PaulS

Just Luke & Matthew. I think the synoptics are pointing to a Jesus that was like that for the Jews, largely because his message was only for the Jews to get ready for the Kingdom. I just don't think his message was for all. I think Paul expanded that message for his own reasons, or the reasons of others that he co-opted, but I think it was different to Jesus' intention. So I mean to say that Paul was the one saying that Jesus' message (aka the good news) was for all and not just the Jews, in difference to what I think the synoptic (largely) show of Jesus' actions.

I think Isaiah was more talking about these other nations being defeated and then coming to around to Israel's God, as opposed to sharing the good news (the great commission) that God is coming and wants all gentiles and Israel to live happily ever after. My take anyway.

It's a fair point from a believer point of view, and I genuinely understand how you feel that. I'm not convinced it's what Jesus actually intended, but if it does no harm and better yet, if it is a positive influence on people, then I think great.

Thanks Pipiripi, but I have been where you are now, and I now know it is not for me. Peace and goodwill.

I forgot to address your point about the great commission. Where this is mentioned in the NT are books that have Pauline or gentile influences - Luke, Acts, John, Matthew etc were either written by Paul, his associate Luke, or others where by the time of their writing, gentiles were a solid presence in Christianity. I don't think this commission can necessarily be attributed to Jesus, in fact, I think it shouldn't be. The later addition to Mark of the great commission would seem to indicate that it was not originally from Jesus but a development after his death.

Welcome Jerry, And I look forward to your contributions to any discussion here. Unfortunately, I am nowhere near as eloquent as you - you really have a way with words I think. I look forward to reading more from you. Cheers Paul

Elen, I have no issue whatsoever with our disagreement. We agree to disagree is all. I enjoy the discussion. Cheers Paul

I haven't read much of Larry but I think he makes a couple of jumps here without evidence. Paul says he persecuted Christians, but not the specific details of why or what message in particular he persecuted them for. We can estimate that it was probably largely because these Christians were promoting Jesus as the messiah, when the bulk of Judaism (and Paul) thought that was rubbish. Paul later changed his mind and called himself a Christian, but what sort of Christian? I think we can see that Paul's beliefs about Jesus differ somewhat from the Jesus presented in the synoptics (I'm talking here about who the Kingdom was for and why) and we get no alternate point of view presented for early Christianity. I find it hard to imagine that this was the only take on Jesus that people who called themselves Christian, had. Paul himself seems to acknowledge this in Galatians when he refers to people deserting the faith and turning to a different gospel - so I expect there were other views of Jesus and his message among the earliest Christians. I think we might have a different view if some of Jesus' apostles had decided to write letters and share their views on christology post-Jesus' crucifixion. We just don't have the evidence as to what christology or devotional practices they held, so to state that Paul didn't create these, is a jump in my opinion. We can be reasonably certain that Paul deviated from Jewish Christianity in his emphasis on inclusion of the gentiles into God's New Covenant, and his rejection of circumcision as an unnecessary token of upholding the Law. So I think there are two straight up examples of christology that Paul has created himself (in that he likely created the understanding that this is what Jesus would have wanted). Bart Erhman also points out some differences in Jesus v Paul in his post 'Are Paul and Jesus on the Same Page?' dated 26 Jan 2018, if you still subscribe. He demonstrates the difference in between how Jesus says you're saved vs how Paul says one is saved. So I expect there were some different understandings of Jesus' and his message about in the early days. What Paul simply agreed to rather than created himself, can not always be demonstrated.

I don't think the centurion story was the sort of thing that Jesus could/would have done, based on the total lack of any other interaction of Jesus with a Roman (other than his arrest). It seems Paul (and his associate, Luke) is saying these things about Jesus because it fits Paul's understanding of Jesus - the Jesus who he never even met. We see clearly in the synoptic Gospels that Jesus had extremely limited interacting with non-Jews and probably zero with the Romans. The centurion story just doesn't fit the mould of the rest of Jesus' ministry so I think, on the balance of probabilities, it is likely a fictitious creation. I think it is because of the Pauline influence on early Christianity that Jesus became this all-loving, all-encompassing figure that really wanted everybody to live happily ever after in the Kingdom of God. I think this is not what is presented about Jesus in the synoptic gospels. I think his message was only focused on the Jews repenting, forgiving, loving etc. Their God was to rule the world and they had a special place in it. We might not have certainty about that, but it seems clear to me the very few stories of Jesus reaching out to non-Jews seem largely out of sync with everything else the synoptic Gospels present about Jesus and who he was trying to convince.

