Again, what you imply is also correct. By then it was Rome. Makes you even wonder if the Sanhedrin was even as active in opposing Jesus as the gospels suggest, or if that too was "exaggerated" for political/identity reasons. — ENOAH

Many historians make the important distinction between Pilate's "Gerousia" and the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin at this point was most likely stripped of real political authority. Rather, the High Priest, along with Pilate's advisors, most likely made the real decisions regarding dissidents. It was the conflating of Pilate's Gerousia with the Sanhedrin, that was another sleight of hand. It is interesting that the story had to have him tried "twice" and some not at all, but only at Caiaphas' chambers. Also, what seems evident is that the accusations against Jesus were more about "raising the Temple to the ground", an affront to the High Priest, and the stability of Jerusalem, whether symbolic or not. So we have a rebellious Jew at the time of Passover, threatening destruction of the Temple, causing a disturbance, and the High Priest, in collusion with the actual authority (not the Sanhedrin), the Roman governor, known for ruthlessly killing Jews who had the slightest impulse to rebel (crucified thousands as accounted by Josephus and Philo of Alexandria); all of that tracks. The only part that seems shoe-horned is this notion that there was a first trial of the Sanhedrin.. The other sleight of hand is to believe Jesus wasn't at some point at least a student of the Pharisees, which he seemed to be, before being heavily influenced by John the Baptist and his Essenic form of Judaism. Mix that together, you get Jesus' most likely ideological underpinnings.

The other sleight of hand is to believe Jesus wasn't at some point at least a student of the Pharisees, which he seemed to be, before being heavily influenced by John the Baptist and his Essenic form of Judaism. Mix that together, you get Jesus' most likely ideological underpinnings. — schopenhauer1

Fascinating. I have not kept up with New Testament scholarship for years. I can recall the pharasaic influence, plus some hint regarding the Essenes. I'm asking because it was still controversial last I looked. Is there a strong consensus that J the B was an Essene?

Also, I don't know if Scorces's The Last Temptation offends you (my guess from your text, is not, but if so, apologies). Though Fictional, I liked the depiction of the Essenes and J the B in that film.

Fascinating. I have not kept up with New Testament scholarship for years. I can recall the pharasaic influence, plus some hint regarding the Essenes. I'm asking because it was still controversial last I looked. Is there a strong consensus that J the B was an Essene? — ENOAH

It's not that controversial. At this point it might even be the norm to assume that. He just falls most naturally in that group. The emphasis on the Kingdom, Son of Man, use of baptism, End of Times, and asceticism point to a strong link to the group. James Tabor would be a good place to start in seeing the connections. Robert Eisenman also pointed to numerous connections. Geza Vermes also wrote books on the connection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp8rpLMoS1Y

The emphasis on the Kingdom, Son of Man, use of baptism, End of Times, and asceticism point to a strong link to the group — schopenhauer1

Excellent, makes me even more confident in the Gospel of Thomas (regardless, I am an admirer) historically. As opposed to it being some post synoptics neoplatonist/gnostic set up. Or, if there are updates there too that you know of? I guess we're discussing how Christinity (as an institution) may have "erred" not on the side of good.

I won't lie, Im too "busy" (lazy?) to pick up a book on that topic, though a passion lingers. I appreciate the link to YouTube.

Excellent, makes me even more confident in the Gospel of Thomas (regardless, I am an admirer) historically. As opposed to it being some post synoptics neoplatonist/gnostic set up. Or, if there are updates there too that you know of? I guess we're discussing how Christinity (as an institution) may have "erred" not on the side of good. — ENOAH

There may be historical elements. The parts that align with Q are probably more corroborated. However, it is pretty standard to regard the Gospel of Thomas' main thrust as gnostic, which in my view is a tangent, rather than a descendent of the original group.

