More a revolution and an overthrowing of the establishment than a cataclysmic end of the world: — Bitter Crank

Even though I know that many people see 'the Kingdom of God' as reference to establishing a political order. I had always thought that it was reference to a different or transformed way of being - that Jesus is teaching 'those with ears to hear' about a way of being which is radically transformed or different to how we normally understand or experience the world. I think that would have political implications, but I don't understand in primarily in political terms.

Here 'evil' is the erroneous clinging or attachment to 'the world', i.e. personal relationships, possessions, homes and children - same as any renunciate philosophy in the ancient world. 'Evil' is said to 'rule' the world precisely because 'the world' is pre-occupied with power, pleasure, possessions, and everything associated with it. Note the parallels with early Buddhism where likewise, religious virtue is associated with 'going forth' into homelessness and the abandonment of possessions and social status.

I think it is just the best interpretation if we are not ripping him from his historical context. There is no silver bullet in ancient history- especially this part. But, let's look at primary sources like Josephus (without the obvious Christian redaction passage), Dead Sea Scroll sect (Essenic) literature, evidence of various parts of the synoptic gospels (even just the progression of how the gospels looked from Mark to John), the evidence from Acts and Paul's letters, Talmudic passages about this time period, the political turmoil of this time- the Zealots, the Roman appointed Priests, the 20 or so mentioned (meaning 100s or so not mentioned) wandering Messianic claimants from the Roman period, the later reports of Ebionites, the enormous secondary literature that at least embraces most of this view.. from PBS specials "From Jesus to Christ" to mildly academic enterprises (Bart Ehrman, Hyam Maccoby, Reza Aslan, James Tabor, Dominic Crossan, etc.) There is very much a consensus that he must be seen in the light of his place and time, and not the "Just so" overlays to create the Christology that one wants to produce to get Paul's vision (Christ Lord risen to forgive your sins if you believe).

I didn't even mention later writings and non-canonical gospels..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_literature

I'm not nearly the scholar you are on those various sources, and I'm interested in learning more, but at the same time, how should religious experience be factored into interpretations of historical religious texts? After all, it must be factored in, because we're dealing with religion. So Paul, for instance, claims to have had a miraculous encounter with Jesus that turned all of Paul's allegiances on it's head. If there's truth to his experience, then a radical reinterpretation of Christ is plausible.

There is very much a consensus that he must be seen in the light of his place and time... — schopenhauer1

Isn't that historicism, or historical reductionism?

There is very much a consensus that he must be seen in the light of his place and time...
— schopenhauer1

Isn't that historicism, or historical reductionism? — Wayfarer

Unless we think Jesus had a trans-historical mind, transcended time and place--I don't see how it could be otherwise. Historical reductionism?

If we see God working in history, through actual people, places, events... then don't we have to make an attempt at a historical understanding of what God is about?

If we see God working through Martin Luther King, or Che Guevara, or Mao Zedong, or God help us all--Donald Trump, don't we have to understand God IN history, and not ABOVE or OUTSIDE history?

Jesus lived in a particular time and place, was as exposed to the streams of faith, resentments, hopes, fears, irritations, etc. that everybody else was exposed to. He wasn't in a bubble.

(That's one view. There are others.)

The same thing applies to any of the figures in the Bible that we know something about from their writings (like the prophets, for instance). They lived in specific times and had specific issues that concerned them. They weren't speaking a-historically, or trans-historically.

Unless we think Jesus had a trans-historical mind, transcended time and place.,. — Bitter Crank

I think the formal theological understandiing is 'transcendent yet immanent' - appearing in the world yet not of the world (John17:16). If Jesus means anything, it is precisely because he is eternal, not of the world and not of the order of time (Mt 24:35).

So - when Jesus says 'he that drinks of the water of which I speak will thirst no more', what this is a reference to, is this scam whereby one of the sects has taken control over a network of wells in the Galilean region. This means a lot of people have to make do with inferior-quality bore water, which is quite high in salts and therefore deleterious to their health and besides is not thirst-quenching, being so salty. So Jesus has worked out a plan with his band of 12 intrepid followers to overthrow the stranglehold this sect has established on the wells, ensuring that 'those who follow him' will have access to the non-salty water and, accordingly, 'thirst no more'.

Credible? Y/N?

