The labor of everyday life (the 9-5 job) is loaded with inauthenticity with far more consequence than getting your hair cut short once or twice a month. Politics is infested with inauthenticities, as is religious endeavor, artistic enterprises, and lots of other stuff. We might be capable of authentically and freely choosing each and every options in our lives, but a necessary part of being human is limiting the occasions when deliberation is required. Habits are part of successful and authentic life. Habits enable us to use our limited resources to make important decisions when they arise. — Bitter Crank

Yes, you bring up a good point about habits. We must circumscribe our daily lives with certain ways of thinking or habits. The options become narrowed, as a bewildering set of possibilities is hard to maintain; familiarity becomes useful to fill in the gaps and make it easier.

But my larger point was that we can't but help but fall into these habits. Following our own choices within the world (even while recognizing the facticity of our surroundings) is not an option. We need guideposts that help us navigate how to get through the day and make us feel that we "did" the right thing to get by. We can mostly all agree that this is needed to survive easily in a social world.

But attached to this truism is the secondary questionof what are we trying to accomplish, really. By procreating more people, we are knowingly admitting that we want them to follow these procedures. I also recognized that within the procedures/patterns we maintain to get by, we seek out some stimulation:

It seems to me to be a lot of repetition, procedural drudgery, and instrumentality. We anchor ourselves to some set of guidelines.. inauthentically choosing whatever modus operandi seems appropriate for that time.. Some might be going through the motions.. doing the same things.. some might be in some new-fangled "self-help" high where they are constantly "improving"..

We don't know where to go, what to do, we find meaning in what others think makes a meaningful life.. at least that's what we tell ourselves (um, it's these friends, finding a mate, making a family, having a house to put my family, travel, gatherings, and this workout regimen you see!!! That's what I was told at least!!).

Then the ultimate question from this was:
"Does this lead to the conclusion that this general pattern of procedure and stimulation must be passed on and maintained? I am not sure. I do not see why this should be. What are we passing this on for?"

In other words, why pass on the procedures to the next generation? They too, inevitably will be consigned to mainly habits of that they perceive will get them through the day/week/month; guidelines that circumscribe the vague angst. But why is it important for more procedures to be carried out and experienced by more people?

Inevitably someone's going to say "balance" is the answer. It's a word that sounds like a panacea. You see, the "cool" trip you went on was the aberration from the procedure of daily life, and thus worth the procedure, and THUS worth procreating new people (or so is the implication). Of course even that is simply part of the procedure.. procedure/release-valve of travel which itself is a procedure.

Then, there are those who say to live like a sociopath, gallivanting around doing odd jobs, living the rebels life, ya know.. like they think they are in a movie about the typical rebel without a cause.. oh wait, that trope too is a procedure, just a different one! It's also usually not sustainable.

Other knee-jerk answers from the Western world -

Flow moments (getting lost in a hard puzzle, being completely involved in a task, working out that sodoku and crossword puzzle!)

Relationships- That laughter with friends and finding someone else to follow procedures with. That makes the procedures worth it for the next generation!

Turn on, tune in, and drop out- become an ascetic. Following an ascetic procedure is supposed to bring these psychological states at some point or during the process perhaps. Thus we can procreate so someone can achieve these states.

Anyways, the difference between the answers normally provided and what I seem to be trying to get at, is that these answers all entail the idea that embracing the procedures are good in and of itself..

I imagine zombies saying "more procedures.." What is this trying to accomplish? No, every day can't be a utopian-awesome-gestalt of free-flowing-ecstatic-enlightenment. I never said it did.

Generally society will promote having more people, and thus more procedure. The general tendency that procreation is good because we have procedure followed by release-valve, stimulation seems like a milktoast answer at best.

Also, I like your puns!

You do not need to have so much anxiety. You do not need to feel that your life is pointless drudgery.

And what we should be passing on is the encouragement and ability to be able to live in radically different ways. — Terrapin Station

I appreciate the encouragement and positive message. How about passing on the whole project to a new person? Why do they "need" to go through the procedure?

Think of life as a relay race. — TheMadFool

Why?

our job is to pass on the baton to future generations - give them a chance to find the answer. — TheMadFool

Why? Sounds like you're watching too much TV optimism. If there was a movie to reference though, it's 2001.. Relay into the abyss of the alien monolith.. In the end it's just the space baby..

It seems rather arrogant, malicious and foolish(?) to devalue life like that. — TheMadFool

Why? Would the infinite of "people not born" really care?