Don't get me wrong though, I think the gnostic philosophy is fascinating, and see many parallels with it and Eastern philosophy, Neoplatonism (even though Plotinus disliked the gnostics), as well as Schopenhauer. I just don't think the philosophy represented Jesus and his movement in Judea proper, per se. More likely, it is what happens when Platonic and Near Eastern mysticism get intricately overlaid on top of a historical character in history. This doesn't mean that there might be some stories in there that preserved some truths of the original sect, such as Mary Magdalene's intricate connection, and the importance of James the Just, Jesus' brother.

Interestingly enough, I see Paul as a sort of "gnostic-lite". He wasn't fully gnostic (with a demiurge), but certainly the notion of "the Law" being overtaken by the "higher truth of Christ", has gnostic overtones. And I see Paul too as a tangent (quite deliberately so), from the original Jesus group as well.

which in my view is a tangent, rather than a descendent of the original group. — schopenhauer1

Ok, right, and by original group, you may have meant gnostic, but that's my suggestion regarding Essenes, not a direct relationship to the "author(s)" of Th. But a relationship nonetheless. Unless, you're telling me the Essenes are established gnostic. But yes, I too am fascinated by First-second C gnostics, for ghe same reasons as those you referenced. When it is not offensive to orthodoxy, I like considering such an influence (even if a homeopathic trace) on the historical Jesus.

such as Mary Magdalene's intricate connection, and the importance of James the Just, Jesus' brother. — schopenhauer1

Ok, you're sparking my memory now. You're saying Magdelene and James had gnostic ties, right. There are influences on the historical Jesus then. Not sure if you're saying not so for Th., that Th. is of the later gnostic, the ones that represented the various (two?) Heresies, Arianism(?) and I forget tge other guy, Marcion?

certainly the notion of "the Law" being overtaken by the "higher truth of Christ", — schopenhauer1

Yes! Without a doubt. Otherwise where the heck did he come from? He was supposedly a Pharisee, so not Hellenic philosophy, right? Yet his Christology gives goosebumps, even from a historical-critical read. Radically emancipating to the level of mystical. He makes Jesus's world functional "love even your enemies," mystical, like Moksha. But I fantasize a bit,
I know his eschatology was pretty much Biblical. Right?

as a tangent (quite deliberately so), — schopenhauer1

Oh, OK. That might explain the "radical"? Or are you saying Paul was "presented" by the Church as a tangent from Peter/James for e.g.? Imagine genuine Epistles of Paul buried somewhere because it reflects accord with the Judaisers.

Ok, right, and by original group, you may have meant gnostic, but that's my suggestion regarding Essenes, not a direct relationship to the "author(s)" of Th. But a relationship nonetheless. Unless, you're telling me the Essenes are established gnostic. But yes, I too am fascinated by First-second C gnostics, for ghe same reasons as those you referenced. When it is not offensive to orthodoxy, I like considering such an influence (even if a homeopathic trace) on the historical Jesus. — ENOAH

Not quite sure what you indicating here but to break it down...

I see gnostics as a tangent, not a descendent of the original Jesus movement.

I see the Essenes in some ways as a direct predecessor of the group via the historical figure of John the Baptist, and his probable influence on Jesus himself.

The Essenes do NOT equal the gnostics. There may be superficial similarities in terms of emphasis on the "mystical" and the "End of Times", but that doesn't mean they are the same. The Essenes were likely an extremist Priestly group, that wanted to purify before what they saw was an imminent fight with the forces of evil (basically Rome plus supernatural stuff). That is, if they are related to the Dead Sea Scroll Sect, which I think they were. John I don't see as being a part of the Dead Sea Scroll sect by the time Jesus came along, but certainly, whatever "milieu" of apocalyptic Judaism that the DSS represented, John, was "drawing from the same well" so-to-speak. The idea of a demiurge, secret esoteric knowledge that has to do with a spark of God, or in the Pauline case ("gnostic-lite), that the messiah's death and resurrection abrogates the original "Law", is nowhere in DSS/Essenic ideology. Quite the opposite, they were very committed to "The Law", but interpreted differently, and with a bent towards eschatology, and possibly notions of the the Son of Man, being an important figure, though this starts complicating the matter, as people jump right to "Son of God" which is also not really what that is (other than the usual figurative senses it meant since King David was called the Son of God).

