PaulS

My point is that herd immunity doesn't exist - that's the science, not my opinion. Waiting for a vaccine is a fool's approach - who knows when it will arrive. Maybe one will, maybe one won't. The sensible hygiene practices are what sees the spread hindered and deaths reduced - particularly social distancing and not attending group events (Trump rallies, football games, etc. Crowds are bad when there is a deadly spreadable virus). See my previous comment regarding your concern for personal values.

Really, you never think it is appropriate to ask others to comply with certain requirements for the community's benefit? Do you think we should allow parents to smoke in enclosed vehicles with their children, if they so choose (ignoring what the kids want of course)? Do you think that anybody should be allowed to drive their car as fast as they personally desire wherever they want, irrespective of the risks of safety to them and all the other innocents on the road? My point is, we as a community manage personal rights all the time. We certainly don't mind holding those to account in the examples above. Why is telling people to practice or enforcing sensible distancing and other hygiene practices all of a sudden a human rights issue? Moves such as these, which are for the overall safety of the community, are just logical moves that any community makes all the time.

Years ago, I couldn't even entertain somebody behaving and saying so many stupid things like this, much less the President of the United States. I have to say, as an outsider I am flabbergasted so many Americans accept it and worse, defend it. I am genuinely curious to see how the US will vote in November.

You don't think asking 'a' rabbi might be like asking 'a' Christian what God thinks of homosexuality? I'm comfortable with my conclusions so I don't feel the need myself (of chasing down further relevant literary sources on the Jewish understanding of who/what the messiah would usher in) nor do I have the time or energy. But if anybody else wants to pursue it, I'd be all ears. That said, I might see if I can get an email response from a Hebrew congregation in Perth.

I know, but I just discussing this with you, not writing a paper for university. I don't have time to trawl back through dozens of books and blog posts to quote for you. I have made some quotes, as have you - I have made some opinion statements and outlined my reasoning. There isn't a scholar to accurately quote for every thought on these matters. Again, any outreach of Jesus to the gentiles is omitted from the NT, as is any opinion of James and Peter, or the Council. That seems a little more than convenient for Paul's writings which make up the bulk of the early Christian bible. But that doesn't seem to hinder you from believing they all fall into line with Paul. For me, the balance of probability lies with the evidence that is provided, not speculation of what is not. Jesus never invited gentiles to the kingdom - that should be telling enough. But on top of that we see that Judaism (prior to and up to Jesus' existence) never invited gentiles into the coming Kingdom but expected them to be coerced into the kingdom by their all-conquering God. We see nothing of James, the head of the Jerusalem church encouraging broadening the message to the gentiles (other than Paul's account of winning an argument about Jewish law - which is a bit suss if you read Erhman - Erhman thinks he lost the argument) and no examples of James' doing so. And we have just some noted groups such as the Ebionites who thought Paul was a false prophet - not that he had an element of the message wrong (whether to follow Jewish law or not) but complete disregard for him as a false prophet. The weight of evidence is simply against Paul and Jesus agreeing that Jesus' message should also be extended to gentiles. It is a Pauline development (probably helped with earlier developments by somebody). As I've mentioned earlier, the entire book of Isaiah is directed at Israel, other than possibly the couple of verses that might be interpreted to mean that everybody will share equally in the Kingdom (after it has come and the powers that be have been overthrown). It just doesn't marry up with the rest of Isaiah or Jewish expectations of a military messiah coming to defeat the gentiles and restore Israel to the seat of power. I say the Disciples stayed true to Jesus by continuing to preach to the Jews because that's indeed who Jesus' message was for - it's just that Paul went a different direction to them (and Jesus) and created his own understanding of who Jesus' teachings were for (not necessarily original to Paul in its entirety, but not of Jesus nonetheless). Consider Isaiah 60 - foreigners will build up your (Israel's) walls, their kings shall minister to them (i.e. subservience), nations shall bring you their wealth, with their kings led in procession, for the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish. Doesn't sound like a one-size-fits-all kingdom to me. Israel will be the boss and those gentiles that submit will survive in the kingdom. Isaiah is replete with the message of subordination of foreigners. They weren't being invited into the Kingdom - it was going to happen, irrespective. That was his focus because the promise was ONLY ever made to the 'people of God'. It was never a promise or an invitation to the gentiles. That is clear in the scriptures, old and new. Peter possibly did make it to Rome but it is likely he wasn't there until some 20-30 years after Jesus died. I can entertain that his beliefs had modified since immediately following Jesus' death. Perhaps the success of Paul, following their disputes in Jerusalem, caused him to rethink his views. Who knows. We may never know, because currently there is nothing to corroborate Paul's version. As a slight aside - how do you interpret Matthew 10:5-6 where Jesus says to his disciples "“Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel". If Jesus thought his message was for all, why not simply say that and encourage his disciples to share it amongst all? Following the principle of occam's razor, that would seem a pretty logical conclusion if indeed Jesus did think his message was actually for everybody. Why the dodge?