So - when Jesus says 'he that drinks of the water of which I speak will thirst no more', what this is a reference to, is this scam whereby one of the sects has taken control over a network of wells in the Galilean region. This means a lot of people have to make do with inferior-quality bore water, which is quite high in salts and therefore deleterious to their health and besides is not thirst-quenching, being so salty. So Jesus has worked out a plan with his band of 12 intrepid followers to overthrow the stranglehold this sect has established on the wells, ensuring that 'those who follow him' will have access to the non-salty water and, accordingly, 'thirst no more'.

Credible? Y/N? — Wayfarer

Turns water to wine, but can't make well water cleaner >:O O:)

Jesus' teaching is not what most impressed contemporaries (though it impressed them somewhat. in some occasions -- not so much in other occasions). Jesus' personality is what mattered.

"He doesn't speak like the scribes – he speaks with authority!"

If we wanted to single out the most important aspect of his teaching, it was probably the announcement of the Kingdom of God -- a continuation of John the Baptist's message asking for repentence and conversion. However, although this may be the core of Jesus' teaching, it is not the core of the Jesus event as conveyed by those who were most impacted by it.

Divine personality, right? I wouldn't say that necessarily what Jesus said and taught were "divine", but his person was regarded as being divine.

Jesus' teaching is not what most impressed contemporaries (though it impressed them somewhat. in some occasions -- not so much in other occasions). Jesus' personality is what mattered. — Mariner

That's an interesting observation. I wonder if that could be the genesis of the evangelical emphasis (fixation) on a "personal relationship with God". Almost a cult of personality in regards to Jesus.

I think the emergence of "personal relationships with god" concepts were specifically in reaction to the fact that the Christian clergy long held a monopoly over reading/interpreting scripture. A new sect which can offer you a personal relationship with god was seen as offering more than just salvation for submission.

That's plausible, but I don't think the idea of personal relationship really took hold until the 20th century. Which kind of debunks my previous thought as well. Or, maybe both things and other factors influenced the change.

How're you two defining a "personal relationship"? I think all Christians would hold that one must have something along the lines of a relationship with Jesus/God in order to live their faith. But, is having a "personal relationship" with Jesus exactly the same for a Catholic as it is for a Pentecostal? Hint: I don't think so...

I mean, you can't say all here; like I said, it's a pretty modern concept to have a "personal relationship" with God. That was not a concept from Jesus time, through the middle ages, the great schism, the reformation. It's not a big element in Eastern Orthodoxy, for instance. It does exist in the Pentecostal church, yes, which is a very modern denomination. I'm not too familiar with Catholicism, so I'm not sure, but again, it certainly can't be historically an aspect of Catholicism. Maybe they've adopted it now; I wouldn't know. So no, all Christians have not historically had that view, but nowadays, I would venture to say all evangelical Christians do (it's the basis of evangelism afterall). It's emphasis in other protestant denominations varies. And again, most of those denominations are pretty modern.

So historically, it's emphasis grew out of revivalism in the US in the 19th century. The Evangelical denomination is descended from revivalism.

It's not, no. I prefer to leave it undefined because it's a term used ad hoc by preachers and pastors at large (it changes with their usage).

Generally though Catholicism has the most rigid internal hierarchy where studying scripture still is somewhat in the hands of the clergy. You confess your sins to a priest and the priest forgives you; he's an intermediary. The priest blesses the blood and the body, and interprets it's meaning for you.

I'm not too familiar with Pentecostal trends, but non-denominational born-again Christians basically incorporate this idea into all of their religious practices. For them God is a relationship, not a religion. They "speak in tongues" and believe that they're communicating directly with god.

The chasm between a Catholic notion of "relationship with god" and the non-denominational notion is massive.

To me, in a non-Protestant understanding, having a personal relationship with Christ means to follow him, his teachings, his Church, and to partake in communion. If these are all not evidences of a Christian having a relationship, which I think always is personal, then I don't know what else to say.

prefer to leave it undefined because it's a term used ad hoc by preachers and pastors at large (it changes with their usage). — VagabondSpectre

Fair enough. I agree with the last bit :)

The priest blesses the blood and the body, and interprets it's meaning for you. — VagabondSpectre

The priest doesn't interpret anything during the Eucharist. Everyone ought to understand what is going on.

I'm not too familiar with Pentecostal trends, but non-denominational born-again Christians basically incorporate this idea into all of their religious practices. For them God is a relationship, not a religion. They "speak in tongues" and believe that they're communicating directly with god.

The chasm between a Catholic notion of "relationship with god" and the non-denominational notion is massive. — VagabondSpectre

True. I only compared the two forms of Christianity in order to contrast the ways in which a relationship is understood to be had with God in each.