Anyways,

Ok, you're sparking my memory now. You're saying Magdelene and James had gnostic ties, right. There are influences on the historical Jesus then. Not sure if you're saying not so for Th., that Th. is of the later gnostic, the ones that represented the various (two?) Heresies, Arianism(?) and I forget tge other guy, Marcion? — ENOAH

No no, I am not saying that Mary Magdalene had gnostic ties.. though perhaps later on she did(?), but rather that the historical figures of Mary Magdalene and James the Just were more prominent in some gnostic literature (like the Gospel of Thomas), and that THIS is probably an echo of something more historical. That doesn't mean that Mary and James were gnostics... just that they are discussed and emphasized as important, is all that I mean which is historical. All the other stuff about them, is probably vessels to sell their (interesting) philosophy.

Yes! Without a doubt. Otherwise where the heck did he come from? He was supposedly a Pharisee, so not Hellenic philosophy, right? Yet his Christology gives goosebumps, even from a historical-critical read. Radically emancipating to the level of mystical. He makes Jesus's world functional "love even your enemies," mystical, like Moksha. But I fantasize a bit,
I know his eschatology was pretty much Biblical. Right? — ENOAH

Well I think we might agree here. You are seeing here that claims to be a Pharisee, but this might be doubtful. He definitely seemed to have worked for the High Priest, as a sort of lacky, that is more probable. Was he disenchanted and found the group fascinating? Perhaps... What does seem to be the case is he came from Asia Minor. There as a huge mystery-cult there based on Mithra. The idea of a god dying and resurrecting and symbolically rejuvenating and cleansing the adherent to the mystery school seems to be in line with what Paul's idea of Jesus death and resurrection was doing. Could he have smuggled the already existing ideas into the new Jewish movement with a dead charismatic leader? Ockham's Razor would point to most likely. So I see Paul as combining the mystery school elements of a dead and resurrecting god and the gnostic notion of a "higher truth", and making his own synthesis that became Pauline Christianity (aka Christianity). The original group, headed originally by Jesus' brother James after Jesus' death, slowly died out over time and had little resemblance to the Pauline churches his adherents formed around the Mediterranean.

Oh, OK. That might explain the "radical"? Or are you saying Paul was "presented" by the Church as a tangent from Peter/James for e.g.? Imagine genuine Epistles of Paul buried somewhere because it reflects accord with the Judaisers. — ENOAH

No, I mean Paul was creating his own synthesis, and claiming Christ spoke to him. I think it was tangential to the original group headed by James, and that followed Jesus synthesis of Pharisaic/Essenic Judaism.

Thank you. All very interesting. The scholarship has advanced from where I last left it.

It does seem far more likely that Paul "created" his Christology and its context than what is depicted in the Acts.

Either way, there'd be no Xtianity as we know it, without that "notorious" event on the road to Damascus.

It does seem far more likely that Paul "created" his Christology and its context than what is depicted in the Acts. — ENOAH

Acts is propaganda apologetics for Paul.. trying to make it seem like his synthesis fit neatly into the original group. Galatians overrides Acts in terms of the irrevocable tension between this new ideology of Paul, and the original represented by James. I don't think they actually mended that rift. Rather, Pauline version simply overcame it hundreds of years later when these communities gained traction in the Hellenistic world, and then Constantine. The truth though is that the original sect was never going to spread like that anyways, being confined to basically the synagogues and at most the "god-fearers".

Either way, there'd be no Xtianity as we know it, without that "notorious" event on the road to Damascus. — ENOAH

That is true. I would not call the original sect prior to Paul, "Christianity". Paul put the Christ in Christianity :smile:.

I'm curious, what do you see as the main differences between the original sect headed by Jesus and Paul's take on things? I see Paul as making certain inferences and elaborating/expanding on Jesus's ideas in his own ways. There's the Jesus layer and then the Paul layer.