What I mean is are you talking about ancient peoples or are you talking about the modern religious movement of Messianic Judaism?

No, that is no the only difference at all. Jesus promoted a Jewish elite ruling the Kingdom - the Jewish God would rule and Jesus' disciples would be on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. They don't need to judge the Gentiles because the God of Israel will have sorted them out when he has defeated them. All of the language (and the Jewish expectation of a military messiah) points to a different approach to the gentiles and their power base versus Jews that weren't being faithful to their God. It was those Jews that Jesus was calling. Paul broadened the message to the Gentiles which clearly in the NT was never Jesus' method of operation. Because we wasn't interested in the Gentiles - they weren't Jews and he didn't particular care for them primarily because his mission was to get them on-board with the kingdom, not the gentiles. Not 'first', because the fulfillment of the promise was only for them. No promise was ever made to the gentiles. It has always been Jewish scriptures making promises to the Jews, only. Isaiah, Daniel and the Jewish expectation that a military messiah would come and defeat the gentiles and restore Israel to be the power on earth, led by the God of Israel, is a good start to understanding why Jesus thought like he did about the impending Kingdom. As for explicitly ruling out inviting gentiles into the kingdom - Jesus is captured anywhere as ruling it out, but nor does he say anything about supporting homosexuality, slavery, or republican politics. His actions such as a lack of invitation to the gentiles, adherence to Judaism and their belief in a military messiah, and language about 'Rome' being overthrown, all demonstrate who he thought the invitation to join the kingdom was for. Yet he isn't read as extending this invitation to any non-Jews, ever. I don't think that's an editing mistake. Surely if you were a betting man, you can plainly see what the odds are in favor of. They would be offended by the message of Jesus and his understanding of who the kingdom was for, if that message had been portrayed as Jesus had intended. Instead, the Christians that thought it was okay to invite gentiles into the kingdom adjusted the message. That was the turning point for Christianity. That Jesus' invitation to prepare for the kingdom extended to the gentiles. It didn't. Everything in Isaiah is focused on Israel - direct references to Israel, God's chosen people, the princes and rulers of his chosen people etc etc. There are only the three verses you mention above which I cannot extrapolate against the rest of Isaiah and Daniel and Jewish expectations of a military messiah, to mean God is equally inviting all to be part of his kingdom. The only thing that makes sense, against the evidence of everything else preached about the kingdom by prophets or Jesus, is that after the kingdom has been implemented and God's power restored, that then there will be peace across the land. This is entirely different to inviting non-Jews to participate in or prepare for, the Kingdom. It is demonstrated by Jesus - that is beyond dispute. Jesus never demonstrated extended the invitation to prepare for God's kingdom to non-Jews. For you to read more into it is a personal opinion, not based on what we read about Jesus. Inviting non-Jews to join the Kingdom was NOT the teaching of the prophets. Jesus most likely did understand his own scriptures - that's why he wasn't inviting the non-Jews into the Kingdom.