Also, it may be arrogant, malicious, and foolish to procreate. Though, it may be seen as an appropriate/right/good/justified stance by some. Same is this one.

The pessimistic philosophy is a static one. Life, on the other hand, is dynamic - it moves (so to speak). The present is drastically different from the past - we live longer, less disease, etc. The present is better than the past. I think this trend will continue and the future will be even better. So, as a philosophy, pessimism is backward and unproductive. — TheMadFool

To be fair, the poem started out as a little clever ditty. However, to answer your point, Pessimism is not about material progress; it's about the burden of being in the first place. Think of it more in the metaphysical sense of being itself. There are moments of repose (calm/repose/flow/intense concentration). Much of it is not though- even in the most materially abundant settings. What is this burden of being in the first place? Why is it necessary? Is progress itself some sort of assumption that is thrown in the equation? Progress is a product of what we do, but is that the justification for being, or is it circular reasoning to conclude that we must exist to increase progress? Unless we understand why existence is good in and of itself over not being in the first place, there will be no "progress" in this debate. Why put more people into the world in the first place? No one needed anything to begin with. No one needed progress to begin with.

To answer my own questions, perhaps we are an inevitable determined factor in the universe. There is a case that we are already wrapped up in existence. There is no escape. However, the temptation to exist must be answered. What is it about existence that it needs to be borne (born) out in the first place?

Life is a pleasure in the groin...
It's what keeps our species going,
If we all thought life was only a pain in the ass,
we'd all kill ourselves en masse — Harry Hindu

Many people confuse the issue you see
About the difference in what it is to be
Life worth continuing not worth parting
Different than life not worth starting
Thus dear lad its not 'bout the end
Its about new life, and whether to send

I think the endless possibilities are what makes it worth the going, but I agree that if this was it, if it couldn't get any better than this, then it wouldn't be worth all of the pain and suffering. But there is a very real possibility that in the not too distant future the situation could improve drastically and in the longer term it might even get good enough to justify the long bloody slog of life through the eons. — Sivad

Are humans just fodder for some future utopia though?

I wonder if Camus ever wrote about procreation. Is giving birth a form of rebellion against life's absurdity? — Marchesk

I would think it's the opposite. Preventing birth is a rebellion against the life of the absurd. It's a middle finger to "more existence".

So you think it's too aggressive? Have you seen the debates on this forum? Also, most people have strong positions that require others to justify. I'm doing it right now! Why pick on this? Finally, the point again is to grapple with existential issues. This is fundamental and foundational to a comprehensive worldview. It feeds into all sorts of issues, including metaphysics, ethics, and social science.

Yes, it was not meant as a criticism per se but more as a recommendation, that perhaps pessimistic threads should be abandoned because they are not productive in any substantial way. — darthbarracuda

What is productive in your mind? Again, you already came up with some conclusions yourself. Others have to work to justify why life is worth it. Even if simply to defend why human lives and the human project in general is good, means existential questions are at least being grappled with and not taken as a given.

In the absence of such a reason, it is best that we just don't say anything. Nothing positive will have been accomplished and all we will have done is make the problem worse. — darthbarracuda

I leave it to you and others to figure it out from there. You already came up with some interesting conclusions: more compassionate and patient, appreciate the goods in life more, don't procreate. I have stated similar positions in the past, as you know.

Truth for the sake of truth is said to be noble, but exposing people to pessimism without any additional advice or considerations seems to accomplish very little. — darthbarracuda

To question the very foundation of why we cause others to exist questions our own very existence. I think this adds value in the idea that it is a palate cleanser in terms of forcing us to reckon with our own evaluation of what life itself means. Most people really do not grapple with life- the meaning there of. Existential issues, vis a vis Sartre, religions, or otherwise sidetrack the issue. Procreation brings it into sharp focus.

Asstute observations on our asspirations
Lust, moot perturbations on constant frustrations
No dispute, desire the root of thwarted machinations

Yeah, I was wondering if I should use "prevent" rather than "deny" in that second line.

Perhaps I should put "prevent" instead of "deny" in the first line as I am referring to "life" not that "life is a pain in the ass".. People do not pass on denying that "life is a pain in the ass".. Indeed that is the problem, they DO deny that life is a pain in the ass and then this causes people to not deny life for others (procreating them). But maybe the ambiguity could be good?

How many countless people suffer from metabolism and sleep problems? Just add it to the pile of harms.. see here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/669/how-many-different-harms-can-you-name/p1

The antinatalist must be pretty happy. There are billions of non-actualized potential people for every actualized one. — noAxioms

Does it cover the costs?