I'm curious, what do you see as the main differences between the original sect headed by Jesus and Paul's take on things? I see Paul as making certain inferences and elaborating/expanding on Jesus's ideas in his own ways. There's the Jesus layer and then the Paul layer. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes agree on the Jesus layer and the Paul layer. I laid out my view earlier that Jesus seems to be a mix of Pharisaic (specifically Hillelite) and Essenic Jewish thought. From what I gather, he was from a laboring background in Galilee (tektons), a part of the Galilean peasant class. These classes were pretty impoverished by Roman taxation, hence the emphasis on tax collectors in the NT. Fisherman especially around the Galilee were heavily taxed so that they could only eek out a subsistence rather than build capital in any modern sense of the word. My guess is Jesus found himself a student of the Pharisees, despite being from lower class background. Perhaps he was precocious, who knows. Maybe there were connections.. Whatever it was, he learned a kind of Pharisaic way of interpreting Mosaic law. It is evident in his view of fellow Pharisees (see the Talmud regarding the 7 kinds of Pharisees to see parallels, and also the infighting between Hillel and Shammai at that time before School of Hillel definitively won out. See also his debate tactics in defending his interpretation of Mosaic law, especially using later prophets as considered valid evidence. Also, there are references to following the commandments that only make sense in light of an oral tradition, not just the written Torah. However, this is partly overlaid with his propensity for eschatology, the End Times, the Son of Man, and the Kingdom of God, and the call of repentance, and communal living, that seems very much from Essenic teachings. No doubt, if his main mentor was John the Baptist in his later years, then this helped kicked off his itinerant preaching in the countryside amongst mainly the am ha-aretz (peasant/laboring classes), usually avoiding the bigger cities (Sepphoris was right next door to Nazareth and Tiberius was not far either, yet he avoided those cities), and then later he went to Jerusalem, a much bigger and more dangerous theater, where he developed enough of a name, that his actions at the Temple got him arrested and indicted by the High Priest and Pilate.

So informative. You know this stuff. Had to thank you

I would not call the original sect prior to Paul, "Christianity". Paul put the Christ in Christianity — schopenhauer1

:up: Nazarenes ?

Nazarenes ? — 180 Proof

If Nazarenes and Ebionites are the same, then yes. If they are slightly different, then more like the Ebionites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5cNroueffQ

Actually this is the original video. The other one had some dude giving his interpretation of Tabor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLQ97erL1gc&t=686s

:up:

As an interesting tie-in, look at what Josephus says about James (with the caveat that the label, "the Christ" was probably a later Church interpolation),..

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees,[23] who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. 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, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.[24] Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

2. Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias[25] he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents; he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one being able to prohibit them; so that [some of the] priests, that of old were wont to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food.

3. But now the Sicarii went into the city by night, just before the festival, which was now at hand, and took the scribe belonging to the governor of the temple, whose name was Eleazar, who was the son of Ananus [Ananias] the high priest, and bound him, and carried him away with them; after which they sent to Ananias, and said that they would send the scribe to him, if he would persuade Albinus to release ten of those prisoners which he had caught of their party; so Ananias was plainly forced to persuade Albinus, and gained his request of him. This was the beginning of greater calamities; for the robbers perpetually contrived to catch some of Ananias's servants; and when they had taken them alive, they would not let them go, till they thereby recovered some of their own Sicarii. And as they were again become no small number, they grew bold, and were a great affliction to the whole country. — The Antiquities of the Jews- Chapter 9

A little background... Ananus ben Ananus was the brother-in-law of Caiaphas... I find it MORE than a coincidence that this relative of Caiaphas, who had tremendous influence being of the reigning priestly family, and who had a vendetta against the dissidents of their family (groups like the Sicarii, the Jesus Movement/Ebionites etc..) JUST LIKE his brother-in-law, Caiaphas, carried out a similar mock-trial (with Sadducees.. again priestly elites) to prosecute his brother James and kill him in a similar manner. Notice also, the majority of the crowd was against this action. This flies in face of Matthew, John, etc.

