates] on her [and places her continually] before his eyes so he will not walk in the ways of [Evil]... (8) in unity and his heart is Perfect. God... (9) and W[isdom will lift up] his h[ead] and sea[t him] among kings... . (10) They [shall look upon... brothers will be fr[uitful]... (12) Now, my sons, War my voice and do] not turn aside [from the words of my mouth ....

Column 2 (Fragment 4)
(1)... to possess her with his heart... (2) with a deceitful heart. And in W[isdom]... (3) [You shall not] abandon [your inheritances to a foreign wife or your hereditary portions to foreigners, because those with Wi[sdom]... (4) They shall consider . ..(the Torah) of God, protect her paths and walk in [all her Ways.] (5)... her statutes, and not reject her admonishments. Those with Understanding will bring forth [words of insight... (6) (and) walk in p[eace]. The Perfect will thrust aside Evil. They will not reject her chastisements... . [Those with Wisdom] (7) will be supported [by the strength of Wisdom]. The intelligent will recognize her Ways [and plumb] her depths... (8) The Lovers of God will look upon her, walking carefully within her bounds.

Column 3
(1) [No]... is like her... (2) She will not be bought with gold or [silver]... (3) nor any precious gem... (4) they resemble one another in the be[au]ty of their faces... (5) and purple flowers with... (6) crimson with every [delightful] garment... (7) and with gold and rubies...

Column 4
(2) for the atonement of sin and for weeping... (3) they shall lift up your head... (4) Perfection because of your word and Perfection... (5) for splendor and lovely in... (6) was revealed in your Ways. You shall not waiver... (7) You will be upheld at the time you falter, and you will find [Grace...] (8) The reproach of those who hate [you] shall not draw near you... (9) together, and those who hate you will be destroyed... [Shall rejoice] (10) your heart and you shall delight in [God]... (11) God [your] father has taught, and on the [backs] of your [enemies] will you tread. And... (12) Your soul shall deliver you from all Evil, and the dread of [your enemies] shall not come near you. (13) He will cause you to inherit, and fill your days with Goodness, and in abundance of peace you shall de[light]... (14) You shall inherit Glory. Even though you pass away to (your) eternal abode, [all your loved ones] shall inherit... (15) All those who know you shall walk in harmony with your teaching [and] he[ar your words]... (16) Together will they mourn and in your ways remember you, for you were... (18) And now, understand, hear me, and set your heart to [do]... (19) Bring forth the Knowledge of your inner self and in... meditate... (20) In the Meekness of Righteousness bring forth [your] words in order to give them... [Don’t] (21) respond to the words of your neighbor lest he give you... (22) As you hear, answer accordingly... [Do not] (23) pour out complaints before listening to their words. And... [Do not respond] vehemently (24) before hearing their words. Afterwards respond [in the Perfection of your heart.] (25) And with patience utter (your words) and answer truthfully before officers (even ‘rulers’) with a To[ngue of... (26) with your lips, and guard against the stumbling block of the Tongue... (27) lest you be convicted by your lips and ensnared together with a Tong[ue of... (28) impropriety... from it and they will be perverse...[/s]

(8) He shall release the captives, make the blind see, raise up the downtrodden. — Fragment 1 in Dead Sea Scrolls translation by Robert Eisenman

Such verses can be interpreted 'esoterically', i.e. the 'captives' are captives 'to the flesh'. and are therefore 'blind', i.e. not seeing 'the Kingdom', and are downtrodden on that account. 'She' who will not be bought with gold or silver is Sophia, wisdom, subject of the gnostic gospel, Pistis Sophia.


But if you read it as a political manifesto it has a very different meaning - it is interpreted to mean something like a revolution or uprising of 'the oppressed'.

What Jesus did definitely preach is the coming Kingdom of God. — Bitter Crank

How do you interpret that? As a political revolution and an overthrowing of the establishment? As an 'end of the world' cataclysm? — Wayfarer

More a revolution and an overthrowing of the establishment than a cataclysmic end of the world: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (Ephesians 6:12). More the messianic banquet: "Isaiah 25:6 The LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; A banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow..."

Whether the Kingdom of God would literally be here in this world, (high CO2 levels, plastic in the oceans, glowing nuclear piles, garbage heaps and all) I don't know.

8) He shall release the captives, make the blind see, raise up the do[wntrodden.] — Fragment 1 in Dead Sea Scrolls translation by Robert Eisenman

Reminiscent of Isaiah 61, The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners.

More a revolution and an overthrowing of the establishment than a cataclysmic end of the world: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (Ephesians 6:12). — Bitter Crank

But how would "principalities, powers, rules of the darkness of this world and spiritual wickedness" signify the establishment? Right at the beginning there it says "not against flesh and blood".

Such verses can be interpreted 'esoterically', i.e. the 'captives' are captives 'to the flesh'. and are therefore 'blind', i.e. not seeing 'the Kingdom', and are downtrodden on that account. — Wayfarer

No doubt there was a lot of escoteric traits to this, but in the tradition of Ezekiel's vision of the Chariot, and other Jewish escoteric literature at the time. It fits the context of Second Temple Period Judaism, especially spanning from the Persian/Greek/Roman rule in the region (400 BCE- 70 BCE). However, it should not be confused with a complete break from political considerations. This group most likely wanted to establish a purified Judaism under a leader- either the classic Messianic type, a dual Kingly and Priestly type or through a Teacher of Righteousness or some combination thereof.

