thormas

I don't think prophets knew what was to come or how things were going to unfold. Texts were written after the fact and the prophecy was placed on the lips of the prophets.

It's not this: "he would have known what was to come and how things were going to unfold."

I think, as did the early Christians, that he was 'exalted' by God and thereafter their devotion to him was as Lord and Messiah (Christ). If Jesus knew what you say he knew, he simply wasn't like us, he was not human as we are and all (salvation) is for naught. Actually the earliest Christians and Paul were all apocalypticists and it was the later gospels, living when the Kingdom had been delayed for decade upon decade, that began to soften the apocalypticism of Jesus.

And now the trumpster says all he know is that the crazy QAnon like him and he appreciates it. I bet he thinks these crazies are 'fine people' just like the white supremacist groups.

You've hit the nail on the head Elen!!!!!

Still, it is two different points: Jesus did believe in a physical Kingdom that was to be solely established by God, this was the apocalyptic hope of Jews at that time. When time kept marching on, the early Christians began to rethink the Kingdom till we arrived at John's Gospel. Thereafter we think of it as a spiritual Kingdom that dawned in Jesus and continues in each of us.

As Paul said, not all have that opportunity and of course you were not impacted by systematic racism. Nor were you more prone to suffer health issues (including the present pandemic) as are minority citizens.....in spite of the health clinics the poor can go to after they stop at the thrift shop. It is interesting that those who are not or no longer poor romanticize being poor (happiest people) although it is also interesting that those who are actually in poverty would prefer to be anyplace else (the kids might not know they are poor but the single mother or the mother and father are acutely aware of it). I doubt you or any others would go back to being poor.

This is exactly the case Paul. And the idea that the poor in the US are not really poor or that being poor in the US is a 'relative' thing, given the poverty through the world, is a typical republican canard.

Thought it might have been something like that. You thought it was from Mark, I couldn't remember and and I simply gave the Erhman reference that I had previously made. Stay safe.

Paul, I'm not even sure how Mark got in on this discussion, I quoted Ehrman on a parable that he said was abut the Gentiles and the Kingdom. I can't remember what gospel it was from of if I even mentioned a gospel. If I said Mark??? I was kidding about Paul, i.e. the saintly one, but I think you might not have considered fully what the prophets are saying. Before or after is the question: you appear sure, I am open to two possibilities. Moving on is fine.............

Some of us are curious about the strangest things :+}

Joseph, $24,239 for a family of 4 is doable with 2020 prices? Please! And compared to your situation as a kid, I guess but you must be talking COL in the late 40s and through the 50s. It was a different world. And it's not all in comparison to your situation.......plus you were not faced with ongoing systematic racism. And world comparisons are fine but let's just consider America (The USA) where perhaps we should be able to have less poor in such a country as ours (and not be a socialist state). We have all those programs you mentioned because .............so many people are poor! People who are not poor don't need this programs. Poverty may be relative but it is also real in the lives of too many in this country. And (elsewhere) you slam people on retirement planning? Without even considering that some might have circumstances that decimated their savings and their plans for the future in spite of their best laid plans. Where is the understanding and empathy for others? Many of us do make sacrifices to get ahead and plan for the futures but not all are able to do that. How much would that father or mother of the family of 4 be able to save on $24k a year? If they needed to use any of the programs you mentioned, there is probably nothing left year after year.

Which question?

I think there are two issues here. First, I agree with Joseph that the Kingdom is spiritual and can be experienced now. However, Ehrman is not 2nd guessing but has very carefully used his considerable knowledge of history, languages and the testaments to determine and provide 'evidence' that the historical Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who fully expected the Kingdom's establishment to be imminent (in the 1st C CE, in the lifetime of his disciples) and believed it was to be physical: God's Kingdom establish here on earth and a new everything to follow. In addition, most critical biblical scholars agree on this. Jesus was wrong on this but this is fine because he was a man - a man of God (i.e. a God-man) but he was also a man of his time who shared the Jewish worldview of his time and its expectation of the soon to be End-time. He did not know the end or what/when it would be .................but he did know the Father. The apocalyptic message and sayings of Jesus are softened, changed and eventually eliminated in the Gospels from Mark and culminating in John - since they were living in a time when it was obvious that the Kingdom had not come in the lifetime of the disciples of Jesus. They - as I think was fine and also their responsibility - began to rethink Jesus' message in light of the new reality, which was their reality. How could they have done otherwise? And I think they were right. Do any of us expect a physical Kingdom on earth or does a spiritual Kingdom, of simply the Divine, that we 'grow' into resonate much more powerfully in our 21st C experience and worldview? So both are true: Ehrman about the historical Jesus and Joseph and others on the Christ of God who was, for Christians, the epitome of humanity who lives or experiences divinity.

