Elen1107

24 minutes ago, PaulS said:

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.

 

I disagree with you. I really do think that Jesus wanted everybody to be living happily ever after in the Kingdom of Heaven. He wanted everyone to get on the same bandwagon and have a great old spiritual time. He came first to the Jews, yeah, because maybe they were more ready for him, but to my understanding he communicated to a good number of non-Jews also. When he gave out the great commission he said "go out to all the world", not just go out to any Jews that I might have missed.

Hey, we've always been good about disagreeing - hope we still are 🙂 

4 hours ago, thormas said:

The question is were there and how many - there seems to be no definitive answer. Whereas with Paul and other missionaries, the flood gates opened for the Gentiles.

 

I'd have to go over the gospels to figure out how many are mentioned. In Luke's version of the Sermon on the Mount there seems to be quite a good many. Everyone that the 'woman at the well' talked to and who Jesus stayed with and preached to for two days, became believers, How many they were, again the bible doesn't say.

I know that Paul opened more doors for the Gentiles. From my perspective however the door was already opened in the Gospels, and by Jesus himself.

4 hours ago, thormas said:

I take this as a later (circa 100 CE) development from the writer/community of John. The earliest understanding of Jesus was that he was a human being 'exalted' by God to be Lord and Son. If Jesus was not merely from the beginning but was the means by which creation came to be, how could the historical man be 'like us?' 

I know that John 1 is a latter development, but I still believe it. I also believe he was a person and a human being like all of us too. Exactly how this all happened and comes together, I don't know. I sometimes wonder if in some way we were all conceived of and created before physical creation began, though of course Jesus was first and the one who brings us into our true selves. 

I can't say I know how both conceptions of Jesus can be true, but I think that they both are true. Maybe it's something like God conceived of Jesus before the beginning of the universe and then wanted everything to be manifested through physical creation so E created the more physical universe and designated a time when Jesus would come into it also. A time perhaps when we people were more ready to see and experience who he was and who we are supposed to be and what direction we are supposed to be going in.

4 hours ago, thormas said:

PC is rather fluid (and perhaps beyond a final definition) but my statement was about PCs defining science as the study of God - I just don't think that is done. I get though that Spong speaks of evolving into Christ. I also get your further explanation of science - Creation - God, however, as you know, a non-believer could look at science and creation and never see God or the reflection of God in creation.

 

I used to be one of those non-believers, at least I thought I was, and speaking for myself, the world looked dead to me. Now that I see God reflected in creation, things look vastly more wonderful, beautiful and amazing.

4 hours ago, thormas said:

I don't think God is involved in natural processes, on this I am a  bit of a 'deist' or a true panentheist: God is the source and sustainer of all, all is of/in God, but it appears that natural laws and principles are evident in creation and creation carries on governed by those laws - like gravity. If God was involved in natural processes it seems logical that he would then be involved in the natural processes of hurricanes, earthquakes, cancers, etc..............and then one could blame God for human suffering and death. Having said all that, I do believe that God is 'present and active' in the ordinary, everyday moments of human life (not sure about the rest of creation given the natural laws). 

 

I know people who think things like; the dinosaurs were so awful and creating so much negativity that it caused a meteorite to smash into the earth. Or that it's human's negative energy that causes things like tornados and floods and earthquakes and hurricanes and tidal waves. Perhaps human negative energy can cause things like cancer too. Myself, I don't know about all this stuff, but I certainly don't believe that God causes any of it. Like I say I don't know, but it certainly is better than blaming God for these types of things.

I found a video where Spong talks about evolution, for anyone who is interested in it. I don't agree with every last point that he makes, but still I think he says a lot that is meaningful and important 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGriJgAAWvw

2 hours ago, Jerry said:

PaulS, I have read through a few of the posts on this thread and feel I get the gist of where this is going.  I generally support your explanations on this topic.  I have come from a prior fundamentalist view of the Bible and can be sympathetic with the positioning of others on this thread, however, I have discovered that spiritual freedom, for me, demands that I enter into an honest discussion with reality.  For me, God no longer has to conform to dogma, even that which men have derived from a self-designated "Holy Book", and the Divine has been set free from the constricting box of dogmatic theological beliefs. 