Do you know of other Jewish thinkers in that period who liken soil to a mind in their parables? Or who emphasize the role of the child as something to strive towards? Or who specifically seeks out the sinful person? I guess we could consider Jesus as maybe doing an early form of baal teshuva outreach. There's just many seemingly unique elements of his thought that interest me.

Do you know of other Jewish thinkers in that period who liken soil to a mind in their parables? Or who emphasize the role of the child as something to strive towards? Or who specifically seeks out the sinful person? I guess we could consider Jesus as maybe doing an early form of baal teshuva outreach. There's just many seemingly unique elements of his thought that interest me. — BitconnectCarlos

There are probably parallels I can pull out of the Talmud, but I am not saying Jesus can never en toto NOT have his own sayings. I am simply pointing out that his approach to the Law and his emphasis on eschatological matters is not necessarily sui generis- there are other groups around that time. If Rabbi Akiva has a saying that no other rabbi has, does that mean Rabbi Akiva is totally other and apart from the Rabbis of his time because there were unique sayings attributed to specifically him? Of course not.

Jesus certainly seemed to model himself after the prophets of the Ketuvim (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Micah, etc.). Was this renewal program itself, something that John started with his call in the Wilderness? Perhaps. Hillelites were also more lenient in their views. The Zealot party which formed towards the 50s-60s CE, were associate with the Shammaites. There was even violence between the Shammaites and Hillelites at some points. Can Jesus represent a Hillelite with a more outward stance? Perhaps. An outward reaching Hillelite/Essene. Just conjecture, but if Jesus came from the poorer classes, would this not be something he would sympathize deeply with? So we see all the elements of his purported biography making sense.. His peasant/tekton background, his Hillelite stance towards the Law, and his Essenic stance (via John), towards the End Times and Kingdom of God. He was a synthesizer for sure.

Jesus certainly seemed to model himself after the prophets of the Ketuvim — schopenhauer1

According to Robert Alter Elijah is the template for Jesus. There are shared miracles (raising from the dead) and both are largely itinerant among other similarities.

Can Jesus represent a Hillelite with a more outward stance? — schopenhauer1

I guess it depends how much we're willing to stretch the concept of "Hillelite?" How does one qualify as a Hillelite anyway?

An outward reaching Hillelite/Essene. — schopenhauer1

Maybe. I don't deny as Essenic influence. But on purity Jesus seems different: "It is not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him, but what issues from it."

Just conjecture, but if Jesus came from the poorer classes, would this not be something he would sympathize deeply with? — schopenhauer1

Possibly. IMO his saying "blessed be the poor" and "blessed be the poor in spirit" are part of a larger inversion of Jewish (and practical) wisdom. Doesn't money help us build a better world? Or give more to charity? But Jesus is decidedly unpractical. Ridiculously impractical. It is how one deals with this blatant impracticality that determines one's view of Jesus.

I guess it depends how much we're willing to stretch the concept of "Hillelite?" How does one qualify as a Hillelite anyway? — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, not a fan of this dismissive, condescending way of asking this seemingly innocuous question, but in GOOD FAITH I'll answer it:

Jesus emphasis on "Do unto others.." and "Hear O Israel.." seems to be in line with Hillel when asked the most important aspects of the Law..

Jesus' more lenient interpretation of Law, for example Jesus's disciples being in danger or starving during the Sabbath.

Hillel was more open to outsiders as was Jesus

The way Jesus criticized OTHER pharisees, was the way perhaps, a Hillelite might criticize a Shammaite.. I see the sentiment that God gave Sabbath for man.. as sort of saying that the Law isn't there simply as a routine thing one must memorize, but because it has symbolic significance and the intent of one does it matters, not just that one is doing it to look good, for the sake of scrupulousness, etc.

Interestingly, his ideas of divorce are more Shammaite (divorce should be rare), so he had his own takes on things, but I am saying he had more of a lenient approach to the Law.

My overall point isn't that he was a Hillelite, that is speculation. Rather, it is that Pharisees often had HEATED and SERIOUS debates amongst EACH OTHER.

