Jump to content

thormas

Senior Members
  • Posts

    2,506
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

Everything posted by thormas

  1. KAMALA......................YES!! And don't you just love the Republican mixed and contradictory response about her? Wonder if the orange trumpster will contribute to her campaign again?
  2. Seems the 1st Christians had the resurrection experience/insight, however we imagine that.
  3. I have just been rereading Ehrman's 'Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet' and he makes this very interesting statement, after commenting that salvation was to be universal - for Everyone: "Note that in a number of the apocalyptic sayings of Jesus that we have considered, there is talk of non-Jews coming into the Kingdom. He speaks, for example, of people (whom I take to be Gentiles) coming from the east and west, north and south to enter the Kingdom and dine with the Jewish ancestors Abraham and Company while (some) Jews are left outside. And he discusses the final judgment of the nations - the same word as "Gentiles," that is non-Jews - in the story of the future separation of the sheep and the goats. The coming of the Son of Man is not an event to be beheld only by Jews, but by the whole world." Ehrman, at the very least, confirms Jesus' mention and inclusion of Gentiles or non-Jews entering and partaking of the Kingdom. Given this, one wonders if the gospel stories of Jesus interacting with non-Jews is historical or based on a memory of something that Jesus did or would have done during his ministry or even the acting out of a parable or of the eschatological event that was to come. The question then is does Jesus' talk of non-Jews (Ehrman) suggest or foreshadow an outreach to the Gentiles, would such an outreach be a continuation of Jesus' message to the Jews and was the coming of the Gentiles, from all directions, the result of coercion or a decision for the Kingdom, after hearing and responding to the words and actions of the followers of Jesus? Interesting stuff. Note: I would add to that if one is separating sheep from goats, someone has to first 'call and guide' (i.e. shepherd) them and that this would take place before the sheep are actually 'let in' to the ............ Kingdom.
  4. I truly get this stuff is not easy to express. I express it as living the Kingdom rather than 'in the Kingdom or entering the Kingdom.' Plus I express it as the Kingdom is being established by the response of men and women to God (the embodiment Love). You make sense.
  5. I'm reading on the group called Hellenists that supposedly split from the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and seemingly had to do with the first missionary activities. Interesting stuff but i wish authors would give a chronology.
  6. Good one..........if we had a picture you could add this to the Heathens section. Again Burl, well done, I do love humor: it gave me a good laugh.
  7. Not sure it 'needs' to be preached to all just that it had begun to be preached to Gentiles in the 1st C CE. We all know that continued and created some horrific situations for native people. So. I'd leave the Amazons alone and I hope no missionaries have visited them.
  8. APOLOGIES FOR THE DUPLICATION, I WAS TRYING TO TIGHTEN MY RESPONSE AND RAN OUT OF TIME. THIS IS THE MORE CONCISE RESPONSE. That's fair - and I get it. What is then a bit strange is when I do quote someone like an Ehrman (especially his 5th quote) to be told I'm reading into it because it doesn't jive with an 'opinion' that is based on a reading of the text that is not supported by the experts. In addition, you never dealt with that Ehrman quote. I agree on the lack of a (formal) Paul-like Gentile outreach by Jesus but to then take this to conclude that Jesus would have been against such an outreach to 'all nations' is a stretch - there is, to my knowledge, nothing in the text to make this leap or on which to base this 'opinion.' In contrast, I have looked at a number (6) of scholars, with expertise in the Bible, and, so far, I have found none who entertain such an idea (that Jesus would not have understand or would have been against such an outreach). Your assumption cuts Jesus off from his own religious history. I get that you are offering an opinion, I get that you don't have the time to 'trawl back through books' - but, regarding the texts, an opinion does not settle the matter or give it equal weight compared to scholarly 'opinion.' I have no problem allowing that I may be wrong on this issue but that is why I have been asking for support for your position - not simply from one's own reading of the texts but for scholars who agree and support your position. As mentioned, Fredriksen speaks about James (above) on this and by the fact that there is a Council, all, including James and Peter, would have already known about an outreach to Gentiles. And the members of the Council, making the decision