As a result, acknowledging our dearth of understanding of the vastness and complexity of the universe, I am set free to walk beyond the confining restrictions of ancient explanations and actually experience the magnitude of a God who may have been the initiator of this awe inspiring creation.  I find myself thus standing in a far greater awe of the marvels of creation.  An awe that could never have been inspired by a book that is frozen in time regarding the scientific wonders that are continually being revealed. I prefer the scientific methodology that observes the evidence to see where it leads than a dogmatic one that determines the end goal and then finds support for its already existing questionable conclusion.

The fundamentalist argument against evolution is tired and worn.  My formal theological studies were completed in 1976 and the library of fundamentalist oriented "science" books supporting creation that I had at that time are echoed in the same basic arguments today.  It has been my personal experience through studying this topic that the field of genetics is too often overlooked in defining the scientific basis for an evolutionary history.  Missing links, speciation, etc. all fail to take seriously the overwhelming documentation and evidence available in our individual library of ancestry found within each cell of our bodies in the form of DNA.  

I have grown too old to enter into pointless arguments about what constitutes truth, particularly with those who tenaciously believe they already have it and are closed to new ideas that do not conform with their particular bias.  This is not a judgment or a challenge that would thwart a friendship, but merely a decision on my part to conserve energy on things that matter to me spiritually.  The transformative nature of genuine spiritual connection with the "Divine", however one may perceive that to be, is a main theme of my life so that I might more reflect, in my life's impact on others, the effect of illuminating what the "Kingdom of God on earth" might truly be like.  I'm clearly not the best example, but that is my ultimate energy consumer.  Thankful that this site offers the opportunity for such open discussion and a change to challenge one's faith.

Thanks Jerry, like Paul, I really like what you've said.

Welcome again to this forum.

Edit> I like what you've said so much, that I've gone and read it twice. Thanks for taking the time to write it all out and post it. 

8 hours ago, thormas said:

Even with the verses you quoted above, Jesus had limited interaction with non-Jews. They were simply not the focus of Jesus' mission: the Jews were the people of God, God was fulfilling his promise of the Kingdom, Jesus the Prophet (the Messiah) was announcing that Kingdom to them.........and then all nations (Gentiles) would worship him.

 

I'm wondering if Jesus came first to the Jews because for many of them, their understanding was ripe and ready, as in "ripe for the harvest". The had the understanding of One God. They had the Messianic tradition. They had an understanding of the Law that Jesus enhanced and built on.

But there were other people too, who were not Jewish, who were open to and received Jesus's words and had faith in him. How and why they were ready for this and open to it, is another question.

7 hours ago, thormas said:

I prefer to say that Jesus 'grew' out of his people as we all do. I'm not sure what you mean by God 'creating and conceiving' Jesus from the beginning.

God creating and conceiving Jesus from the beginning as it is stated in John 1. In the beginning there was the Word/Logos,... etc.

9 hours ago, PaulS said:

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?

It's ludicrous to me too. I still can't figure out how he ever got elected. I've never been so ashamed and embarrassed by my country. Everything you are saying is true, it's just horrible.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

You lost me: is God an object or thing that can be studied as the objects of science are?

Evolution is a natural process, meaning that the 'supernatural, i.e. God is not involved in a natural process (unless one is working from a theistic take on God). Is the evolution of man and woman into eternity also a natural process that does not need God?

I'm not trying to be difficult but I think words matter and I don't know any Progressive or Liberal Christians who would define science as the study of God. And I think most people in the 21st C define evolution as a natural process so how does one evolve into eternity (which by definition is supernatural)?

 

It could be said that Jesus was 'in God' in this way yet the negative did not fall away, he was crucified. Furthermore, his followers, also in Christ and in God, suffered hardship and death. It seems that being in God or Christ does not protect human beings from the negative in the world.

 

I guess I should have been clearer; science is the study of God's creation which in some ways is the study of God, as God is reflected in Es creation.

I think that God can be involved in natural processes, exactly how this happens and how it works I don't know. Of course the evolution into eternity involves God. As far as I'm concerned it can't be done without God. Perhaps it is conscious evolution, and choosing to evolve into eternity and into Christ.

I don't think anyone of us gets to define what Progressive Christianity is, though Spong talks about evolution and how we are still evolving.

Jesus and his early followers did suffer, but they are beyond that negativity now. They suffered so we do not have to. Very few people today have to suffer the same hardships and pain that they did because of their faith.

Hi Jerry,

Welcome

I'm afraid I don't know too much about SDA. I hope you find some of what you are looking for at this forum.

Welcome

I think that science is the study of God. I think that we are supposed to, or can, evolve into eternity.

How this fits in with traditional Christian scripture, I don't know. Sometimes it fits and sometimes it doesn't.

I think we are supposed to/can experience God in all or most things. I think we can experience God and Christ in ourselves. One doesn't need a book, the bible for this.

The bible can teach us about God and give us insights into God. It can also teach us things that are not about God and express ideas not with God.

Science can also show us somethings that are not with God or in God. What one needs to do is use their own discernment and discretion and/or the spirit of God and Christ to understand and see which is which and what is what.

If one is in God and in Christ, all this negative stuff just falls away and becomes relatively minor or even nonexistent, and one sees and experiences only God and Christ. But science and the cosmos still exist and they are not against God, in fact they are often very much a part of God. But God is still very much more than that. 

Thanks for reading

14 hours ago, thormas said:

I agree but, for me, it is the Word that speaks to us, awakens us and surprises us - whether it is spoken by a person in real time or by a person in the past and present in a book. 

 

& also the 'words' of our own thoughts sometimes.

I love words, and I love getting the perfect words to express something. But too often it's not possible to find them and one needs to just come close to what they want to say or what they want to express.

In John 1 the word 'Word' is meant to mean Jesus himself. It's a translation from the Greek word Logos. This would also be an interesting subject to discuss.

I've heard people say that the word 'name' in the bible could or might also be understood as 'spirit'. We say in the 'name' of God, but we don't have the name of God. Could this be better said or understood as 'the spirit of God'. We say "gather in the name of Jesus". Could we also say, "gather in the spirit and name of Jesus" and be meaning more what we really intend to say?

I wish I was a lot better with words, ... hope this communicates something interesting and worthwhile

14 hours ago, thormas said:

What is E?

E is just an gender neutral or non-genderfied pronoun. I use it for God and sometimes for the prenatal when one doesn't know their gender. I don't believe in a physical, gender specific idea of God so I feel it better points to God than the words he or she. I only know a few people who use it, but I like it and even feel it's closer to the truth about God, so I use it.

8 minutes ago, thormas said:

Another President might be able to but not the current one given his own mindset.

3 minutes ago, PaulS said:

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 epithany and understanding that Trump was wrong on covid, but rather that he was always right and Biden is the devil.  

I saw part of the president's yadder-yadder today on TV. I couldn't get through all of it and had to turn it off. He was taking a more cautious and controlled approach in talking about Arizona's reopening and the way they are "resetting" their reopening. I think that Paul is right, that perhaps the only one who can get through to the trump followers is Trump himself. 

GD I don't want to see this just get worse and worse and worse. I don't care whose idea it is, and I don't care who ends up doing the speeches and all the talking, or even who takes all the credit for it whether it's their thinking and ideas or not. Whatever!

I just want to see things get better.

2 minutes ago, PaulS said:

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.

Geesh, I hope you're wrong  😰

13 hours ago, thormas said:

I believe we're talking about two different 'moments:'  the meaning of the inbreaking of the Kingdom for Jesus and the meaning of the Kingdom in light of the reality that it was not established in the lifetime of his followers (as promised). 

If I follow you, I too think that "the in-breaking of the Kingdom is different" now than what Ehrman and others say it was for Jesus - i.e. it is different than what Jesus thought and expected. Which is ok because we are talking about different discernments of the Divine (but I still hold that the present understanding, thought different, is built on Jesus).

It seems in the understanding of Jesus, God was the one who was expected to do it. Repenting was not our participation in bringing the Kingdom, it was our getting ready for that Kingdom which God would establish. It was all about God for Jesus. As said, that didn't happen and with a changing understanding of the Kingdom there was also an evolving understanding that we do have to participate and I would go as far as saying that without our participation the Kingdom will not be established.

And that would be an interesting discussion.

I'm wondering if the Kingdom did start coming in Jesus's day and has been coming and inbreaking ever since. Yes, that would be an interesting discussion. 

12 hours ago, thormas said:

Paula Fredriksen (in Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews) states that the "during Jesus' lifetime, Gentiles scarcely figured at all in his mission." Again this does not mean that Jesus did not cross traditional boundaries and 'reach out' to non-Jews - however he was, as those prophets before him, a Prophet for his people, the people of God, the Jews and his message to them was urgent: the Kingdom was coming.

She also writes that "a strand within traditional Jewish apocalyptic though anticipated the Gentiles turning to the God of Israel as one of the events at the End of Days."  Isiah 2:2-4:  "....will draw all the nations to it (God's house), to the worship of the God of Jacob." And it was Paul, anticipating the coming of Christ and the full establishment of the Kingdom who (with others) took on the mission of spreading the good news to the Gentiles - this was his focus.

I don't think I would say "Gentiles scarcely figured at all" I would say that they were less prominent in Jesus's mission and during his "earthly life".

I'm wondering what "the End of Days" means. I tend to go with an end of worldliness instead of "the end of the world". Perhaps as one enters more eternal types of thought, the meaning of time and the significance of 'days' becomes less important. Or maybe it means the end of worldly significance. Or the end of an era.

13 hours ago, thormas said:

The Jews, I believe, including AJ Levine, would disagree that Jesus modified and enhanced their laws and I would agree. Jesus was a Jew through and through who followed (and loved) the Law and visited the Temple and kept the Jewish rituals. In these terms what was unique about Jesus concerning the Law was nicely summed up in the Gospels: the Law is made for man, not man for the Law. Many  have also believed that Jesus was the first to call God Father but this too is false.

It seems the only 'right direction' was not a new, better understanding but the announcement of nearness of the Kingdom and the need to repent and be ready. 

If I remember correctly people like Marcus Borg and John Crosson disagree with Ehrman on Jesus being an Apocalyptic Prophet but it appears that the leading biblical scholars agree with Ehrman (his seems to be the consensus opinion).

 

As a note, I'm not sure what you mean by the idea that God 'grew' Jesus out of the Jewish nation.  

 

 

Ehrman did a talk on how Jesus did not negate or reject the law but enhanced it. He took many of the principals of the law and took them a step or a few steps further. I listed a few examples on another comment I made, I got these ideas and this understanding from Ehrman. Essentially Ehrman was saying, he took the law and made it better.

I like both Marcus Borg and John Crosson. It's good to know that there are some folks that I'm in agreement with. The subject as to whether Jesus was apocalyptic or not is probably better left for another thread.

I probably should have used a better word than "grew". I believe that somehow God evolved Jesus through and out of the Jewish nation. I also believe that God created him and conceived  of him from the beginning as it says in John 1. Exactly how this all works is another thing altogether, and I certainly don't know what or everything about it.

12 hours ago, thormas said:

Cuomo has done a great job and I love how strong and passionate he is. I agree: brilliant!

I also love how he calls the trumpster on his bull.

I'm thinking that that video might go viral, it's gotten like 150 views in the past half hour. I'm sure Trump has seen it.

I've seen Gov. Cuomo say something on one day and Trump act on it the next, even the Governor has mentioned this too.

Hope this will help get Trump to change his message, support safe reopening's and mask wearing, and save many, many lives. 

12 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Brilliant!

There's more! Check out his YouTube channel, including the playlists. The guy is something with his Brooklyn-Queens accent and way of talking and putting things and just being honest. 

If I were Joe Biden and I were the president, now, I'd ask this guy to help talk to the country and help get the country coordinated so we can control and manage this thing.

https://www.youtube.com/user/nygovcuomo/playlists

16 hours ago, thormas said:

For us to acknowledge the Bible as we are doing is not to worship a book. I always thought books were important and one can 'meet' God or be surprised by God or be humbled by God in many different books, including the Bible.

I also think that one can 'meet' God and be surprised by God and be inspired by God without a book. By many different things, through nature, through science, through art, through music, and perhaps most importantly, through just tuning into God and E's Light and E's Spirit and E's Grace and that of Jesus too. Living in God and God's energy and love and in Jesus's light and love are for me, the most important thing, book or no book, it's still the most important thing (for me).

16 minutes ago, thormas said:

Agreed - and scholars like Allison, Fredriksen, Hurtado and others are all in agreement that Jesus was such a Prophet.

Sorry, I think I disagree with all of them and Ehrman too on this point.

So, who am I to disagree with all these notable scholars on this? Well, I'm me and I disagree and I just don't see things that way. I've read this and heard it many times and I still don't agree. I think that the inbreaking of the Kingdom of Heaven is different than many people see it and portray it. What it means and how it happens and how it has been happening is a big subject, that would take pages and pages to cover. One thing about it is that God doesn't just 'do it'. We/people have to participate and make it part of life also. It also may have been happening in pockets of humanity that don't make the news, and people just don't see it.

I don't know everything about it, but I see things as being different. Thanks for reading.

23 minutes ago, PaulS said:

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.

 

This is one of the places where I disagree with Ehrman, and it sticks in my side, and has for sometime. I agree with and love so many of Ehrman's ideas and insights, and then there's this one. This is the one point where I really and completely disagree with Ehrman. (it's just got to happen somewhere 🙂 )

The Jews did have a few things going for them, one of them was the "One God" thing. This might be why God evolved/grew Jesus out of the Jewish nation. They also had a messianic tradition, and some laws that when enhanced and modified (by JC) turn out to be pretty good and some real steps in the right direction. Still, even the Jews needed to know and understand the "God of Israel" better than they did, & a new and better understanding needs to and needed to come to all of us.

Thanks for reading again

Had to post another one of these.

For people that think that somehow NYC has developed some kind of "herd immunity", that is just not true. I can get you videos and articles on "herd immunity" NY and this county are no where close to herd immunity. The reason that infections are down in New York is because of the way the virus is being managed and because of what people are doing. They are wearing masks, they are social distancing, they are doing a phased and controlled reopening, and they are taking the virus seriously and not playing politics with a deadly virus.

28 minutes ago, PaulS said:

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.

See this is where I disagree with people, I don't think that Jesus was an 'apocalyptic' prophet.

I see the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God as a change in people's thinking, and priorities, and how they treat one another, and how they regard God. This did start happening then, both during and after Jesus's ministry. If one reads the book of Mormon, it was happening, and in a big way too. Everyone was happy and getting along and sharing everything with everyone and so forth. This lasted for good a while, then everyone started bickering and squabbling and fighting again,... and then the Mormons left and went over to north America. I don't know how much I value the book of Mormon per-say, but I really do wonder what was happening with all the people in those days, during and just after Jesus's ministry and for the next few generations. We get some glimpses from reading the New Testament, but do we really know everything or even all that much?

People talk about  "apocalyptic" as in the "end of the world". Is this "the end of the world" or is it the end of a kind of worldliness and world view? This is an understanding that I was given by some Christians some time ago. That it's not the end of the world, but the end of worldliness and a materialistic point of view. A changing of priorities to a more humane and less self-centered way of looking at things. One that isn't so self-survival orientated. It takes our survival instincts one step further and into Eternity, which if you think of it is the ultimate true survival. But it takes things even further, survival into Eternity means being kind and together and caring, not just survival, survival, survival.

I really don't know how to say what I am trying to say. Thanks for reading anyways  

12 minutes ago, thormas said:

His focus was the Jews even though this did not mean that the Gentiles would not be included in the Kingdom - still he came (first) for the Jews. He was not trying to overthrow 
Rome - with the coming of the Kingdom (done by God) Rome would be overcome.

I agree

In some ways Rome has been overcome by faith in and the teachings of this one Jewish man named Jesus.

Is this the overcoming or the coming of the Kingdom that Jesus intended? I think we are all still working on it as well as and including them in Rome. 

28 minutes ago, PaulS said:

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.

What do you think of the story in  Mark 15:39 , where a centurion who witnessed the crucifixion identified Jesus as the Son of God?

I don't see Jesus as directly trying to overthrow the Roman government. He was trying to overcome it, as well as some of the teachings and restrictions of the Jewish leaders, but not by a violent and immediate overthrow. He was trying to teach everyone a new way of being and living together. This ultimately would overcome the hierarchical ways of living and governing. Seems that in life this is still an ongoing process. 

----------------------------

Edit>

Jesus came to free all people, with a focus on and including the Jews.

Thing is, he taught that the Jews also needed to change. 

He taught about the law, but he also enhanced the Law. He said things like, they law says do not kill, but I say don't even get angry. The law says love your friends and hate your enemies, I say love both your friends and your enemies. The law says do not commit adulatory, but I say don't even look at a person who is not your spouse with lust in your heart. . . . . There are a number of other things like this. He built on the Jewish teaching and took them a step or several steps further.