Maybe. I don't deny as Essenic influence. But on purity Jesus seems different: "It is not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him, but what issues from it." — BitconnectCarlos

Sure, but one of two things here:
1) The Essenic movement could have evolved or split since the Dead Sea Scrolls were mainly written 100-200 years earlier.

2) John and Jesus may not have been mainstream Essenic adherents, but an outwardly version of it (Elijah inspired, or whathaveyou).

Either way, there are too strong a parallels in form and content of the End Times, Son of Man, use of baptism, and shared communal living to just throw up one's hands and say, "Yeah they are not connected but look similar". That seems too incredulous to me.

But as to your specific quote, again, it's an emphasis of intent versus ritual. Does the text say exactly the context? Probably not. But if it is giving a "gist" of what Jesus' ideas were, it was that main take away.

Look at parallels with Isaiah:

Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.
14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
I hate with all my being.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
I am not listening.

Your hands are full of blood!

16 Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
stop doing wrong.
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.[a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow. — Isaiah 1:11-17

This is a theme amongst prophets.. that ethical behavior is what is of utmost importance. This doesn't negate the rituals, but if one does rituals whilst discounting the poor or neglected of society, one is doing an injustice. Thus, as I said, he models himself after the prophets here. It's a critique he is trying to model himself. If he sees himself as the harbinger of the Son of Man (angelic figure who comes at the End Times.. right hand angel of God or whathaveyou), then this is his paramount message to repent to prepare for this End Times scenario.

Possibly. IMO his saying "blessed be the poor" and "blessed be the poor in spirit" are part of a larger inversion of Jewish (and practical) wisdom. Doesn't money help us build a better world? Or give more to charity? But Jesus is decidedly unpractical. Ridiculously impractical. It is how one deals with this blatant impracticality that determines one's view of Jesus. — BitconnectCarlos

If you think the End Times are near, and you take the Prophets like Isaiah seriously, impracticality is perspective, isn't it? Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves. If I recall, some did not even go to the bathroom on the Sabbath because the latrines were too far. That can be construed as impractical... Taking it too far.. Perhaps this is taking the social element too far. Either way, your evaluation of what he said isn't the matter here.

Also, I notice with you that you need Jesus to be "Othered" so that you can keep some sense of the modern Jewish view of things as CONTRA the character of Jesus. Or it seems from here. Rather, I see Jesus as part of the Jewish debates, and eschatology that was very much en vogue of his time. Again, not sui generis, but a variation of a rather commonplace theme in Second Temple, 1st century, Judea amongst the diversity of the Jewish ideas of that time, and the interplay of politics of Roman rule, Jewish Dissent, how to interpret the Law, what is the best lifestyle for a Jew, how to view the Temple in Jerusalem (corrupted or not.. legitimate or not at this point in time with Roman rule?)..

But as to your specific quote, again, it's an emphasis of intent versus ritual. Does the text say exactly the context? Probably not. — schopenhauer1

It does give the context. The Pharisees chide Jesus's followers for eating with unwashed hands and this is J's response. At first glance, for me at least, it just seems like Jesus does away with much of Leviticus. On Christian bibles it even has a footnote that says something like "all foods were declared clean."

Did you know that in Genesis when this notion of "clean" and "unclean" animals is introduced it originally refers to an animal's sacrificial fitness? It is originally referred to in the Noah story.

But the idea is generally taken like this: Evil speech defiles the soul, but anything consumed passes through the body and at some point exits it and it does not affect the spiritual plane.

Interestingly, his ideas of divorce are more Shammaite (divorce should be rare), so he had his own takes on things, but I am saying he had more of a lenient approach to the Law. — schopenhauer1

Yes. He once again here ties back to Genesis:

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? (Matthew 19)

J says divorce should only be permitted in cases of adultery and that not all of us are called to marry - an interesting early consideration of LGBTQ.

I see the sentiment that God gave Sabbath for man

I interpret this as J saying that man should be able to do what he wants on the Sabbath. I think we're both Jewish so we're both away of the restrictive rules on the Sabbath that are intended to keep one from not working.