The Jerusalem Council? Please explain where you can demonstrate this other than in Paul's writings. And we've probably done to death the discussion about the prophets - you keep insisting Paul was aligned to their Kingdom expectations - I disagree. I think the argument is weighted in my favour - you don't. We've both said our reasons. Capitulation or annihilation AFTER the kingdom has come. There is no invitation to get right with the God of Israel before the Kingdom. Jews yes, not gentiles. Gentiles would get their just deserts and be overcome. If they submit when the kingdom comes they will stay, if not they will be annihilated. Either way, the Kingdom will be ruled by Jews and gentiles will not have an equal part in ruling the kingdom. There is no invitation for gentiles to repent prior to the Kingdom, according to Jewish expectations. I am reading all of this in Isaiah, Daniel, the NT and various scholars. Let's do it the other way - you show me where you can find Jewish expectations (pre-Jesus) included an invitation for gentiles to join the kingdom alongside the Jews. Can you cite any scholar rather than your own opinion? Again, so says PAUL - only. Where can you substantiate that the Council held whatever view you say it does, outside of Paul? And it doesn't gel with the Ebionites, as just one alternate opinion. It also, by Paul's own admission, doesn't reflect what James and Peter were doing, as far as anybody can tell. That there was a disagreement makes it clear they weren't on the same page, at the very least when the disagreement arose, otherwise there'd be no disagreement. Erhman believes Paul lost the disagreement but tries to save face in Galatians. Yes, I'm not saying Paul necessarily had an original thought on this matter. That doesn't mean it was aligned with Jewish expectations though. That's odd, because the scholars I'm reading saying we can know very little about the Ebionites and what we can say about them really is only speculation. So I'm not sure which scholars you are reading that are so certain about them. You have presented no findings from biblical experts to substantiate that Paul was aligned with Jewish expectations for the Kingdom, that's just plain bias. Show me somewhere clear cut where just one of these scholars states clearly that Paul was aligned with Jewish expectations of the kingdom. It shouldn't be hard.

Which ones?

This is the most succinct summary I have read of Trump's leadership during this pandemic. Yes, it comes from a CNN reporter, but that doesn't take away from its accuracy: First Trump said the pandemic would not take hold of the United States, but it did. Then he said it would simply disappear and it didn't. Then the President said it was safe to open state economies before the pathogen was fully under control -- steps which helped cause a viral eruption across southern and western states. He's argued against all the principles of epidemiology that testing doesn't matter -- even though nations that have done better than the US have used that route to get the virus under control. Last week, Trump said that there might be a vaccine before Election Day in another self-serving political comment. Now firms developing the inoculation and experts say that's likely impossible. Instead of taking the worst public health crisis in 100 years seriously and working with fact-based and scientific approaches, Trump has devoted his energy and that of the White House to arguing that a response that is clearly disastrous is a glowing success. He's spent weeks peddling non-cures and portraying the economy in the midst of a "boom" -- even though millions of Americans remain unemployed. But nearly six months into America's battle with the pandemic, the country has a staggering one-quarter of all the world's 20 million coronavirus cases. Thousands of Americans are dying every week and there are alarming new signs of further spread of the disease in the Midwest, California, Texas and some northeastern cities, even as there are some limited signs of encouragement, in lower infections in Florida for instance.

Yes, they were Jews who believed Jesus' message was for Jews, not gentiles. No, the Jews only believed all nations would be included in the context that entering the kingdom wasn't something gentiles would need to be prepared for - they would either capitulate and join the new kingdom or they would be annihilated. There was no invitation being extended to them either according to Jewish expectations or Jesus. Paul changed this picture. I'm pointing to things like the disagreement and fallout with James, the lack of any other side of the story in the NT (which by the time it was being written had a large gentile influence) and early Christian groups like the Ebionites that were anti-Paul. I don't think they were anti-Paul just because he said gentiles didn't need to follow Jewish law, but rather it was because he was working with gentiles and inviting them into the Jewish kingdom. It is not evident at all that the Ebionites were at odds with their own scriptures, but it is clear that you think they are. I think you misinterpret and misunderstand Jewish expectations of the kingdom. I think Jesus is more aligned to those, but Paul much less so.

