The notion of the KOG -- as opposed to the announcement of its presence -- was not a novelty in 1st century Israel, but rather a central part of the politico-religious tradition. The concept was certainly fluid, but from at least the time of Daniel (mid-2nd cent. BCE), the conviction existed that when the Kingdom came, even the dead would participate.
The Roman occupation took Jesus' preaching of the kingdom seriously enough to hang him as an insurrectionist (as the INRI on crucifixes recalls). After his death the Christian movement -- Jews convinced of the resurrection -- saw him as the visitation of YHWH promised by the prophets, and awaited the fulfillment of the Kingdom begun with the resurrected Christ, the 'first-born from among the dead.'
Christianity as a movement has always been a vast argument or set of arguments, as the rather odd assemblage of documents from its first generation (the New Testament) shows. From people who thought that they were on to literally the most important thing in the universe, it's hardly surprising that we get a collection that contains varying theologies, as Jeffrey Fisher points out.
The argument among the Abrahamic religions to today is an argument about the exegesis of the Hebrew bible. As America's leading scholar of Judaism, Jacob Neusner, puts it, the religion of ancient Israel has thee daughter-religions, and Christianity is the eldest. --CGE
Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 8, 2009, at 5:01 PM, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>>
>>> and the [Israelite] king was the son of god. is my point.
>>>
>> So what is then the difference between Jesus and David, Rehoboam, Athaliah,
>> Josiah et. al. (other than that they were real royalty and he was a failed
>> pretender to the Davidic throne)? What makes him "bigger" than a Solomon?
>>
>>
> i think we're miscommunicating, and this is probably because i'm not being
> clear.
>
> my point, i thought, is a small one: that the gospels in general, but
> certainly mark and to a large extent john (the two lacking a genealogy,
> btw), have it that jesus is actually *not* the son of god/king/messiah in
> this traditional sense, but that everyone misunderstands him as claiming to
> be king in this traditional sense. this misunderstanding is arguably *the*
> central theme of mark. i admit i find this theme probably more fascinating
> than most.
>
> paul doesn't use the misunderstanding trope anywhere that i can think of off
> the top of my head, but he also certainly does understand jesus as being son
> of god not merely "according to the flesh from david" but also "according to
> the spirit."
>
> i'm not claiming that jesus was divine in any sense at all. or that he was a
> king. i am only saying that people early in the tradition, and quite
> possibly jesus himself, understood jesus to be more or other than a davidic
> king. certainly the way mark plays the theme lends itself to the idea that
> "mark" made this part up after the fact. but i have to say that in my own
> work on the gospels i've often wondered if jesus didn't think something more
> of himself, too.
>
> in the end, i think that's all i was really saying here: that maybe jesus
> *was* that crazy. maybe he really *did* believe it. the opportunistic
> followers trope has a certain appeal (and is played brilliantly in "the life
> of brian," for example), but i'm not sure it's that much more compelling a
> historical analysis of what jesus himself actually thought.
>
> not that anyone else is interested at this point . . .
>
>
>
>>
>> Shane Mage
>>
>> This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
>>> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
>>> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
>>>
>>> Herakleitos of Ephesos
>>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk