thormas

8 hours ago, Burl said:

Prophets are human.  I think humanity is defined by our sensory, animal nature.

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.

1 hour ago, Burl said:

I don’t get this idea.  What is your definition of ‘human’?

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

2 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I'm thinking that if Jesus really is the Christ, which I think he is, he would have known what was to come and how things were going to unfold.

I agree he was depicted this way sometimes, by those who wrote and constructed the first three gospels. Perhaps because it was how they saw things, that is what they projected onto him and how they wrote him up.

Can't help but think that if Jesus had really wanted everything he said and or thought to be written down, there would be some mention of him saying that and telling someone/some people to do just that. If it had happened, wouldn't it have been in Aramic, the language that Jesus, and everyone he was communicating with, were speaking? There's no scrap of any such document(s). 

Instead, what we have, is to live in his spirit and love, as well as God's love and that of the Holy Spirit. . . . (with no real book(s) . . . Just the indwelling spirit, which maybe is plenty enough.

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.

2 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I know Trump can't, or perhaps shouldn't, go around legislating things on the state level(s). But if he had just stood up and told that truth, and at least had recommended and demonstrated the CDC guidelines, I think that a lot more people would have followed them and there would be a lot less virus spread and death. If he had just put on a mask, much much earlier on, and told the people that it was a good idea, and told people to reopen in phases as the CDC recommends, the reopening in the US would have gone much, much better. We are lagging so far behind in the way it's been handled in other countries it's just shameful.

There are people who are saying, that on their death bed, their loved one made the dying statement that they made one mistake, that the trusted Trump. It's just too sad.

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

10 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I agree with you on this, this is how the "kingdom comes"

Jesus himself, as far as we know, never owned a house, or wrote a book. He even had to borrow a donkey to ride into town. He didn't have a thrown or a castle or fancy clothes and ornaments, and still he is the "king".

Like you say, it's spiritual and is an experience, rather than a physical kingdom. Maybe it cover the  earth someday, until then it happens and comes to each person in their own time and at their own pace and in their own understanding.

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.

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

Ok , we will have to disagree because of my experience as we moved when we were in the standard for poverty. It  required lowering our standard of living and some sacrifice but to me,  it is as simple as that. It is the negativity of the thinking mind that makes things difficult. Some of the happiest people i know are those that have the least.

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.

8 hours ago, PaulS said:

I said earlier that "poor people can't just up and move if they don't like it.  Other people for various reasons (employment, family etc) can't just up and move even though they see oppression and racism around them.  I just don't think it is as simple as you make it out to be".

With nearly 20% of your population living in poverty, to me it seems their choices about moving are very limited.  It would seem 1/5th of your population can't change states or counties even if they desperately wanted to.  They simply can't afford it whilst living in poverty.

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.

8 hours ago, PaulS said:

On 8/17/2020 at 9:49 PM, you said: "You seem to miss that Jesus' focus on the Jews was one thing but as Ehrman shows his parables speak of pagans participating in the Kingdom. So if true, then he took it for granted that Gentiles would share the Kingdom."

On 8/18/2020 at 7.53am, I said: "Which parables from Mark, the earliest gospel?"

You then said "I gave you the reference above".

So it was any reference to Mark, that you said you had provided, that I was looking for.  No problem - you seem to have misread or misunderstood what I was asking.  I had also been making the point when answering Joseph that Mark (our earliest Gospel) is silent on this 'good news to the gentiles' issue (other than Jesus referrign to a gentile woman as a dog), and I don't think that is simply coincidence.

But look, we've probably exhausted this subject and I won't have much opportunity over the next couple of weeks to discuss any further (and we seem to just be repeating ourselves anyway) so instead I will look forward to further discussions on other matters if they arise.  Peace & goodwill.

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.

20 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I don't think you actually provided any parables of Mark as quoted by Ehrman.  You said you did.  That's what I was trying to clarify because to me, there are none (other than calling the lady at the well a dog).  So I was confused why you were saying that Ehrman was pointing to parables in Mark.

I don't think I misread the Prophets on the Kingdom and I'm not the slightest upset with the biblical Paul - he is who he is.  I hold no particular opinion of his character.  He is a character of history who plays a part in the bible.