You are missing my point. It is not that Jesus didn't think gentiles would eventually be in the coming Kingdom, but HOW that looked to Jesus was different to Paul. Jesus expected gentiles to be dominated by God at world's end and to THEN join the kingdom, but in no way equal to God's chosen people who would be the rulers. Jesus wasn't interested in telling the 'good news' of the Kingdom to the Gentiles because they were not Jews, God would sort them out, and then those that capitulated would live under the God of Israel's rule. It is a completely different understanding than that of Paul's. It's what you are reading into the prophecies that I say are missing Jesus' point. He wasn't interested in the Gentiles because he wasn't inviting them to prepare. They would be dealt with by God when God overthrew their evil - they would either be annihilated or they would capitulate and join the Kingdom under the God of Israel's rule. Because the message of Jesus wasn't for them - that's why it was a surprise that they took to it! Rather than being offended that Jesus didn't care that they were to be overthrown by the God of Israel, the Gentiles accepted the modified message and ran with it. I haven't read Fredriksen's book (have you?) but it seems clear to me when Lester in her review of Fredriksen's book (as quoted above) says "The book argues that the apocalyptic message of the historical Jesus did not include gentiles" she isn't saying who he delivered it to didn't include gentles, but rather 'the message' didn't include gentiles. Absolutely - outside of the teachings and intentions of Jesus. Depends which Jew you ask I guess. The largest Jewish opinion was that even if one converted to Judaism, they weren't a true Jew, a true member of the chosen people of the God of Israel. But they were accepted to a lesser degree. This later became irrelevant as Jewish Christianity took hold.

And this from a Google search of 'her' (Paula's) book "Paul, The Pagan's Apostle" (she wasn't saying Paul was a pagan): One of Fredriksen’s innovations in this book is her historical reconstruction of the early Jesus movement. The book argues that the apocalyptic message of the historical Jesus did not include gentiles, and thus early followers of Jesus were initially surprised at gentiles’ acceptance of their message. The gentiles who heard the message hospitably in Fredriksen’s reconstruction were participants in diaspora Jewish synagogues who worshipped God but also continued to worship other gods; in other words, “god-fearers” rather than proselytes. Fredriksen asserts that apostles had to develop policies for gentile inclusion in the early Jesus movement, and Paul’s writings to gentiles (“ex-pagan pagans”) in his communities participate in these larger efforts of gentile inclusion, entering into a conversation that pre-dated him. So again, we see evidence that Jesus' message was not for Gentiles, but that it became part of a later drive post-Jesus and his preaching.

Precisely Burl, The early Christian Ebionites revered James the Just, brother of Jesus; and rejected Paul as a false apostle. Interestingly, Wikipedia (I know how you love that source ) says that "while the Church Fathers consider the Ebionites identical with other Jewish Christian sects, such as the Nazarenes; some modern scholars argue that not only were the Ebionites a distinct sect, but they have may been the most faithful inheritors of the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus. So for me, not unusual that they reject Paul who was preaching to the Gentiles. It wasn't true to Jesus' teaching.

I don't have a specific resource to quote, but I know what I read and have read and some is my opinion. You are reading too much into Erhman I think. "for Paul the conversion of the Gentiles was the final major event in the history of the world before the end came." For Paul! I don't think anybody else saw it that way - Jesus and James included. "Paul took seriously the words of the prophets that at the end of time God's salvation would extend not only to his people, Israel, but to all the nations of the earth.................the word of salvation, therefore, was not only for the people of Israel, but for all people.". At the end of time, not before it. And at the end, they will be saved if they capitulated to the God of Israel. They were not being 'invited' into the Kingdom. The prophets (Isaiah) were prophesying the end results after God had intervened. There was no talk in Isaiah or other Jewish expectations about gentiles 'preparing' for the end times. I think you misread 'Jewish expectations' in this regard. There's a reason Jesus didn't preach to the gentiles, didn't go on a mission to gentile nations during his 3 years, and reasons James as the head of the christian church wasn't pro-preaching to the Gentiles. Paul was the creator of this new view. No, it wasn't in line with Jewish expectations. Just show me one instance of where Jewish expectations included Gentiles preparing for God's kingdom? New testament. I'm really not as interested to have to trawl through so much info to find what you might find suitable, but it goes without saying, feel free yourself. And I don't mean that rudely, I just don't have the time or inclination. Agreed.