If the world started from boundless possibility, as you were implying earlier, we cannot escape it. Possibility exists and therefore actuality can exist. Thus, perhaps the antinatalist can never say "non-being is preferable" as that makes no sense in the universe we know. Rather, non-actualized potentiality is better than actialuzed potentiality is as close as we can get.

In the end, I don't think there is a set of existing things. I think 'existence' is misapplied. The cosmological argument questions the how of the existence of the universe, or more naively, how it was 'caused', but the universe seems not to be in need of either causation or existence. There is no set, and I exist in the universe despite the lack of meaning to the concept of the existence of the universe. — noAxioms

You are in a universe where contingent and determined forces play out perhaps from an original apeiron of boundless and indefinite possibilities which was broken in an original asymmetry which allowed for yet more asymmetries into the universe or multiverse we reside.

I'm not sure if you saw my previous post:
This problem goes back to the first philosopher, Anaximander actually. He thought all was undefined or Boundless. Essentially, it was the idea that all was potential with no actuality to it (no form). Of course, how it goes from boundless to boundaries or undefined to defined from the very start, is anyone's guess. There's always Schopenhauer's idea that WIll is always there striving ever-forward. This at least brings a principle of momentum to the puzzle.

But I didn't like the second-sense, finding it pretty much the same as the first sense. No, U would not be a member of itself, but it would be a member of something that includes other <need a noun here>'s which also distinguish themselves from whatever background we might identify. I think it presumptuous to select a noun there with the distinction left undefined. I tried 'structure', but not sure if other members that stand out are necessarily structures. — noAxioms

This problem goes back to the first philosopher, Anaximander actually. He thought all was undefined or Boundless. Essentially, it was the idea that all was potential with no actuality to it (no form). Of course, how it goes from boundless to boundaries or undefined to defined from the very start, is anyone's guess. There's always Schopenhauer's idea that WIll is always there striving ever-forward. This at least brings a principle of momentum to the puzzle.

You're going down the same path I see. The pink elephant is for whatever reason possible, and hence can have the property of nonexistence. What doesn't get that far? Maybe what makes the pink elephant possible (but not actual) is what makes our universe distinct from one that is not possible.
I think, therefore I'm possible. Ewww, but maybe... — noAxioms

Can you explain this more?

In terms of antinatalism, it is interesting to know that you need existence to know that non-existence is preferable. However, non-existence does not seem like something that can exist in and of itself. So, how can anything be purely non-existence by itself without an existence to compare it to? Existence entails non-existence but non-existence itself does not seem to make sense. Perhaps non-existence is pure possibility without being actualized? Then again, what is pure possibility as that seems to be "something" and thus has an existence.

If Trump is not colluding with the Russians, he sure does not do a good job of assuring people that this is the case. I think rather than overplaying this, people are underplaying this. If Trump is implicated in anyway to be involved with the Russians during the election and during his presidency, this would be treason. If he permits a foreign government to influence elections, OR has a bias towards a pro-Russian policy due to inside connections or past deals, this is giving up his country's interest for a foreign power. If that really is the case, Watergate/dirty tricks/spying on the opposition party and covering it up would be nothing compared with this.

2001 : A Space Odyssey, would be my first pick due to being all cozy with logical positivism, which simply became replaced with scientism. — Question

Agreed.. I wrote this earlier on the forum:
I'm reminded of 2001: A Space Odyssey. One can read many things into that movie. The name of the ship was Discovery.. And David Bowman- the intrepid human, does encounter the "alien" Monolith and whatever created its technology. In this encounter, Bowman experiences the dimensions of time, moving through his life and is transformed into the Space Baby. Perhaps a new dawn for humans, or perhaps just a big farce- a big thing signifying nothing. I think it might be the latter. We are simply instrumental beings striving for nothing.

My apologies for not acknowledging your good post on the history of the early Christians. I was thinking about what you said, but was drawing on other sources than you relied on. Not better, just different. — Bitter Crank

No problem.. I just wanted to draw the parallels as we were hitting similar points. The main point is that the historical context matters and that interpolation from a later point was probably rewritten into the story, thus changing the original one.

My earlier point was that it is best to reconstruct the original person of Jesus (Joshua), his very early followers, etc. by using a variety of historical and archaeological sources that provide a most likely scenario. It seems that John the Baptist started/continued some sort of Essenic interpretation of Torah law- with much emphasis against the political structure (anti-Herodian for John/ anti-Temple Establishment for Jesus). Jesus was known as some sort of miracle-worker (not uncommon at the time except the idea that his services were free and made him possibly more well known.. see Honi the Circle Drawer, Hanina Ben Dosa, and other of this time).. He goes to Jerusalem in an anti-Temple Establishment tirade at the center of the Establishment. This pissed off the authorities and had him crucified for trying to foment dissent and probably claiming kingship (Messiah title).