that the Gentiles didn't have to convert to Judaism made it even easier for the success of that outreach. If the outreach to Gentiles is Pauline, who established the Roman community and who were the missionaries to Galatia? Are you saying that there was no outreach to Gentiles other than Paul? Didn't catch the earlier mention of Isiah. But of course it is directed at Israel - it is the Jewish scripture. However those ' couple of verses' are still part of the scriptures and God's promise/intention. On this I simply have to say you really do need to refer to a scholar to test your opinion, your reading. If the disciples continued Jesus' preaching/announcement to Israel knowing that Jesus was not a military Messiah ............then part of the prophecy, as you understand it, had changed: without a military Messiah and the conquest of the Gentiles, there was no coercion. I agree that there was only a promise to Israel and not the Gentiles - because they were the people of God and the prophets of their God came to instruct them. However the prophets also spoke to Israel about God's intention that was to include 'all nations.' So not a promise to the Gentiles not an invitation (as mentioned before, that they could reject and life would go on). However, that 'all nations' were to be part of the Kingdom was clear in Isaiah. It seems that the outreach to Gentiles began with the Judean community: Frederiksen writes that with the delay of the Kingdom (even in the first few years), they realized they had to announce the Kingdom to all of Isreal and that brought them to the Diaspora where, as discussed, they encountered Gentles everywhere, some of whom were already 'part of' the synagogue. What I don't know is did they also start to see other Gentiles respond to their message - who they began to include?? What also interests me is if the disciples of Jesus, those who knew him, started this outreach or supported it - then they, knowing him, saw no conflict with this outreach and the preaching of Jesus to the Jews.......it was all of the same piece. And this would suggest that they either knew that Jesus did have some meaning interaction with non-Jews or that it was in line with his ministry. Now that is an opinion and I am researching it to see who started the outreach to the Gentiles. I would have to look into it but, at first glance, it again seem to speak of the singular focus and the urgency of concentrating on Israel. Again, I don't accept nor have I found a scholar who takes this as you do -as evidence that the message of the Kingdom was for the Jews alone.
  9. That's fair - and I get it. What is then a bit strange is when I do quote someone like an Ehrman (especially his 5th quote) to be told I'm reading into it when it doesn't jive with an 'opinion' that is based on a reading of the text that is not supported by the experts. I agree on the lack of a (formal) Paul-like Gentile outreach by Jesus but to then take this to conclude that Jesus would have been against such an outreach to 'all nations' is a stretch - there is, to my knowledge, nothing in the text to make this leap or on which to base this 'opinion.' In contrast, I have looked at a number (6) of scholars, with expertise in the Bible, and, so far, I have found none who entertain such an idea (that Jesus would not have understand or would have been against such an outreach). Your assumption cuts Jesus off from his own religious history. I get that you are offering an opinion, I get that you don't have the time to 'trawl back through books' - but an opinion does not settle the matter or give it equal weight compared to scholarly 'opinion.' As mentioned, Fredriksen speaks about James (above) on this and by the fact that there is a Council, all, including James and Peter, would have already known about an outreach to Gentiles. And the members of the Council, making the decision that the Gentiles didn't have to convert to Judaism made it even easier for the success of that outreach. I have no problem allowing that I may be wrong on this issue but that is why I have been asking for support for your position - not simply from one's own reading of the texts but for scholars who agree and support your position. It doesn't matter to me if I'm wrong (see below) on the texts and if it turns out that Jesus did not believe his message was for all (I do not take the Bible literally or as gospel truth - so to speak) then it is my opinion that it was for all and the community, carrying on the work of Jesus as they understood it, got that right. If the outreach to Gentiles is Pauline, who established the Roman community and who were the missionaries to Galatia? Are you saying that there was no outreach to Gentiles other than Paul? Didn't catch the earlier mention of Isiah. But of course it is directed at Israel - it is the Jewish scripture. However those ' couple of verses' are still part of the scriptures and God's promise/intention. On