Well, in a Protestant, evangelical understanding, having a relationship with God means communicating to him through prayer, and listening for his communication through reading Scripture. So it's more literal in that sense.

If we see God working in history, through actual people, places, events... then don't we have to make an attempt at a historical understanding of what God is about? — Bitter Crank

How in the world would we know what sort of working God is doing, though? Just because people put to writing claims about God doing this or inspiring that doesn't mean that's what God is actually doing any such thing.

What standard do we use to judge God's dealings in history? How do we know what God is about, anyway? Do we just use whatever we value most in this particular time? God is love is very appealing, but a Roman or Spartan God might be brave and unflinching instead, and so on. And clearly, people's views on God's nature have changed quite a bit over time.

Love exists between humans because social bonding is important to the survival of social animals. But God is not a social animal. God's not biological at all, if there is such a being.

Maybe God is Brahman is just wants us to get over the illusion of being separate beings, or whatever.

If we see God working in history, through actual people, places, events... then don't we have to make an attempt at a historical understanding of what God is about? — Bitter Crank

How in the world would we know what sort of working God is doing, though? Just because people put to writing claims about God doing this or inspiring that doesn't mean that's what God is actually doing any such thing. — Marchesk

Indeed, how would we. This is "God talk"--not 'God talking' but people talking who believe in God, or who may believe in God, people who would like to believe in God, or people who in times past believed in God and haven't forgotten the argot.

God talk people "discern" what God is doing; they pray [God answers their prayers[; they read the Bible and then the New York Times, and decide what God must be doing, and so on.

If you don't believe in God, then God talk isn't very convincing.

I rather doubt that Rev. Martin Luther King (or Rev. Martin Luther, for that matter) had any doubts about God working in history. Perhaps The Philosophy Forum is part of God's grand design. But then again, perhaps not.

If you don't believe in God, then God talk isn't very convincing. — Bitter Crank

Right, particularly because the God talk very much depends on who is doing the discerning.

I'm real good at discerning God's will -- trust me.

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 — VagabondSpectre

Talk about injecting your own beliefs and completely bastardizing the point he was trying to make and if you are angry with a religious organisation (clearly by you saying "God created Jesus (himself)" which proves some connection since there are many that consider Jesus as just a man) then focus on that rather than betraying the wisdom that the scriptures alone and separately can exemplify.

When you tell a child holding a knife to be careful otherwise they might cut themselves and the consequences could be blood and pain and anguish, the warning does not imply that the suffering is somehow desired in part of the friend. If the friend didn't care, they would look on and not say a word. So words like "suffer" is the unhappiness of being in a "hell" - a life lacking in moral consciousness - where the misery therewith is the "damnation" of never truly understanding the pleasures of the authenticity and autonomy of love. The violence against someone innocent like Jesus moves our conscience, what instigates an awareness of our own humanity, of being able to objectively and consciously care for things outside of ourselves and to genuinely feel. It is love and there is nothing greater than the feeling of loving someone enough to not want them to feel pain or hurt in anyway, hence our conscience being the very impetus to our humanity. Hence:

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Friendship is the beginning of love because we care for someone other than ourselves, we bond without preferential treatment and we want them to be happy. You can't hate Jesus, he is a really nice guy, so we care for him and feel sorry that he died in such a horrible way. The statement implies that he died for us as a friend, that is, the idea that by doing so it will awaken our conscience and enable us to feel love since in doing so will ultimately provide us with the greatest pleasure and happiness. See through it, don't take on the words literally.

Setting aside all religions and just reading the scriptures as it is unadulterated by codified institutional processes and cultural influences and thinking of these descriptions as parables, it is quite simply an attempt to awaken your conscience through love. It is the very Kantian point vis-a-vis the problem of evil and it needs to be sincere, hence the autonomy and why 'morality inevitably leads to religion' that only becomes corrupted by people over time.

God is the ultimate, the omnipresent, what we should aspire to by having faith in ourselves - that is, by not conforming or following by finding the will to autonomy and thinking for yourself - because that is the only way you will ever authentically reach moral consciousness. We, as humans, have the tendency to follow an "image" (hence idols) or someone rather than learn to look within since who we are is just as difficult to grasp as the omnipresent and if:

"Beloved, let us love one another, because love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

Love - our conscience - is the core of who we are so if we seek love - God - we will find ourselves by becoming morally conscious.