His immediate followers were led by his family, specifically his brother James (Jacob). This group thought Jesus was not actually dead because he was too righteous. Paul becomes an interloper who reinterprets the group and their not-quite-dead messiah. He introduces ideas of mystery cults- the idea of a god that dies for sins. He also elevates Jesus to more than a righteous guy (who was believed not-quite-dead by his followers), into a literal Son of God. He introduces shades of Gnosticism and views Jesus' life and death as a complete replacement of the Torah itself. This is Gnostic in the idea that the Torah represents the old (the "physical", the "demiurge", the lesser) and the new way is the "real" path ("the spiritual", Jesus' death and resurrection is greater vehicle). These irreconcilable and monumental changes in theology brought him in conflict with the original John-Jesus-James Movement. Paul, along with his followers, go and form their own communities, either under James' nose (without his knowledge) or simply without even having his consent. His ideas mostly resonated within the Gentile communities throughout the Greco-Roman world. These Pauline communities are what will eventually become "Christianity". This Pauline Christianity will eventually create many of its own schisms, that will eventually coalesce to become dominated by Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox.

The John-Jesus-James Movement, some possible subsect of Essenic Judaism (with anti-Establishment, Messianic message), becomes more obscure in the Jewish community as the Temple is destroyed by 70 CE. With the Bar Kochba Rebellion in 132-136 CE, this group becomes even more of an outcast in synogogues in the Levant as their dead messiah seems less efficacious than Bar Kochba, a general and messianic claimant who was actually beating the Romans.. The group probably lived on in the fringes of Jewish society, known as the "Ebionim" or "Ebionites" much later (meaning the "poor ones", possibly a name the original Jesus Movement called themselves).

This was pretty much my earlier point in the thread. I provided a possible scenario as well of pre-Pauline Jesus Movement vs. post-Pauline Christianity. I am sure there were other key players- especially those who edited the four canonical Gospels, and the people who changed even these canonical gospels, and then the people who decided that those particular four would be included and others would not. By the time the Gospels were written, the original Jesus Movement was out of the original players' hands, and was being run by a community with a certain slant influenced by certain people that most likely were not part of the original movement. Most likely Paul was the dividing point, and there were post-Pauline influenced churches run out of people's houses and communities that spread and eventually formed a hierarchy.

@Bitter Crank@Thorongil @Agustino@Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is that the core of religious experiences may have changed over time to suit the needs of people and communities. Where peacefulness in community and "unity" with natural settings might have been obtained through the tribal experience, with religion being either a) another source of the unity feeling, or b) a way to calm survival anxieties about birth, death, and sustaining (through various spirits and rituals), it became elevated to survival of crops, tribes, and city-states in post-agricultural societies... Then around what used to be called the "Axial Age" of about 600BCE, religion became a much more personal thing, whereby one can try to achieve calm with oneself and one's society either through a strict set of social rules, a strict set of self-disciplined ascetic practices, or both..

So to summarize- what was communal anxiety over survival becomes calm tranquility with oneself and one's community. Whether this be mediated through a godhead or through more impersonal means, this is the root of religion since the 600's BCE. Perhaps the calmness with self and society is a roundabout way of going back to the original understanding of peacefulness and unity with community and natural settings that was the original role of religious experience..

Mind you, this is all speculative but it's not a bad theory, right? Oh, and please don't just quote this last part..

There is no potential, despite what we imagine — TimeLine

How is this the case? A possibility exists for a future person. There is a potential for a person with unknown qualities or with vague qualities based on known biological and environmental determinants. Nevertheless, the potential for a new person exists.

Potential is about a possible future event. It gets tricky when talking about "potential people" and the morality of potential people. Can we talk meaningfully about a potential future person that does not exist? If so-and-so procreates, he would have a child, but he does not now. The child is only a potential child.

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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]

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

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.

Thanks! Done. I was trying to rhyme the first three lines though..any way to keep that, or do you think it still works without it?

unbalanced in their life activities. — Bitter Crank

Born o'er the crashing waves of existence, amidst boredom and preference-lacks.
Torn between the goals of salty snacks and the tech of the latest hacks
We are poised forlorn, with existence we now must deal
Never enough, boredom comes nipping at our heel.