I do have one disagreement with James Tabor. It could be a matter of semantics, but if so, a big one needing clarification. He writes on his latest post:
Jesus preached the imminent and violent overthrow of the religious and political establishment by the power of God himself. This revolution was cryptically referred to as “the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven” (Daniel 7:13-14, 26-27), and Jesus claimed to be the direct agent of this anticipated deposal.What is a violent overthrow especially as it relates to "the power of God himself?" Does not violent overthrow ultimately mean human beings violently overthrowing one another, regardless of how God is involved?
I much appreciate James Tabor's views of Jesus. He has opened my eyes a great deal. But as regards to violence, whether from God or not, I have to say that Jesus was not violent. This is where I go with John Dominic Crossan God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now:
That leaves me with these conclusions. The Second Coming of Christ is not an event that we should expect to happen soon. The Second Coming of Christ is not an event that we should expect to happen violently. The Second Coming of Christ is not an event that we should expect to happen literally. The Second Coming of Christ is what will happen when we Christians finally accept that the First Coming was the Only Coming and start to cooperate with its divine presence. (p. 231)