It's a little more than a simple 'suggestion' based on the scientific evidence of the longest running study on the matter in the world: Antibody (Ab) responses to SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in most infected individuals 10-15 days following the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. However, due to the recent emergence of this virus in the human population it is not yet known how long these Ab responses will be maintained or whether they will provide protection from re-infection. Using sequential serum samples collected up to 94 days post onset of symptoms (POS) from 65 RT-qPCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals, we show seroconversion in >95% of cases and neutralizing antibody (nAb) responses when sampled beyond 8 days POS. We demonstrate that the magnitude of the nAb response is dependent upon the disease severity, but this does not affect the kinetics of the nAb response. Declining nAb titres were observed during the follow up period. Whilst some individuals with high peak ID50 (>10,000) maintained titres >1,000 at >60 days POS, some with lower peak ID50 had titres approaching baseline within the follow up period. A similar decline in nAb titres was also observed in a cohort of seropositive healthcare workers from Guy′s and St Thomas′ Hospitals. We suggest that this transient nAb response is a feature shared by both a SARS-CoV-2 infection that causes low disease severity and the circulating seasonal coronaviruses that are associated with common colds. This study has important implications when considering widespread serological testing, Ab protection against re-infection with SARS-CoV-2 and the durability of vaccine protection. I do wonder how many more will die until we finally find out for sure that herd immunity is just not happening? Fingers crossed. In the meantime - wear a mask when in groups, practice excellent hygiene and utilise social distancing. Just practice the proven measures that slow the spread is a good start - I think Trump is finally coming around to that after seeing the disastrous results of pushing states to reopen prematurely. Well, waiting might be okay if you didn't have a President who has played this disease down from day one, who pushed for reopening prematurely, and who refused for so long to set a good example and promote the use of masks in group situations. It was politics against good sense and now the US is paying the price for his obstinance.

I hesitate to be so precise about what Paul & James argued about as we have no independent account apart from Paul's opinion, but my interpretation would be that the debate was more about whether Gentiles should be included or not. I suspect James who was more true to Jesus as his brother, was saying no, as was in line with Jewish expectations. Paul has tried (successfully?) to convince him otherwise. Irrespective of any result, Paul proceeded his way. I don't think this demonstrates that it was already understood & acknowledged that gentiles should be included. Paul points out in Galatians 2 that he regards himself entrusted with the Gospel for the uncircumcised whilst Peter is entrusted with the Gospel for the circumcised. I think this may be Paul's way of dancing around the fact that he, James & Peter disagree on who the Gospel is for, otherwise one doesn't need to say there are two different gospels. I think he is playing down the disagreement and portraying it as though the only disagreement between he and they was the need to be circumcised or follow Jewish law, when in fact it was a deeper rift and they didn't want him to preach a gospel at all to the gentiles, hence why they weren't doing it themselves, as closer contacts to Jesus than Paul. Unfortunately, we never hear the argument from James or Peter themselves. Yes, but this conversion put them at odds with much of Judaism. These groups were largely kicked out of Judaism for their lack of alignment with Jewish beliefs. Maybe it is, but I think what is getting conflated here is what Christianity turned into (i.e. a lot of gentiles joined the party without becoming Jews), but that was not what Jesus intended.

I disagree. I think Jesus' expectation was more in line with Jewish expectations - a dominance by the God of Israel that would submit their enemies when the Kingdom of God arrived, whereas Paul was changing it to an invitation to Gentiles (not in line with Jewish expectations) and further that the way to enter the Kingdom was to believe in Jesus and his Resurrection (again, definitely not Jewish expectations). No 'belief' in a Messiah was required for entry into the Kingdom in Jewish expectations. Jesus believed you entered the Kingdom by being a good Jew and following Jewish law (as Jesus interpreted such law and not the pedantic practices it had become). Following Jewish law was not something gentiles were expected to do, unless it was via submission and dominance by Israel. I think you misunderstand Jewish expectations through your interpretation of Isaiah. Later Christian communities did indeed begin to include gentiles, but I don't think this was Jesus' intention. He didn't care about them. I don't think the synoptics were written for gentiles or for Jews specifically. By that stage gentiles were a part of the story, but I think their involvement still needed legitimizing to the Jewish part of the audience, hence the few drops added to the Jesus story. The Matthean community is understood to have evolved within Judaism so has strong Jewish roots. E.g. "Saldarini (1994:21) has remarked: 'The author of Matthew … is most probably a Jew who, though expelled from the assembly in his city, still identifies himself as a member of the Jewish community'. So whilst Matthew's message is softened to include gentiles but it is primarily written with Jews in mind. Luke less so - again, still strong connection to Judaism but he lives in southrn greece and has a more gentile audience than Matthew. I think he changed Jesus' message to include gentiles. I don;'t think that was ever Jesus' intention, as previously mentioned.