Jerry's post helps remind me about just letting others be. I'm not here to convince you Pipiripi and I don't have the energy to try. Enjoy your journey - I do sincerely wish you well.

I like what you said Jerry. Thanks for sharing.

I do find it astounding that so many Americans (Trump voters) are so quietly accepting Trump's version of this pandemic, particularly when he calls himself a war-time president in dealing with it. Thank God he hasn't led the US to many wars is all I can imagine. Since World War 2, about 100,000 US soldiers have lost their lives in various wars and conflicts the US have been involved in. This includes all of the US dead from the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Iraq 1, Afghanistan, Iraq 2 and Syria combined. But when 160,00 people are dead from covid and the number is still rising by over 1000 a day, and Trump's response when challenged about the enormous fatality rate includes "it is what it is", I just can't fathom how Trump supporters don't demand more from their President. It's just seems ludicrous to me. And his nonsense about the true measure being number of deaths versus number of cases identified is just pathetic. Do people really swallow this stuff from him?

Definitely not the current one with his current mindset, but I doubt even Biden will be able to convince Trump stalwarts either. They will continue to be focused on their personal rights & freedom to go where they want, how they want, and without a mask if they so choose! If Trump loses I can't imagine them having an epiphany and understanding that Trump was wrong on covid, but rather that he was always right and Biden is the devil.

I think it's fair to say, and very sad, that unfortunately the damage is done and I doubt even Trump can bring the mindset of many back to a place where the priority is stopping the spread and protecting the community, so that the community can go forward in a controlled fashion.

I don't think it is likely the centurion story came from Q, as Q is generally agreed to be a source of 'sayings of Jesus' not his doings. Most likely the story came from somewhere else. Luke is generally accepted as an associate of Paul's, so possibly the story was in circulation in Pauline Christian circles, and perhaps Matthew picked it up from there also. I don't think we can really know at this point. That both Luke and Matthew were written some 40 years after the death of Jesus adds caution for me as to accurate representation of what Jesus actually thought about the matter. Or how others later thought of the things initially attributed to Jesus, aka Chinese Whispers. I agree with Allison's approach. Making inferences is one things - saying that it is likely Jesus did or said this or not, or that it was probably something he did, are all just degrees of probability on the scale of speculation, and depending on one's personal view, the degree of accuracy varies greatly. How much it matters to anybody is also in the eye of the beholder I think. For me, it sounds more like a Pauline take on Jesus that has developed rather than actual Jesus, mainly on the basis that we simply do not see anywhere else Jesus having a kind word for the Romans let alone any involvement with them. 4 x gospels and very, very little mention of Jesus interacting with non-Jews during his 3-years or so ministry. I think there might be more to it than accurately representing that Jesus was embracing all. But if you mean to a degree that it was part of the story that later Christians began to tell, accurately or not, I would agree.

Brilliant!

I understand your disagreement. I don't think that's where the scholarship takes us on the matter, but I understand that is how many interpret the Jesus story. And hey, I don't see anything harmful about that and perhaps that view has even contributed positively too many lives. Maybe it's an even better message than the one Jesus set out with! For me personally, I find the scholarship of the likes of Erhman to be compelling evidence that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, who understood the 'end of the world' to mean the end of the world as it was currently understood - run by man (i.e. the Romans and other non-Israeli-God governments). People who worshiped the God of Israel, including those raised from the dead, would live in a new, physical world on earth, ruled by God. Those that didn't submit to that God's rule would be annihilated. If you are interested, have a read of Erhman's "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium".

Known/remembered, or made up about Jesus based on storytelling as well. I wouldn't rule out that it is an incorrect understanding of Jesus even if it is innocently made by the writer at the time. Both Mathew and Luke are considered to have used elements of their own community in their writings, in addition to the sources of Mark & Q. That Mathew was written some 40-80 years after Jesus, and that there is no Roman centurion story in Mark (or even any glimpse of Roman/Jesus interaction outside of this story (even as repeated in Luke, most likely), suggests to me that it is a later story added for whatever purpose, but most likely not an accurate representation of a Jesus event. Luke in general is considered to have used Mark, Q and L-source, but I think this is where your point about the understandings of Jesus to the community at the time start to creep in. I think it is more likely that the Lukan & Matthean understanding was beginning to transform the message of the Kingdom being an imminent event, to a different understanding (because we're some 40 years of from Jesus' death and the Kingdom hasn't yet arrived).

