Jesus And His Generation

[outhouse]

I don’t understand what you mean by “How much of Johns text made it through and crossed cultural lines and made it into the NT text”?

If a Jesus existed, he factually did not pull his theology out of thin air, he had to be taught.

Peasants in Judaism would usually be baptized by their teacher.

By all rights everything Jesus learned was from John and took over his movement after his death. Everything in the NT theoretically would be Johns.

[outhouse]

While it is likely that the authors of Mark and Q put into the mouth of Jesus words he didn’t say, as time went by and the end didn’t come it would be strange for them to put words about an imminent end into his mouth and there are cases where it is seen as delayed. If you wanted to make out a case that Jesus didn’t see the end as imminent you would have to make out cases for why he says it will be. (An example is Mk 9:1 ‘And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power."’.)

All I am saying is that factually there is no consensus on the context of the kingdom of god because different authors contradict each other about what it really meant.

Its obvious they are parroting a concept newly adopted to their culture based on hearsay and misinterpretation of existing literature.

[Michael BG]

All I am saying is that factually there is no consensus on the context of the kingdom of god because different authors contradict each other about what it really meant.

Its obvious they are parroting a concept newly adopted to their culture based on hearsay and misinterpretation of existing literature.

Your original comment was on

I am convinced that Jesus believed that the end of time was imminent

My original point was on the imminence not on the nature of what the end of time will be like. Can I assume that you do not wish to make a case that Jesus did not talk about the imminence of the final judgment and the end of time?

Secondly I have given an example from Daniel and examples from Paul where the nature of the end of time is the same. I think there is other evidence that within Judaism there was a tradition that saw a final judgment at the end of time with a general resurrection. Of course this does not mean that every Jew in the first century believed in this. I think a strong case can be made out that there was a large section of the population who did not believe in resurrection or any after life. Also Daniel is usually dated to just before 164 BCE. By c. 30 CE this is no longer a concept “newly adopted.”

What evidence can you provide that Dan. 12:2 was not interpreted by Jews to mean that there would be a general resurrection and final judgment?

[outhouse]

What evidence can you provide that Dan. 12:2 was not interpreted by Jews to mean that there would be a general resurrection and final judgment?

Everlasting life in Judaism? Jews did not really have an afterlife concept like we imagine today.

Lets quote Mr Ehrman

those people who do believe in an afterlife (with a few, but only a very few exceptions), think that your body dies and your soul lives on. In the now traditional Christian idea, your soul goes to heaven or hell.

Where did that idea come from? Most of the Bible, of course, is the Old Testament (it’s about 3-4 times as large as the New Testament). And the Old Testament teaches no such thing. Moreover, Jesus himself did not teach any such thing. And I would argue that the no such thing is taught in *most* of the New Testament – though there are some passages people could appeal to in support of the view, even if the passages in fact appear to be saying something else.

[outhouse]

My original point

was

I am convinced that Jesus believed that the end of time was imminent

And all I am trying to do is get to the context of what end times would mean for a Aramaic Galilean.

You may be right he though time would soon be over, I'm not ready to concede this without further study.

Please work with me here thinking out of the box.

Lets say Jesus at Passover with a half a million people there at the temple. Was able to rally the crowd who got behind him and over ran the corrupt temple officials and was able to keep the momentum going and they took out the Romans garrison. I think he attempted this and failed, but what if he succeeded ??? '

Had he done so, do you think it would have been labeled an "end time" or "Messianic age" or the coming of the "kingdom of god"

My whole point is do not take their text so literal because in many cases even when we thing we are right and it should be obvious, we are wrong and the context is different.

Lets look at the difference in emotional context between Luke and Pauline text on the same topic. .

The Gospel of Luke records Jesus' description of the Kingdom of God, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; ... For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."[14] The Apostle Paul defined the Kingdom of God in his letter to the church in Rome: "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."[15]

Do you think this was the same context John and Jesus taught? Or were these authors softening up another cultures harsher theology directed to overthrowing the Romans?


I know I'm fighting an uphill battle, and you have the likely hood of being correct. What if "end times" in context simply meant overthrowing the Roman oppressors out of Israel?

[outhouse]

When it comes down to it, the "kingdom of god" in Luke and Paul was simply a positive human emotion in the above context.

Its so contradictory all over the literary map.

[Michael BG]

Everlasting life in Judaism? Jews did not really have an afterlife concept like we imagine today.

Lets quote Mr Ehrman

those people who do believe in an afterlife (with a few, but only a very few exceptions), think that your body dies and your soul lives on. In the now traditional Christian idea, your soul goes to heaven or hell.

Where did that idea come from? Most of the Bible, of course, is the Old Testament (it’s about 3-4 times as large as the New Testament). And the Old Testament teaches no such thing. Moreover, Jesus himself did not teach any such thing. And I would argue that the no such thing is taught in *most* of the New Testament – though there are some passages people could appeal to in support of the view, even if the passages in fact appear to be saying something else.