If we are reading the same study where you get the 17% from (King's College London study?), the study is actually saying that only 17% of the control group retained the same antibody potency some 3-months later. That is to say that within 3 months of infection, about 83% of the group lost antibody effectiveness - hence no herd immunity.

Sounds just as reasonable and feasible as other takes on God if you ask me, Alec.

What we have 18 and 50 years after Jesus, is exactly that - 18 & 50 years AFTER Jesus. Even Paul in the Galatians acknowledges that some of that church had abandoned those beliefs for others. That's just one example of there being 'other' beliefs about Jesus. We know that various other beliefs developed in early Christianity with their being several different 'groups' among the meager number of Christians in the earliest of days. That Paul's beliefs are the dominant ones laid out in the NT just means that they are the dominant views that won the day. So for Hurtado or any other scholar to be certain, or even reasonably certain, that these views accurately capture those of Jesus, is simply something they cannot demonstrate. I think Erhman has the integrity (or non-bias) and understanding to say that, I don't know enough about Hurtado.

I think the difference between Jesus & Jewish expectations versus Paul's 'good news' for the gentiles, is that the former expected God to come in his glory to overthrow the powerbase - these people weren't being 'invited' so to speak. Sure they may end up in the Kingdom once defeated & they've capitulated, but I don't think it was an invitation to them as Paul made the message to be. So I see it more as a post-Jesus development rather than in sync with Jesus, as demonstrated by Jesus' actions, or lack of, when it came to ministering to gentiles. I didn't say the synoptics were written for the Jews, or that there message is only for Jews (I actually think they have gentile influences), but rather they largely represent a Jesus was focused on a message for the Jews and was not anywhere near as inclusionary as Paul. They can't do otherwise because that's who Jesus was and what he did. They added a few little bits to soften it for the non-Jews in their audience and probably because that was the direction Christianity was taking thanks largely to Paul. I just don't think it was what Jesus had in mind, as seems to be demonstrated in the synoptics, if you ask me.

That logic is yet to be scientifically verified and as I previously mentioned, the contrary actually seems to be what's getting verified - i.e. that antibodies developed to fight off covid deteriorate within 3 months thus leaving the individual susceptible again. The data just shows less the 2nd time around and I think it is much more reasonable to understand that there are less cases because people are practicing better hygiene protocols and social distancing now that they are starting to understand that herd immunity doesn't work. Sure the numbers don't lie, but the interpretation of what they mean can be erroneous.

I suspect it has a lot more to do with what measures have been taken by people (social distancing, focused hygiene, staying home etc) that is seeing the rates lower rather than herd immunity. Herd immunity has not been scientifically verified as yet and in fact, the latest studies suggest any antibodies infected people develop seem to deteriorate within 3-months, thus leaving the individual susceptible again. Disagree. It's not herd immunity, it's better anti-covid practices that are doing the heavy lifting. Stopping the spread by implementing better anti-covid practices is why different governors have handled it better.

I think we've been down this path before in another thread. It doesn't seem so solid to me, but each to their own. I just don't think there is enough evidence available to anybody to determine what the state of early Christianity was (in say the first 50 years after Jesus). We can speculate by all means, but I don't find much of what people say we 'know' as compelling. To me, anyway. You say expansion, I say difference. The 'expansion' wasn't part of the original, so I see it as a 'difference' to the original. I don't synthesize Paul's understanding with that of the Jewish understanding necessarily. Jesus was inviting Jews to prepare for the Kingdom before God (or the son of man) came and defeated the Romans and others. Paul was selling a different product - everybody can live in the kingdom if they just believe in Jesus. Jesus wasn't reaching out to those nations because I think he thought they were going to get their comeuppance. The problem for me is that we only have the victor's account of Christianity. We simply do not have accurate understandings of what all early Christians did or didn't think about Jesus. We know there were different understandings (what they all were is not clear but even Paul mentions these exist). We've been down this path before though - I just don't think there is enough for anybody, scholar or not, to say we know what the earliest Christian communities believed in as though they were all aligned with all beliefs about Jesus and his message.