The Prophets answer the question quite clearly for me - that the gentiles who flock to the Jews do so after the coming of the Kingdom.  That's clear to me but you've made it clear that you don't read them the same as I do.  Let's move on now.

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.............

12 minutes ago, Burl said:

If Jesus intended to preach to non-jews.  Seems like a question without a purpose.

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

8 hours ago, JosephM said:

Come on Paul... that term is relative. Our poor are rich in comparison to what is considered poor in other countries. Why do you think people flock here and sneak in? We have school programs to feed children who don't get fed at home from parent neglect or inability to provide. The parents  are eligible for welfare. Some use it for drugs and other non-necessities. You can't believe all the statistics you read. Poverty is relative. I was raised in poverty according to numbers back then and we didn't have much meat or nice housing but it was kept clean and we had food and 2nd hand clothes, no name brand sneakers, or phones,  or TV, etc. and my wife didn't even have inside toilets or running water or washing machines.  In fact, we didn't know we were poor. I don't call that poverty. Today the poverty line for a family of four with two children for that 18% figure is $24, 339 . That may be US poverty but its workable and better than we had it. Our government  even provides  free cell phones to families who can't afford it and free dental and health clinics which brings their equivalent pay to more with no income tax..   There is plenty of thrift stores for like new used clothing for near nothing.  13 million kids poor? No Paul . My first job was 25 cents an hour and i managed to save 10% and continued to do the same as wages grew. This is a land of opportunity that was not meant to be a socialist nation but we are slowly going that direction because some people don't understand that for many of us it takes sacrifice now to work harder and smarter and save to get ahead and out of their situation in the future.

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. 

39 minutes ago, Burl said:

Why is this question important?

Jesus plays a role in every spiritual tradition I can think of, so the discussion seems moot.

What am I missing?

Which question?

40 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Hey, i don't even believe that the writings are the word of God. But if you want to use them in a debate like the meaning derived from calling the Gentile dogs, it has to be done in context of time and collaborated with the other writings in the book if you wish to get a clearer picture. I am not trying to second guess what Jesus meant as if i know but in the context of all the gospels he doesn't specifically exclude Gentiles from listening to his teachings. He trained Apostles to go out into the world . His mission was to the Jews we agree but not to the exclusion of the Gentiles sharing in the faith as evidenced by all the Gospels and the definition of Gentile. I have no desire to be a scholar of the Bible even though i have 4 years of Bible college. It only breeds endless debate of things that in my view are of little importance to that which is in the spirit of Christ. So i will bow out of this and leave you to think what you want to think concerning the centurion, woman, and mixed multitude that made up what most refer to as Jews.

As far as Erhman goes it is fine with me if he and others wish to 2nd guess concerning the kingdom that Jesus preached. I am convinced that it was spiritual and it is an experience rather than a physical kingdom that will reveal itself as confirmation to each in his/her own order.

 

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.

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

I can't see where you have quoted parables from Mark as evidence that Jesus thought gentiles would share the Kingdom.  Could you point them out again please - I just can't see any (either in the thread or in Mark itself).

We are now just repeating our assertions.  I think you misread the Prophets, particularly Isaiah, and align Jesus with a message that was not 'known for all'.

The kingdom was for more than the Jews in the sense that gentiles would be defeated, the powers that be overthrown, and those remaining (following judgement and destruction) could come to the god of Israel, not as equals, but as survivors in the Kingdom nonetheless.

I don't agree the prophets are of two minds.  Yes there are non-Jew survivors in the Kingdom, but this is not the same as believing the 'good news' of the coming Kingdom was for all.  It simply wasn't, as demonstrated in the Prophets and by Jesus' actions (or lack of when it came to sharing the good news with non-Jews).  But if that is how you read quotes by Ehrman...

You are.  I am saying in this discussion, you have been applying your interpretation of Ehrman's quotes, as have I.  That seems pretty obvious in the discussions above where both you and I quote Ehrman to support our cases.

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?

15 minutes ago, PaulS said:

You are saying something that you interpret them as saying.

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.

