I think I made it pretty clear Jesus believed the Apocalypse was coming–not just metaphorically.  And not when all or most people lived morally, because he knew damn well that wasn’t happening. 

I think he had some deeper concept that to some extent the Kingdom depended on more than just God’s will–otherwise, why preach at all, since he didn’t think you had to hear about the Kingdom to enter it.  That’s a pretty important point, so let me underline it–if you live nowhere near Palestine, if you never in your life heard of Judaism, or Jesus–but you live the way God wants–you’re in the Kingdom.  And if you were a professed follower of Jesus, and you claimed he was Messiah, but your life did not reflect what you professed to believe–you’re in Gehenna.  And to Jesus, these are not metaphors.  Anymore than Plato’s Ideal Forms were metaphors to him.  And yet that is how we treat them now. 

Now we’re talking, you and I (online, but still).  I’m a real person existing in the same time period as you, and I am not utterly terrible at expressing myself, and you still got me somewhat wrong.   I may never be able to explain to  you exactly what I think about Jesus, because words have never been fully adequate to the task of explaining complex and often conflicting ideas we have about things we see (to coin a phrase) through a glass darkly, and never face to face.

So.  What are the odds that we can ever be sure what Jesus meant, when everything we have of him is filtered through other parties, and clearly distorted to a great extent?  A good working knowledge, maybe.  An educated guess. But even if we could go back in time, record every word he ever said, in public or private–wouldn’t there still be ample room for doubt?  If we could talk to him (in Aramaic), could he explain it to our complete satisfaction/  Did even he know exactly what he meant?  When it comes to matters like this, does anyone? 

My point was that whatever his precise understanding was–and clearly it was wrong on the level of strict fact, because look at the world we live in no.  He sure as hell was not saying the Kingdom would happen sometime in the next few thousand years, give or take.  He really did believe it was happening soon, and that many would be called, and few chosen.  And that wasn’t real.  But it was, on a different level of meaning, profoundly true.  Which is why it lasted.  Long after his literal prophecy had been disproven by events. 

We can still see the genuine truths he was getting at, just as we can get things from Plato while still acknowledging Plato was wrong more often than right, and that he openly condoned a lot of practices and assumptions of his day we now find unacceptable. 

I have gotten a much better understanding of Jesus through reading Bart Ehrman’s work, and if he and I don’t always agree, so what?  And if you and I don’t always agree, ditto.  We’ll none of us ever know.   But a being without beliefs is like a body without bones. Works okay for octupi.  Not us. 

Source?  Obviously that’s a defensible notion, since in the earlier gospels Jesus says the Kingdom is coming soon, which seems to imply a time limit–but Bart generally leaves a lot of wriggle room on such matters. 

Myself, I don’t think it’s either/or.  Not as Jesus saw it.  Faith is vital, and if nobody had faith (and the good works that go with it), obviously there’d be no Kingdom at all.  Universal Gehenna.  But self-evidently, it is not required that all or most people come around.  The question is, did Jesus think there was some bare minimum.  There are multiple instances in the Old Testament where God says there must be a certain number of righteous people in order for him to refrain from destroying some sinful place or other.  Not a very large number, but has to be more than zero. And, of course, by the time Jesus would have said these things, he would already have more than ten followers. 

A whole lot of guesswork, no matter how you figure it.  But see, the coming of the Kingdom and the final judgment at Gehenna are inextricably linked.  I find the notion Jesus only considered this or that part of the Torah unconvincing.  He’s risking a lot here, and he has to believe he’s understood properly.  His revelations, however they came to him, were not some daily event, and most true visionaries question their own visions to some extent, as Teresa of Avila did much later.

The time limit matters.  Jesus can’t believe most people are going to be convinced in such a short time, but God seems to place great weight on even a few just people in a place of corruption.  Jesus references Jonah with approval–and in that story, a prophet preaches destruction of a city–then, when the people repent, God relents, much to Jonah’s dismay.  

You really think it’s that simple to understand the thoughts of a man like this?  If you knew him in real life, you still wouldn’t understand him fully, and neither would anyone else.  I certainly don’t, but I do try to see things from his POV.  Behind all these texts there’s a real breathing human being, with the same doubts and fears as anyone else.  If you don’t start from that perspective, you’ll never get anywhere.  

I guess I just don’t see why an Apocalypticist can’t have a message of love.  I don’t see the conflict.  I think you’re making it up. 

In this case, I’d be disagreeing with you and Prof. Ehrman.  Literal black or white yes or no interpretations are never a good way to understand visionaries. 

(Also, what is ‘The Kingdom of Rome’?  There was a Roman monarchy, long before Jesus’ time, but I doubt he knew anything about it.  I think Bart just got carried away with making a turn of phrase.  The Roman Empire was not a kingdom, and Jesus would have rejected any comparison between God’s Kingdom and Rome–which after all, deliberately incorporates everybody into itself, regardless of their behavior, or how willing they are–hardly the case with the Kingdom, which will cast the majority of people into the outer darkness, with gnashing of teeth and etc.  It’s a horrible analogy–if you were always very down on Rome, and then the legions show up, and you say “I’ve changed my mind, Rome is great!” and pay all due obeisance–and your taxes–you’re fine.  Not so with the Kingdom of God.)

Maybe I should ask you–what exactly do you mean by all this?  I still don’t see your point (I sort of see Bart’s and disagree with it).  You’re saying that people had to want the Kingdom to come for it to happen?  Obviously a lot of people did want that in the years following Jesus’ death.  So it wasn’t enough?  What percentage was required?  Where does Jesus talk about how many people had to respond for the Kingdom to come?  Doesn’t he say, in so many words, that many are called, few chosen?  Meaning that he believes most people will never want the Kingdom to come, at least not if it means changing their sinful ways.  And he’s telling some of the people listening to him that it will come whether they want it or not, and they will be there to see it happen, and they won’t be happy at all.  (I agree Jesus had a message of love, but that ain’t it.)

Jesus thought there was a time limit.  That’s obvious.  His behavior those last few years is that of someone who believes the time is very short.  Even his behavior in Jerusalem has the feeling of someone who is looking for a way to trigger the event (here I suspect I’m again disagreeing with you and Bart both).

Jesus wasn’t just one thing.  He was large.  He contained multitudes.