thormas

I said Paul's focus was the Gentiles while Jesus's focus was the Jews. However I also said that Jesus broke boundaries and as you indicated reached out to others (I also allow that some of these stories are not historical but still capture Jesus).

I'm not sure of that one but I would allow that it is not historical. By probable I am saying that the 'stories' present the Jesus that was known/remembered in the community (and I do understand the passage of time and the literary license of the writers). One point if it is in both Matthew and Luke are they then considered two separate sources or, as you indicated, they are taking it from the Q source (not sure if it is commonly accepted that Luke is repeating Matthew). I am going off Allison (Biblical scholar) on the idea of probable. I'll try to get a quote tomorrow but have no idea what his take is on the Roman.

The orange trumpster now thinks and says that he has done more for Black Americans that John Lewis...................Such delusions, such narcissism, such stupidity.

Just to further muddy the waters, the biblical scholar, Paul Fredriksen, in her book 'Paul, The Pagans' Apostle' indicates that while Paul visited Jerusalem, she considers it (an unanswered) question if Paul ever lived or studied in Jerusalem. Unlike Acts there is no mention in Paul's authentic letters that he ever lived in Jerusalem or studied under Gamaliel and he does not mention Stephan in his time persecuting Christians. it seems that scholars give some reliability to Acts on Paul but they give priority to his own letters when there is a discrepancy between Acts and his letters.

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.

..........you think evolution is a fantasy and others think God is a fantasy - then there are those who accept both.

Of course they can: belief in God and knowing about evolution. It's rather easy.

But who is right, both can't be ................a Nazi or not, a demon or not.

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.

But it is their story so their insight of the Divine.

Thanks, will check into it and read your link tomorrow.

I take that as the early 'Christians' reading back into the OT to try to get a handle on and understand Jesus. Inspired by their discernment for insight into their experience of the Divine?

So what's the decision on Soros: is it propaganda and fake news or is he the Democratic devil?

I get that there were Jewish collaborators but a Nazi? And of course we get that there are America Nazis today.

Ouch!

What he said........

Does that mean he is a Jewish Nazi?

Was this evident? Was Paul working in Jerusalem, i.e. going after the Jesus community circa 33 CE or was he working in the Dispora? The Sanhedrin and the priest were in Jerusalem, correct? If this is accurate then Saul might have been in touch with 'local' authorities but not the Sanhedrin. Just speculation, haven't checked. The chief priest seemingly was in 'cahoots' (btw great word) or cooperated with the Romans ...............but I don't see how that suggests that Saul was. Just like pictures of Pilate washing his hands, the Paul paintings could also be the work of the imagination.

Well said.......

We have been talking specifically about so called cancel culture as it pertains to confederate statues, monuments, names, etc. (at least most of us have I believe). The argument can credibly be made that some citizens (confederate sympathizers or fans or, in some cases, white nationalists) purposely 're-wrote' what they called the Lost Cause and tried to cancel out the reality of the slaves, slavery and blacks as truly free and equal people. Now, black men and women and others are trying to right that cancellation. Or, one could argue that monuments honoring soldiers/politicians who committed treason and fought for their rights (slavery) should never have occurred and should be 'cancelled.'

Ok, unless you are caught up in a crowd and trying to get to safety or unless you see this as an aberration and want to continue your peaceful protest. It is not the case that a truly peaceful protestor automatically becomes part of the problem. Witness the Navy vet who was peacefully trying to get information from the federal agents (who lacked any identifying insignia or names) and was then ruthlessly attacked. The police or the Feds should be able to distinguish such an obvious peaceful citizen and deal with him/her differently. If you are peaceful, aren't attacking the police or destroying property you are still technically peaceful and not automatically complicit.

Also agreed.

Then again, European painters depicted Jesus with light/white skin and eyes....................and Raphael painted his face and the faces of other artist as the faces of Plato, Aristotle and others ..............so while beautiful to look at they lack in accuracy.

Burl, I don't doubt the guy citing the evidence known to him. And again, no one is supporting the violence here As for evidence: the police reported that hundreds peacefully protested yesterday (8/2/20) and miles away about 200 were violent. I and many others support the peaceful protestors and are totally against the violence. If one cop encountered the violent rioters his experience and evidence would be different than the cop encountering the peaceful protestors. People have a right to peacefully protest and cops have a right and obligation to confront and arrest violent rioters!

Good god No! I live in the great state of North Carolina, pride of the Confederacy!