Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor.
The high priests set up the dichotomy between the King of the Jews and Caesar. Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. The high priests wouldn’t have anyone calling himself king unless he was willing to lead a violent rebellion against Rome. If Jesus had advocated a rebellion, the Romans would have killed him. Because he advocated peace but called himself a king, the high priests had him killed.
And as a matter of clarity, the central question was whether Jesus believed his kingdom would exist on earth. According to his words in the Gospel of John, he did not.
Matt2239 said
John 18:36 says, “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world” Hence, there was either a witness whose identity isn’t given in the gospel because it isn’t important, or Jesus told the apostles about it after his resurrection, or Pilate told others.
It’s fallacious to use the “probably” construction when talking about Jesus and early Christianity. Jesus and his message beat all the odds over and over again to become the most important religion in history of the world. You might think he won the Powerball. Others might think he was God incarnate. Each conclusion is reasonable.
Most critical scholars think that a high proportion of sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels, are theological opinions thriving in the communities of the gospel writers. Or they are twisted real Jesus sayings. gJohn is generally considered the least historical gospel of all, mostly expressing the theology of its author, put on the lips of Jesus.
One does not become executed by the Romans for the idea that believers some day will become promoted to a heavenly existence. Jesus (an this is quite explicitly stated by the major influential follower, Paul) thought that this world would become transformed, with a new kingship for Israel. That is why Jesus was thought to be a Messiah among his followers. Or else “Messiah” would have been an empty attribution.
Robert
will consider that as I slog thu Meir’s 3rd volume
for the time being will be content with your acknowledgment:
no murder no theft no adultery in Kingdom of God – explicit in Jesus’ ministry
no death no disaster no disease in KofG – (maybe? imo) implicit
. . . . . . . . .
Was reading once again Jesus Sermon on the Mount in Matthew
and thinking about verse 5:48
I am wondering whether this was actually the very last line of his sermon as it sums up all he said before
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Is a person who is destined to physical death imperfect?
or a person who is blind, or crippled, or has leprosy?
or a person who is subject to natural disasters?
I read thru his whole sermon and i think not.
Robert said
In your response, you quoted a verse from the gospel of John that portrayed the high priests as completely loyal to Rome.
Yep, that’s why I believe it. The high priestS created a dichotomy between the King of the Jews and the Emperor of Roman Empire. Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.
gavriel said
Most critical scholars think that a high proportion of sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels, are theological opinions thriving in the communities of the gospel writers. Or they are twisted real Jesus sayings. gJohn is generally considered the least historical gospel of all, mostly expressing the theology of its author, put on the lips of Jesus.
One does not become executed by the Romans for the idea that believers some day will become promoted to a heavenly existence. Jesus (an this is quite explicitly stated by the major influential follower, Paul) thought that this world would become transformed, with a new kingship for Israel. That is why Jesus was thought to be a Messiah among his followers. Or else “Messiah” would have been an empty attribution.
In the first paragraph you dismiss as unreliable statements attributed to Jesus that I cite, and in the second paragraph you emphasize statements attributed to Paul because they serve you.
As for why people were crucified by Rome in 33 a.d., you’re saying Jesus’s punishment is proof of his crime. Barabbas was going to be crucified for being a petty thief. Are we to believe that Barabbas was actually the Bernie Madoff of his time?
Robert said
You believe the gospel of John’s portrayal of the high priests as completely loyal to Rome and yet you also claim that the high priests were ‘agitating violence by demanding that Jesus defeat Rome in battle’. And you don’t see a contradiction there? Can you quote a verse from scripture where the high priests demand that Jesus defeat Rome in battle?
John 19:12-15
12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
Why are you so stuck on this? Are you an anti-semite?
Robert said
There’s more to it than that. There’s also . . . vs . . . EISAGESIS .
COOL, i did not know there was a word for that. I thought I was just alleging that Dr Ehrman was letting his own individual inclinations affect his otherwise scholarly opinions 
when i earlier wrote
tompicard said
It appears to me that Dr Ehrman bases most of his speculation of Jesus’ own view of his mission on
the philosophical [conjecture that the] problem of evil and thus other forms of evil such as sickness and natural disasters will also presumably not exist in God’s Kingdom.
.
, and later reluctantly retracted
thanks for teaching a new word,
Of course I have read Matt 11:2-6 || Luke 7:18-23. (this is Meier’s method to reference Q 7, 18-23 and a little easier for me)
I haven’t looked at 4Q521, but I trust/believe it says what you wrote.
Both of these show the messiah (or the ‘one to come’) is an important/great individual who harnesses and demonstrates the saving power of God.
If these verses lead you to the conclusion that there is no death or disaster or disease in the coming Kingdom of God, may I ask you to make it explicit that I may be convinced, but there certainly must be another implicit premise that I am missing and you haven’t elucidated.
That Jesus raised one dead person, by itself, does not logically imply all people living in the Kingdom of God are immortal
(actually it doesn’t even imply that one raised person is immortal (in fact from there story there is no indication that he is)
Let’s look at the 7 verses immediately proceeding the question by John in Luke i.e the raising of the son of a widow in Nain, and see what point Luke is trying to convey.
all filled with awe and praised God. . . .and said. “God has come to help his people.”
Now I cannot equate “God has come to help his people” with “God is going to make us physically immortal“
nor am I going to now comment on whether the person who sees an equivalence in these two statements is engaging in eisagesis or not
God, not his Messiah, that is said to liberate the captives (plural) restore sight to the blind (plural), straightens the b[ent] (plural), heal the wounded (plural), make alive the dead (plural), etc. .
Is your point with the ‘(plural)’s that it is saying/implying no more captives (zero?), no more blind, no more bent, no more wounded, no more dead ? zero, zero zero?
I dont take the ‘eternal Kingdom’ to mean any one individual king is immortal, do you?
And Isaiah 60 + argues against immortal life on the ‘new’ earth (Jesus’ Kingdom of God).
Jesus was not opposed to blind seeing and lame walking.
I agree 100% with Ehrman and Meier that Jesus message was eschatological and/or apocalyptic, exactly as Bart described apocalyptic: immanence, duality, vindication and pessimism (pessimism a little less).
It is really just a couple of important details, that I consider he is mistaken on
one detail being his supernatural view of of the son of man
the other detail the supernatural views of the Kingdom of God – the question of this thread
. . . showed that [Jesus’] TEACHINGS were true.
In the Kingdom of God there will be no natural disasters. .. . no more disease or bodily ailments or physical impairments. . . no more death; . . ..
May i ask you ?
where did Jesus TEACH . . that in the Kingdom of God there will be no natural disaster (or death or diseases)??
if your answer is, “well other contemporary apocalyptic teachers taught no natural disasters at the time of Coming of God’s Messiah so Jesus must have also”, and that argument convinces you, ok.
On the other hand, Dr Ehrman is in good company for he shares this view with practically all other christians particularly evangelicals that I know, (ie that after Jesus returns the saved will never die or catch a cold or get caught by tsunamis or earthquakes) – I am in the minority in the opposite view.
I do think Jesus expected “perfect” human beings to populate the Kingdom of God on earth (Matt 5:48)
By reading the rest of the sermon on the mount you can easily understand what he meant by “perfect”, there is no reason to to add unnecessary characteristics to a “perfect” human such as no sickness and no death.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)