This is an opinion piece but based as best as possible on what happened. It is obvious from history that there was a global (Christian) mission and the question is was it in accordance with or was it a piece with or even did it grow from the mission and teachings of Jesus. I would say the answer is be Yes. Jesus' mission was to the Jews: he announced the imminent Kingdom, told the Jews to prepare and he instructed them in that preparation. Those who knew him best, his disciples (and a larger group that included women) said they experienced him alive after his death. They saw his resurrection as a sign of the coming Kingdom, lived in community and awaited the fullness of the Kingdom or simply for the Kingdom to be established. It didn't happen and, seemingly, they, after searching their scriptures, decided the delay meant they had to 'continue' Jesus' mission to all of the Jews and prepare them. This was the beginning of the 'Christian mission' to the Diaspora - to all Jews. And it was there that they encountered Gentile everywhere, including in the synagogues. Their mission, like that of Jesus, was to the Jews.......but it began to change. Seemingly they experienced pagans who heard, responded and wanted to be part of the what they were 'selling.' What I don't know is who started the gentile mission or did it just 'grow naturally' from the pagan interaction in the synagogues and then began to get a life of its own?? What seems to be the case is that - at some point - there was a decision to reach out to 'all nations' since they knew that their scriptures/the prophets said that all nations would come to worship the one true God. So even with a knowledge of the predicted violence of the end-time and destruction in Isaiah, they both announced the expected Kingdom and prepared the Gentiles/pagans for it. Seemingly, for them, this did not violate their scriptures (since they did include the Gentiles) and even Paul, an apocalyptic believer and contemporary of Jesus, did not see it as a violation of the prophets. There are scholars - I believe Erhman included - who have doubts that Paul ever lived in Jerusalem and that his activity against the Jews was in the Diaspora - that is where he encountered the Christians, where he became incensed at their preaching about the crucified Jesus as the Messiah and where he began to persecute them (still reading on this). If so that means that the continuing Jewish mission was happening with the first year or two after the resurrection experience. It seems like it could be asked if the disciples' Jewish mission was in accordance with Jesus' teachings and it is questionable if it was - for the simple reason that Jesus seemingly expected the Kingdom to dawn right away - and therefore there would be no need of a continuation of his mission. However, his disciples, given the delay of the Kingdom, obviously understood their mission to be in accordance with the mission of Jesus - the 'proof' is that they began such a mission. Were the gospel texts to preach to all nations from Jesus himself or were they, given the new reality, a later development in light of the delay? So was the gentile mission in accordance with the mission and teachings of Jesus? It seems that it was or came to be understood this way by his disciples who first encountered 'believing' pagans; they knew there was such a mission, albeit fraught with its own issues (conversion or not) which was resolved at the Council of Jerusalem. Just as the disciples and the early community saw their Jewish mission as a piece with Jesus, so too the disciples - those who knew him, 'experienced' him alive after death, in turning to their scriptures, found 'justification' for a Gentile mission. In a sense, it no longer mattered what Jesus thought (this is really opinion), he was dead and exalted in God, and his disciples were left to deal with it all - including the reality that there was no imminent Kingdom. They knew him, they experienced his continued presence, they consulted their scriptures and they made the tough decisions - and it seems they believed they were right - on both the Jewish and the Gentile mission...... they allow both to happen. I fully agree that Paul changed from the preaching of the message to the preaching of he messenger but it is also evident that he received much (the core) of his understanding from the earliest community and then .......took it from there. One wonders whether or not Christianity would have survived without Paul - if it remained a Jewish sect. We can also wonder if we would have been better if the message remained and was not overshadowed by Paul's preaching about the messenger. Perhaps and for centuries upon centuries it appears that Paul's version was it. However, we now know better and it seems that Christianity is being 're-created - in progressive and liberal circles with an eye on the message of Jesus - interpreted for 21st C people.

I quoted Ehrman who pointed to parable(s) of Jesus that spoke of the gentiles and the Kingdom - not sure off the top of my head which gospel but regardless Ehrman knows all the issue of later gospels and still pointed to these parables. You think I misread the prophets and I think you are so upset with the biblical Paul that you missed the entirety of what the prophets said (and what Jesus would have understood). That is the question: did the gentiles who flocked to the Jews for instruction do so before or after the destruction. That is the question. Two mind is a turn of phrase, the point and the question remains (immediately above). Again you offer opinions. You quoted Ehrman?

Actually, I'm not as I still have lots of questions and have made no definitive conclusion - as if that is possible.

I gave you the reference above. I don't disagree with you on 'their view' but they are also the ones relying the 'reported actions of Jesus.' However, it is Ehrman I referenced. Jesus being a Jew and a prophet must have known it was 'for all' but I recognize and have said that was not his focus. Actually the evidence from Israel and the prophets was that the Kingdom was for the Jews but would also include all who flocked to the Jews for instruction - so it was for more than the Jews it would seem. Jesus' invitation was only for the Jews and I agree God would deal with the nations. However the prophets seems to be of 2 minds (so to speak) on this: annihilation for some and seeking instruction for others. At least it certainly appears that way from the quotes from Ehrman that I presented. Good one, probably not - but a good one anyway :+}

Not ah! No I am presenting them and asking questions (speculating/ wondering) since I don't have definitive answers.

Are there any such people in the gospels? And, if there are, same question: how does anyone know if it is historical or created? All your questions are speculative and there are no answers to my knowledge.

Great question and I don't have a definitive answer. The question is always what did the writers and the audience (so to speak) believe? Who among those pagans in the synagogues would even know to raise the question? Who would actually know it went back to Jesus or not - even Mark was 40 years after the death of Jesus? Even the writers if they received information from oral or written sources, would they know? Certainly they knew if they arranged sayings or events in order to tell the story the writer intended but would even the writers question 'inherited' material?

It seems with all gospel texts it has to be determined (if possible) if they go back to the historical Jesus or are created by the writers for theological reasons.

I've seen her interviewed and heard excerpts on TV but reading about a known narcissist and sociopath, even from an expert, is not really of interest to me. Same with his ex-lawyer's book: I'll hear about it but have no interest in purchasing it as I might need to buy another biblical scholar's book to discuss with Paul.☺️

No concessions........ I do like your attitude though.

Well, although it is sometimes 'uncomfortable' it is also ok since I doubt you will concede 😋