6 minutes ago, PaulS said:

But what you add to that was Jesus thought the good news was for all.  That is clearly not demonstrated in the gospels and it is not in accordance with the Prophets.

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.

8 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Agreed, but where we differ is why he focused on the Jews.  I think the evidence speaks for itself - the Kingdom was for the Jews.  The invitation to repent was only for the Jews.  Jess didn't care about the gentiles because God would deal with them.

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.

15 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Perhaps. It's just that I'm reading him correctly.

Good one, probably not - but a good one anyway :+}

8 minutes ago, PaulS said:

No, you added your understanding of what you think they were saying.

Not ah!

8 minutes ago, PaulS said:

No, your posts demonstrate your opinions of what Bart and others have written.  They are you interpretations essentially.  I think they are mistaken.

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

13 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

If there were a bunch of people who were not Jewish, who were converted by Jesus himself, would they and their children still be milling around the areas or nearby areas mentioned in the Gospels? 

Would the Jewish-Christians, in the synagogue(s) where Mark was first composed, known or been aware of some of these people and or their children?

Could they have had another reason for including these peoples in Mark or the other Gospels?

If they were Jewish-Christians they may have felt that they could benefit more by just making Jesus's ministry only about Jewish Christian converts, (after all they had thought of themselves as the "chosen people"). Could there have been some non-Jewish Christians that did get left out because they wanted the Gospel to be more exclusively about the Jewish people? - Perhaps they couldn't get away with leaving out all the non-Jewish Christians who were converted by Jesus, entirely, because there were just too many of them, so they had to mention at least some of them?

I'm just typing down a train of thought here, and speculating. Fraid  I'm not being fair to the people surrounding the composing of Mark. Just trying to get a variety of pictures on what could have been happening and this is just one of them. Could come up with another one that has entirely the opposite perspective. I'd like to think that the writing of Mark has a good amount of honesty in it, even if it was designed as liturgy and not a verbatim history. . . Just stuff to think about.

Thanks for reading

Edit/add > Seems to me if Mark got edited by non-Jewish-Christian people sometime later when the first copies that we have were made, they would have added a lot more Gentiles/non-Jewish converts. That is if editing was going on in relation to this topic.

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.

6 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

If the Gospels were created by and for the Greek speaking people in the synagogues, outside of Judea, as JS Spong says, would they have noticed this or known if this was true or not?

One would think that they would have noticed this, and known where these regions were and what kinds of people lived there.

If this was in the synagogues, then one would think that a good number of these people were Jewish-Christians. Would these people be more likely to include or exclude non-Jewish people in the stories concerning Jesus's ministry? Perhaps they would have done neither and just told the story as best they could remember or knew of it.

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? 

2 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I've found another verse that shows Jesus preaching and teaching to non-Jews, alongside and with a good number of people from the Jewish regions:

Mark 3:7 Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the lake, and a large crowd from Galilee followed. 8 When they heard about all he was doing, many people came to him from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, and the regions across the Jordan and around Tyre and Sidon. 

I've had a little trouble figuring out who the Idumeans are, seems like they are half Jewish and half not, but I'm not sure. Indecently Herod was Idumean.

"Regions across the Jordan", sounds pretty non-Jewish to me.

I believe Tyre and Sidon are Greek Hellenistic areas

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. 

35 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Have you read the book just published by Trump's niece, "Too Much and Never Enough"?

Amazon gives a pretty good number of pages to preview it. Just click on the jacket cover. I found the Epilogue rather interesting.

https://www.amazon.com/Too-Much-Never-Enough-Dangerous/dp/1982141468

I didn't realize his niece was a PHD psychologist or something. 

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.☺️

28 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

How bout yourself? 

One shouldn't "concede" if they truly feel they are right and honestly believe and or really do experience or know something.

However,. . . I'm not going to say what I was going to say,.. I'm just going to leave it there. . . for now.

No concessions........

I do like your attitude though.

3 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I'm not all that fine with the way we sometimes disagree

I'm thinking we could get better at/about it.

I'm absolutely not saying don't disagree, not if one is truly being honest and not just disagreeing to disagree, or for some other reason(s).

The way we sometimes do it could go a bit better, I think.

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