I love hearing from you. Let me say that first. Not just your words but your energy. Very positive vibe.
I also highly respect your judgement and reasoning.
How non-violent Yeshua was, I can't say that I know. I suspect though, he wasn't nearly as non-violent as we have been led to believe. They try to make him seem like Ghandi, as if Yeshua wasn't talking about having his own kingdom as a messiah. When he died I think it sparked a new narrative, by later writers, to make his death okay and try to fit it into this sacrificial lamb concept. But what if the Sanhedrin never turned him over to Rome? What if he wasn't sold out as a rebel leader?
Luke 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
Luke 23:1 And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.
2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.
3 And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.
4 Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.
I quote this because, for anyone who wants to follow this conversation, it's important to understand what "Messiah" means to which "Christ" is just the Greek translation. It IS a king. Not a heavenly king in space, but literally a king of the nation of Yisrael. Since there was no king, it was really up to the Romans whether to think this man was a crazy dreamer or if he was actually a threat. And he was likable. The Greeks liked him. And they knew he was popular so it wasn't in their best interest to execute him. And we know that his disciples were infiltrated by the zealots. That's who Judas was. The zealots wanted to fight.
So on one hand we have the pharisees who see Yeshua as a political/theological threat because they needed people to follow Moses and them as the continuity of Mosaic law. That's where they derived their power and authority; not to mention their right to collect tithes. Another important point for those following is that Yeshua was a rabbi, not a priest. Modern Christianity falsely blends the two roles, partially claiming that Yeshua acted and took the place of priest so that now they are no longer needed. On the other hand you have the zealots who think Yeshua could be the one to rally the twelve tribes around in order to fight Rome for their freedom.
So with Judas being an inside man, how could he have stayed so long if he thought Yeshua was so nonviolent that he wasn't willing to fight for the throne? Also, statements made by Yeshua are taken to have meaning after the second coming. However, if the writers sought to create a narrative to make his death part of the plan, then it means that those statements were not about a second coming at all.
50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus and took him.
51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
The way Yeshua speaks to his disciples is similar to how a king in hiding would speak to his chief retainers.
29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
I don't think the 12 disciples is a mistake either. This would give each tribe a representative in Yeshua's council. I think we can easily establish that his followers believed he was trying achieve an earthly kingdom. The question is how you get there under Roman occupation.
This is only my belief, and you may disagree, but I don't think Yeshua was a pacifist at all. I think he simply recognized there's a time and place for different things. Before he could gather the 12 tribes together it would not be the right time for violence. And Yeshua certainly understood the political boundaries he had to work within. He was popular but he wasn't THAT popular. He knew he needed support, even in the sanhedrin. I think that's why he was close with Nicodemus. But I can't overlook the fact that his disciples were armed. Swords didn't magically appear when they took Yeshua. At some point these fisherman and tent makers had consciously determine that they needed to bear arms. And they were ready to fight to protect their master.
In other places in the gospels, you can see Yeshua treated as royalty. When the woman washes his feet with her tears, he allows this but not long after he establishes a tradition of washing his disciple's feet to show that he wouldn't be an arrogant king but rather one who was the greatest servant. Christians regard this as being "godly" behavior and worship as opposed royal behavior. They wanted a god because the God of the bible was/is famously quiet and invisible. Being invisible, Moses was able to act as 3rd party. But this eventually wasn't enough and the people wanted kings. Once this was established so was the way in which royalty were treated.
So if this is true, and Yeshua was trying to become a wise and just king like Haile Selassie, then at some point he would have had to lead his people against Rome. But he would have known that he would at least need all 12 tribes. Could it be... that the gospels... this message sent to the 12 tribes... was about gaining their support? If the 12 tribes started following him maybe then he'd have a shot at Rome. But this would have to have all been done under Rome's nose and this seems to be exactly what the Jews had sold him out for.
And its possible that Judas wasn't a zealot. It's possible that he was a spy for members of the sanhedrin who knew that someday a messiah would come to bring peace but pushed the idea farther into the future. It's possible that Yeshua was a zealot and that he was from a different faction than Barabas. It's possible that the zealots who eventually fought in 70 AD were previously followers of Yeshua. And of course, after they were wiped out it would have been much easier to change the story without the permission of Yeshua or any of his disciples who were all dead.
And on the issue of poverty, again, I don't think Yeshua was for that. Consider the parable of the 3 servants or the "Good steward". The one considered good was the one who did the most with what he was given. Yeshua said "In my father's house there are many rooms" and he talks about treasures in heaven. It wasn't that he believed you had to be poor but rather saw wealth as a temptation that was difficult to resist. He said it was as hard for a rich man enter heaven as a camel to pass through the small gate in the city wall. It was never impossible. It was just like the person was too attached to all their earthly possessions. This view is similar to Buddhist philosophy. Yeshua said that this utopian (heavenly) kingdom would require sacrifice to create. Children may be at odds with parents, brother against brother, etc. This is all made to sound like it's all spiritual metaphor but it is more likely that it was a very real reflection of them wanting to build a new nation.
And of course their original nation wouldn't have existed without Abraham who was insanely wealthy and Jacob who was also pretty wealthy. So Yeshua said the poor will be with you always. Poor is a relative term. It doesn't exist without its counterpart. So I think it's not that Yeshua wanted anyone to be poor but rather advanced the notion that there was an upper class of people who weren't all moral and kind and loving and good; that these qualities came harder to them because they were more likely to be corrupt, spoiled, arrogant, etc.
11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
12 Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee.
13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:
The chapter continues speaking on how all are welcome in Yeshua's kingdom. I think this is important since it helps paint a picture of the current class divide and how it was probably similar to the US and other modern countries. But instead of telling everyone to be poor he's saying that the poor should be welcomed and included.