I don’t think we should consider what people believe today in relation to what others believed 2000 years ago. At my Mum’s funeral we had 1 Cor. 15 as a reading, but I know my sister does not agree with Paul’s vision of the afterlife.

In the Wisdom of Solomon we clearly have a soul after death:

[1] But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God,
and no torment will ever touch them.
[2] In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died,
and their departure was thought to be an affliction,
[3] and their going from us to be their destruction;
but they are at peace.
[4] For though in the sight of men they were punished,
their hope is full of immortality.
[5] Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good,
because God tested them and found them worthy of himself;
[6] like gold in the furnace he tried them,
and like a sacrificial burnt offering he accepted them.
[7] In the time of their visitation they will shine forth,
and will run like sparks through the stubble.
[8] They will govern nations and rule over peoples,
and the Lord will reign over them for ever.
[9] Those who trust in him will understand truth,
and the faithful will abide with him in love,
because grace and mercy are upon his elect,
and he watches over his holy ones.

Wis. 3:1-9

It is possible that behind Mark 12:18-25 there is a story about Jesus

[18] And Sad'ducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question, saying,
[19] "Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves no child, the man must take the wife, and raise up children for his brother.
[20] There were seven brothers; the first took a wife, and when he died left no children;
[21] and the second took her, and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise;
[22] and the seven left no children. Last of all the woman also died.
[23] In the resurrection whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife."
[24] Jesus said to them, "Is not this why you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God?
[25] For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Being like angels means they are neither male nor female. Paul also sees resuurected people being transformed into “celestial bodies” (1 Cor. 15:40). It can be inferred that a resurrected being is a heavenly being just like an angel.

The idea of judgment and afterlife therefore is in the Bible and the Apocrypha.

And all I am trying to do is get to the context of what end times would mean for a Aramaic Galilean.

…

Lets say Jesus at Passover with a half a million people there at the temple. Was able to rally the crowd who got behind him and over ran the corrupt temple officials and was able to keep the momentum going and they took out the Romans garrison. I think he attempted this and failed, but what if he succeeded ??? '

Had he done so, do you think it would have been labeled an "end time" or "Messianic age" or the coming of the "kingdom of god"

Years ago I favoured the idea that Jesus was a failed Zealot (as presented by S G F Brandon). It is possible that some Zealots did believe that if they defeated the Romans and took control back over Palestine that it could inaugural the end of time. If time did end then I would agree it was the end of time. For time to end there would be an end to birth, growth and death.

Lets look at the difference in emotional context between Luke and Pauline text on the same topic. .

The Gospel of Luke records Jesus' description of the Kingdom of God, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; ... For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."[14] The Apostle Paul defined the Kingdom of God in his letter to the church in Rome: "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."[15]

(It would have been helpful to give the references)

I don’t dispute that for Luke the Kingdom of God had already come and was within Christians.

Roms. 14:17-18

[17] For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit;
[18] he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God …

It is possible that here Paul is saying that for someone to end up in the Kingdom of God that person has to carry out conduct which is acceptable to God. His emphasis being right conduct and judgment.

Do you think this was the same context John and Jesus taught?

Yes I do think both John the Baptist and Jesus taught that a person would be judged by God and only end up in heaven if they carried out that which was acceptable to God.

Or were these authors softening up another cultures harsher theology directed to overthrowing the Romans?

While it is possible that some Jews believed that the Kingdom of God could only be achieved by the overthrowing of Roman control, it is also possible that some saw this as unnecessary because God or an angel could do the overthrowing as Daniel 12:1 “At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book”.

However I don’t think this was Luke’s concern. He was more concerned with the delay in the arrival of the kingdom of God and it is generally accepted he believed that the kingdom had arrived.

What if "end times" in context simply meant overthrowing the Roman oppressors out of Israel?

A case can be made as I have said that Jesus wanted the overthrow of Roman control of Palestine, but there is also evidence that he saw the coming of the Kingdom of God as an event ushered in by God with the coming of the Son of Man.

It is possible that Jesus believed the coming of the Son of Man would bring in the Kingdom of God, however early Christians developed this idea. Paul sees Jesus’ resurrection as the start of the general resurrection which is part of the bringing in the Kingdom of God. So some Christians could identify Jesus with the Son of Man figure, while others identified him with the Messiah who brings in the Kingdom of God. It is quite possible that followers of Jesus identified Jesus as the Messiah because he was the first to be resurrected (“that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus” Acts 2:36).

So you are correct within the New Testament there are many traditions regarding Jesus and who people believed he was. However what we need to do is present a case for what we think is most likely. It is possible that there are more examples of the Kingdom of God bring inaugurated by God or a divine figure than by a human rebel Messiah. However this might well not convince you because of the likelihood that some of the later evidence has been suppressed or changed.