This is a theme amongst prophets.. that ethical behavior is what is of utmost importance.

Not a Jesus theme, actually. His emphasis is more on molding internal attitudes and I guess what I'd call "inward purification" and fostering faith. His idea is that if you get the right mindset (the heart) and transform yourself internally the good deeds will follow, but emphasis on good deeds shouldn't be placed front and center.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, so that the outside may become clean as well." (Matthew 23).

If you think the End Times are near, and you take the Prophets like Isaiah seriously, impracticality is perspective, isn't it?

I read J as incessantly concerned about man's salvation/the state of his soul as opposed to his body; he says don't try to predict when the end time occurs. His audience seems to be those who are really deep in the hole righteousness wise. And death is omnipresent in Jesus's view. It could occur at any moment, and death does lie closer to the unrighteous. I consider his impracticality in this light; the man is also positive about the existence of an afterlife, after all. J never instructs his followers on how to live longer lives or maintain good health. I suppose whether one lives to 30, 60, or 90 is no major factor for J.

Jesus said, "There was a rich man who had much money. He said, 'I shall put my
money to use so that I may sow, reap, plant, and fill my storehouse with produce, with
the result that I shall lack nothing.' Such were his intentions, but that same night he died.
Let him who has ears hear." (gospel of thomas, non-canonical).

In any case, I'm onboard with your judgment that Jesus had a Pharisaic-Essenaic background. He is Jew. There's actually a lot about J's past that I question. For instance, in gJohn there's a well scene with him and a samaritan woman. I'm sure you know the deal with well scenes in the Tanakh. He is not an ascetic either.

The Pharisees chide Jesus's — BitconnectCarlos

Is this according to the NT or deconstructed? You realize the NT is selling a narrative, not history right? That Biblical and early Christian scholars try to reconstruct from the given religious text, comparing it to other sources, and what can be constructed of the time period right? You are simply doing your version of apologetics if you don’t understand this point. I’ll get to the other stuff which just makes me do a long sigh in that I have to address it.

The issue seems to be J's followers eating with unwashed hands. We don't need to take the footnote as gospel.

We don't need to take the footnote as gospel. — BitconnectCarlos

Do we have to take the gospel as gospel?
See here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/905403

I'm not sure how we would go about "deconstructing" this. I believe handwashing was a ritual at this point so it doesn't seem out of the question that one could be chided for not doing it. The ritual surely has a certain logic behind it. I would need to look into it further but presumably it serves to prevent impurities.

I'm not sure how we would go about "deconstructing" this. — BitconnectCarlos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misquoting_Jesus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Etc. etc. etc.

If you have a criticism about the basic premise I'm open to hearing it. I will take the scenario as gospel until shown otherwise. E.g. if handwashing wasn't a thing at that time that would be relevant. This position on purity is also stated in multiple gospels with more or less similar responses from J.

If you have a criticism about the basic premise I'm open to hearing it. I will take the scenario as gospel until shown otherwise. E.g. if handwashing wasn't a thing at that time that would be relevant. This position on purity is also stated in multiple gospels. — BitconnectCarlos

It's not the scenario per se.. You also realize the synoptic gospels build off each other.. Matthew and Luke and Thomas have a common Q, for example. Matthew elaborates from Mark which is prior to Matthew, etc. So of course there are similarities.... But, you are not addressing my main point, which do you agree that the NT was written and written and presented in a way to create a certain narrative Jesus?

And if you do accept this, do you agree that if you simply take what is presented at face value, and justify that it must be the actual history, this is a form of apologetics?

And if you accept this, do you agree that by arguing as if what is presented at face value, even if it is to say that the character of Jesus is wrong, by accepting what is presented, and then explaining your view in opposition to this, you are also participating in a form of apologetics (against the position of the Jesus that orthodox/fundamental Christians take as to what happened?).. There are many things in the NT btw.. Can we agree that the virgin birth didn't happen, and the Logos is tacked on? And that certain miracles were simply attributed and didn't happen, etc.? So we can at least establish that there are unreliable aspects to the NT..