No, I don't believe it is. I think it is a distortion or a harmonization of the teachings of Jesus which produce a different message than the one he was preaching. He was an apocalyptic prophet - he was thinking the Kingdom was about to come any day now. He wasn't thinking long term.

I tend to use the NRSV and that version doesn't describe the Centurion's words as 'the' Son of God, but rather that he said that Jesus was God's Son or as the footnote explains, 'a' son of God. So I think the story is saying the centurion thought Jesus was something special in his relationship to God. Jesus didn't need to overthrow the Roman government because in his mind, God was going to do that Himself, and very soon. I don't think he particularly cared for the Romans, but he didn't go out of his way to hate them either. God was going to take care of the Romans - worrying about them wasn't Jesus' mission in my opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree that Jesus 'came' to free all people. I think Jesus was a human just like you and I, who grew up in a certain environment and for various reasons believed what he believed and later became an apocalyptic preacher who was certain the world as he knew it was about to end, and that via the Son of Man, God was going to overthrow the enemies of Israel and restore his Kingdom on earth. Romans could be a part of it if they capitulated their power and submitted to the God of Israel. The fact that the 'message' of Jesus became about the Kingdom of Heaven being for everyone and all people, is more a Pauline development than a Jesus one, I believe.

Well, I was only joking, but in my view he is neither a Nazi or a demon. Just a rich bloke with his views and probably thought of by some to be part of a greater conspiracy against mankind. Each to their own.

Maybe, but I would argue there are few grounds to argue for the Roman story as a 'probable' experience of Jesus. There seems to be more against Jesus healing a Roman than for it. There is no other mention of Jesus anywhere in the Gospels of saying or doing a single kind thing for a Roman other than this one story in Matthew, repeated in Luke. It's not in Mark or John. Maybe Mathew got if from Q, but Q is typically understood as sayings of Jesus, not antidotes. I think maybe we read into it what we want, but I don't think we can say that it is probably known/remembered. The evidence just isn't there. It's at best 50/50 to me.

No I don't see. We all use our thinking - you think you understand the bible a certain way. That is your thinking. What you have not thought through in my opinion is that much of the bible is myth and storytelling, such as the stories of creation, made by people who had no idea of the universe and its unfolding. Science can now fill in that picture and it seems to me, only Christians who feel threatened by the science of our existence tend to deny it and grab hold of that literal bible even harder. I would encourage you to release your grip a little and try to be open-minded about evolution. That might help you see.

None of these are examples though of Jesus interacting with Romans, or what he had to say to them. Well may have some Romans thought favorably of Jesus (or what was later said about him). That doesn't demonstrate that Jesus thought his message of the coming Kingdom included them. To the contrary, he clearly thinks that the 'forces' against the Jews will be overthrown - aka the Romans. I think this is a kind of harmonization of the stories of Jesus rather than a critical analysis of what we think he did and said. From what I have read, I'm pretty certain he believed in a very imminent coming of the Kingdom of God, for the Jews, to overthrow those that oppressed them. Jesus lived in very apocalyptic times and he wasn't the only prophet to be pushing this message. He does talk about the Kingdom of God being within, but I think that is in the context of the personal relationship a Jew could have with their God, as was soon going to be the case when God's kingdom actually arrived. I'm not sure that was ever Jesus' message or actually was happening during his time. Really the first we hear about that sort of approach was after Jesus' died and Paul rose to prominence. I think Paul broadened the Jesus message to include all - I don't think that was Jesus' intention. Paul too thought the kingdom was imminent, but he was pushing the 'all persons' barrow which is where I think we get that from. When Jesus didn't return in Paul's lifetime later Christians started saying Jesus will come later, then later, then later. Christians have generally been waiting about 2000 years for the Kingdom of God that Jesus thought was imminent for the Jews, there and then in his lifetime.

There are many Christians who understand the science of evolution, but I think I understand why you can't at present.