So - when Jesus says 'he that drinks of the water of which I speak will thirst no more', what this is a reference to, is this scam whereby one of the sects has taken control over a network of wells in the Galilean region. This means a lot of people have to make do with inferior-quality bore water, which is quite high in salts and therefore deleterious to their health and besides is not thirst-quenching, being so salty. So Jesus has worked out a plan with his band of 12 intrepid followers to overthrow the stranglehold this sect has established on the wells, ensuring that 'those who follow him' will have access to the non-salty water and, accordingly, 'thirst no more'.

Credible? Y/N? — Wayfarer

So should Jesus' sayings have no historical analysis whatsoever? The sayings cannot be compared to other sayings, influences, and otherwise use of parallel writings?

Some things historians of religion might ask:
What is most authentic to time/place? What are interpolations from later dates? This is NOT always cut and dry. What may be written earlier may not necessarily be as accurate as what is written later but from a more accurate primary source with an unknown origin.
How are the writings similar to or different from what others have written during this time period? Why might they be similar? Why might they be different?
What does the archaeology of this place reveal?
How does what is written fit into the context of what was taking place?
What contradicts other sources?

Christianity had several major changes and schisms early on. How did the schisms influence the view of Jesus and his teachings? In other words, how does it influence what is said, what is not said, and how it should be interpreted?

Trust in the LORD with all your heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding...

I don't bastardize scripture, I interpret it quite fairly. And these aren't my beliefs I'm injecting, they're Christian beliefs:

In the old testament forgiveness was purchased through the blood of sacrificial animals. In the new testament forgiveness was purchased through the blood of Jesus. God explicitly requires blood (death/suffering) in order to forgive....

The ritualized nature of this in Christianity resembles pagan blood magic. Modern Christians scoff at haitian hoodoo priests cutting off the heads of chickens as if they're practicing black magic, but what exactly would you call sacrificing a goat (or human/son of god) on an altar or symbolically consuming the flesh and blood of Christ every month as if it somehow bestows boons?. The tale of the binding of Isaac disgusts me: "God says to sacrifice my son... GREAT IDEA GOD! And oh! God gave me a lamb at the last possible second to sacrifice instead! WHAT INFINITE WISDOM!!!".

So tell me exactly how it is that morality leads to religion?

I've read the bible cover to cover and it didn't awaken my conscience through love. It awakened a sense of thankfulness for not being governed by people who are willing to carry out abhorrent, wasteful, and violent actions (as depicted in the bible) in the name of god-love.

I refuse to submit to religiously inspired love because if I do that then I'm at the mercy of all the ridiculous baggage that tends to come included in any actual religion. I love myself and my family well enough without religion, and I somewhat have love for humanity, and that's enough. I don't need what religion offers, so why should I bother?

Jesus is your pal until judgment day. Sure he offers you eternal after-life in paradise, but in the other hand he has a 1-way ticket to damnation. Unless we scramble to live according to Christian laws, according to Jesus we'll be sent straight to hell. This isn't me injecting belief, I'm just relaying what most Christians believe.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a
sword." Matthew 10:34

Jesus must have been pretty chill for the most part... But every now and then he gets this infinitely stern and terrifying look on his face and just stares at you with eyes of fire and brimstone. After a few moments he suddenly lightens up and starts chuckling, like everything is fine, and in our scared and confused state we chuckle along with him; pretending to get the joke so as to not reawaken his ire.

He apparently could be chilling, as well. And so we have Luke 14:25, where he's depicted as saying what modern cult leaders have been inclined to say, about leaving or hating all those you know and love and devoting yourself exclusively to the cult, and especially its leader.

Shakespeare wrote that the Devil can cite Scripture for his own purpose, and so have we. It makes a person (me, at least) wonder just how sacred Scripture can be, in that case. As for the core of his teaching? Well, we cite for our own purpose, I suspect. Which do we prefer, the Jesus who is said to have said "Love one another" or is said to have said "hate, leave those you love and follow me"? We chose one or the other and seek to explain why the one is the case and the other is not.

So should Jesus' sayings have no historical analysis whatsoever? The sayings cannot be compared to other sayings, influences, and otherwise use of parallel writings? — schopenhauer1

Well, sure, from the perspective of history and comparative religion (which I majored in, by the way). But the point I was making with the 'water' analogy is this: what is Jesus referring to when he says 'drinking the water'? I think it's plainly symbolic, not a literal reference to 'water'. In the same sense, I don't think 'the Kingdom' is a reference to a political state at all. But very many people do think that.