More Dead Sea Scrolls:

Whoever approaches the Courrcil of the Community shall enter the
Covenant of God in the presence of all who have freely pledged
themselves. He shall undertake by a binding oath to retum with all his
heart and soul to every commandment of the Law of Moses in
accordance with all that has been revealed of it to the sons of Zadok,
the Priests, Keepers of the Covenant and Seekers of His will, and to
the multitude of the men of their Covenant who together have freely
pledged themselves to His truth and to walking in the way of His
delight. And he shall undertake by the Covenant to separate from all
the men of injustice who walk in the way of wickedness.

I wondered about that too. I've never been too clear about principalities and powers. Evil has never seemed to need otherworldly sponsorship. This world's cast of liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels has always seemed sufficiently evil on their own.

But still, there is an establishment on this world (all the worldly power centers) that would have to go before the Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God could be realized.

What do you think?

Reminiscent of Isaiah 61, The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners. — Bitter Crank

I would say in general its references to the meek and poor being lifted up. There is evidence that the early Jesus Movement (not Pauline version yet) were known as the Ebionim (the poor ones). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

It almost seems like you place all of your eggs in the basket of texts dealing with the Judaic people and religion, using it to refute the version of Jesus the early church portrayed, and yet the early Church itself is equally documented by historical texts. And the fact that the early Church didn't start solidifying it's views until a few hundred years after Jesus seems just about parallel to how the earliest texts in the OT (Genesis, Job etc) are symbolical myth, and not direct historical accounts. So in other words, both religions, Judaism and Christianity, are not generated historistically (yay I made a word).

To me the fact that it begins with "not against flesh and blood" just signifies that it's not a physical struggle, and so then whatever comes next (principalities, etc.), must be metaphorical to refer to something spiritual. On that note, I've always interpreted the Kingdom of God as teleological. But that doesn't exclude the possibility of it existing physically. Another interesting perspective is Tolstoy's "the kingdom of God is within you", which I think is from the Gospel of Thomas or something.

And the fact that the early Church didn't start solidifying it's views until a few hundred years after Jesus seems just about parallel to how the earliest texts in the OT (Genesis, Job etc) are symbolical myth, and not direct historical accounts. So in other words, both religions, Judaism and Christianity, are not generated historistically (yay I made a word). — Noble Dust

I agree, I said in my very first post on here that the Hebrew bible, and particularly the Laws of Moses were probably not even compiled until the 400s BCE, long after the events depicted. The religion was probably henotheistic according to archeological evidence- there was one god El/Yaweh who was the most important tribal god and over time was championed by certain "Prophets" devoted to the sole observance of the god. In time, it became a jealous god and indeed became the only one. The tribal deity became the sole deity. The domestic gods of the hearth and field, the traditional Canaanite pantheon of Baal, Ashtarte, El, and others replaced by only El to become possibly Elohim (god but curiously plural)- all the gods into one universally relevant one. Yahweh became intertwined with Elohim, possibly combining southern and northern Judean traditions.

others replaced by only El to become possibly Elohim (god but curiously plural)- all the gods into one universally relevant one. — schopenhauer1

Fascinating.

Teleological for sure.

But that doesn't exclude the possibility of it existing physically — Noble Dust

No, and look it from one angle and it looks purely spiritual; look at from another angle and it seems like a revolution brewing. It can be either -- the Kingdom of God is within you, or the Kingdom of God is breaking into this world. All sorts of ambiguity and possible interpretation. Which, of course, is one of the things that keeps it going. Had Jesus (or anybody else) laid out a 2,000 year timeline, a plan, objectives, strategies, milestones, etc. we'd have forgotten about it long ago. We humans, even divine ones, don't seem to have the capacity to think in detail for the long run ahead. Therefore, myth, mysticism and prophecy work better. Later generations can pick up the skein and keep on weaving.

Like, El Shaddai?

It can be either -- the Kingdom of God is within you, or the Kingdom of God is breaking into this world. — Bitter Crank

Or both! breaking into the world through the inner life of the creative spirit within you. This is actually closest to my current interpretation. So it would involve the physical world in this case, but in order for the Kingdom to also be salvific, it can't be purely social, and it can't stay within the bounds of physical reality. The Kingdom does have to transcend the physical, I think. How, exactly, I'm not sure...all just conjecture here.

Fascinating. — Noble Dust

Yes it is! A nationalistic god absorbed lesser ones, and were probably championed by those who were keepers of the ancient laws- The Prophets, and the scribes. Anyways.. that is way too detailed.. The point though is that, even if the Judaism of the Second Temple Period was essentially the result of historical contingencies, the actual beliefs, customs, and historical understanding of the Torah as "true" and a unified tribal history with one god and his people was already solidly in place at the time of Jesus, making it very much a reality of his time and culture. Thus not considering this aspect would be ripping Jesus from his context, time, and place. You can just put anything there that you like rather than reconstructing the most likely historical circumstances based on place, culture, etc. If you want to make him some sort of Stoic or Cynic, then you will. If you want to make him as a Gandhi, then you will. He just becomes anything you want and divorced from any reality. As @Bitter Crankld "mind the gap" of his time and place.. and that means grappling with the Judaism of his time, and how he fit into it, not how later interpreters wanted you to see him.. Remember, all the Gospels were written AFTER Paul's writings..and thus reinterpretation.

Like, El Shaddai? — Bitter Crank

Yeah, "God of the high place".. probably as in "God of that hill over yonder". Actually that is El Elyon.. isn't El Shaddai more like God Almighty?

and that means grappling with the Judaism of his time, and how he fit into it, not how later interpreters wanted you to see him.. Remember, all the Gospels were written AFTER Paul's writings..and thus reinterpretation. — schopenhauer1

The only thing I don't understand in what you've said here is how you come to the conclusion that Jesus was basically teaching to just follow the Torah better. Does that come from historical documents, is it an interpretation, or what?