He also taught that the Kingdom of Heaven is for everyone and all people. He started with the Jews (mostly) but from there it will extend over the entire earth. I don't think he intended a violent and immediate overthrow of the Roman government, he intended the K of Heaven for them too, and that all the world be governed by goodness and fairness and kindness.

New York State Governor Cuomo's interview on the Federal and Nation Wide response to the C19 virus.

One thing that they saw in New York is that frontline workers in the hospitals and ER's have a markedly lower infection rate than people who stayed at home during the shut down. What this means is that masks work. "Wearing is Caring"

20 hours ago, PaulS said:

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. 

12 hours ago, thormas said:

I agree that Jesus was human with human emotions and also that he preached for the Jews. However as a knowledgeable Jew he would have known that when the Kingdom came all the empires of the world would come to worship the one God and 'live in the Kingdom.' Thus is what Paul focused on and this understanding in the hands of one such as Jesus is revealed in a broader reach that was 'inclusive' of non-Jews.  

While we don't know all of Jesus's interactions, the gospels do present him as one who is not bound (a Spongism) by his Judaism in a way that he rejects those who are not Jews. He is shown as open and interacting and caring for the Samaritan woman and the Roman soldier. Did it happen? Who knows. Was it an accurate or true portrayal of the Jesus who was known/remembered - probably.

My comment here is to both you guys. I keep running into this. People and even scholars keep saying that Jesus just came for the Jews and that it was Paul and only Paul that taught to non-Jews. I keep thinking that this is not exactly what I remember reading in the Gospels. I've taken sometime to research this a bit. It would take a month or more to go through out all the Gospels and find every incident, but this is what I've found so far:

John 4:1–42 Jesus and the Woman of Samaria: Not only did she become a believer but many of her fellow Samaritans did also. Jesus stayed and taught in Samaria for 2 days.

John 4: 46 Jesus Heals an Official’s Son: This was in Cana in Galilee. It doesn’t specifically say if the “official” was Jewish or not, but it is possible that he may not have been.

 Matthew 15:21 The Faith of a Canaanite Woman: This was in the district of Tyre and Sidon. Jesus heals the woman’s daughter. The same story is also reflected in Mark 7: 24-31

 Luke 7:1-10 Jesus heals a Roman centurion’s servant: This was in Capernaum.

Luke 6: 17 Jesus Teaches and Heals:  He came down with them and stood on a level place, with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea, Jerusalem, and the coast of Tyre and Sidon. This is just after Luke’s version of Jesus selecting the twelve Apostles and just before Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Mount and his teaching the Beatitudes. These were taught to the afore mentioned multitude of people, including those from Tyre and Sidon. Tyre and Sidon are Canaanite areas and considered to be pagan in the New Testament.

 Mark 5:1-20 Jesus heals a man with a demon called legion and sends them into a herd of pigs. We all know that Jews don’t eat ham, this is not a Jewish territory. It is called “the region of the Gerasenes”. This is a Gentile, culturally Greek area. Jesus tells the man to tell his own people about this, which he does in the Decaplis, (ten cities). The New Testament doesn’t say that all the people became believers, but it does say that they were all “amazed”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gergesa

Many New Testament manuscripts refer to the "Country of the Gadarenes" or "Gerasenes" rather than the Gergesenes. Both Gerasa and Gadara were cities to the east of the Sea of Galilee and the River Jordan. They were both Gentile cities filled with citizens who were culturally more Greek than Semitic; this would account for the pigs in the biblical account. Gerasa and Gadara are accounted for in historical accounts (by writers such as Pliny the Elder and Josephus) and by archaeological research. Today they are the modern towns of Jerash and Umm Qais.

A third city, Hippos, was similar in character to Gadara and Gerasa, and it may fit the biblical account even better. It was located on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, whereas Gerasa and Gadara were several kilometers south-east of it. Hippos, Gerasa, and Gadara were all counted in the Decapolis, an informal grouping of Greco-Roman cities just south of the ancient city of Caesarea Philippi.

It also seems to me that it is not always clear what type of people Jesus is talking to and teaching. Were they all Jews? Were they a mix of different people(s)? I've looked for a good study on this and haven't found one yet. Myself, I don't go with the standard sayings that Jesus taught and only came for the Jews or that this is evident in the Gospels.

Thanks for reading

---------------------------------------

Edit>

I'm doing a little thing like Burl did below, so people can just jump to the link