this I simply have to say you really do need to refer to a scholar to test your opinion, your reading. If the disciples continued Jesus' preaching/announcement to Israel knowing that Jesus was not a military Messiah ............then part of the prophecy, as you understand it, changed: without a military Messiah and the conquest of the Gentiles, there was no coercion. It seems, given Jesus preaching of love and forgiveness, that even he didn't agree with this part of the prophecy - nor did he speak of the conquered Gentiles doing what is written in Isiah. If there was no military Messiah..........all of this part of Isaiah is a misunderstanding of God's intention just as many misunderstood what his Messiah would be. I agree that there was only a promise to Israel and not the Gentiles - because they were the people of God and the prophets of their God came to instruct them. However the prophets also spoke to Israel about God's intention that was to include 'all nations.' So not a promise to the Gentiles not an invitation (as mentioned before, that they could reject and life would go on). However, that 'all nations' were to be part of the Kingdom was clear in Isaiah. It seems that the outreach to Gentiles began with the Judean community: Frederiksen writes that with the delay of the Kingdom (even in the first few years), they realized they had to announce the Kingdom to all of Isreal and that brought them to the Diaspora where, as discussed, they encountered Gentles everywhere, some of whom were already 'part of' the synagogue. What I don't know is did they also start to see other Gentiles respond to their message - who they began to include?? What also interests me is if the disciples of Jesus, those who knew him, started this outreach or supported it - then they, knowing him, saw no conflict with this outreach and the preaching of Jesus to the Jews.......it was all of the same piece. And this would suggest that they either knew that Jesus did have some meaning interaction with non-Jews or that it was in line with his ministry. Now that is an opinion and I am researching it to see who started the outreach to the Gentiles. I have, throughout this, been dealing with the texts and the interpretation of those texts and I believe a 'correct understanding' is more probable when based on the work of critical scholars than on an 'opinion.' Now I turn to opinion, however first two issues that seem beyond debate: Jesus was wrong about the establishment of the Kingdom in the lifetime of his followers and Israel was wrong about a military Messiah. It also seems obvious that Israel was wrong about the defeat of all other kingdoms and the 'coercion' of the Gentiles. Given all of this, and recognizing the singular focus of Jesus (and to your point, regardless of his understanding of the Gentiles), it seems that, of necessity, the disciples had to adjust and that came to include the Gentiles and they found a rationale or a directive about this outreach based in the Jewish scriptures. As they did when trying to come to grips with and understand his crucifixion, so too they turned to their scriptures and found 'an answer' about theGentiles. As it turned out, the Gentiles were open to the message of and about Jesus and God, their number grew throughout the 1st C CE and they became the Christian community. I would have to look into it but, at first glance, it again seem to speak of the singular focus and the urgency of concentrating on Israel. Again, I don't accept nor have I found a scholar who takes this as you do -as evidence that the message of the Kingdom was for the Jews alone.
  10. i completely agree - so many accept his behavior and the clowns that defend him are beyond the pale. The Republican congress and some Governors have no identity of their own and live in fear. I'd rather see someone stand up - despite a twitter rant from the trumpster and just do what is right. The Governor of Maryland is one who has done that. I am curious about November also - and fingers crossed that people come out and that the trumpeter doesn't miss with the votes - another thing tolerated by too many.
  11. As a side note, the biblical scholar Paul Fredriksen in her book 'When Christians were Jews' writes: from the beginning - before Paul was even involved - the movement had admitted Gentiles without requiring them to be circumcised. James, Peter and John all affirmed that position, back in Jerusalem." She adds, "Paul worked in concert with James about the collection for the Jerusalem community throughout the rest of his missions. No ideological breach yawned between the two men." Hurtado, another scholar, agrees. A rather interesting point which contradicts other impressions of James and the community.
  12. You'll have to establish your first sentence beyond mere opinion. As for Jewish expectations and Paul, I give you Ehrman, ".....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." I'm not sure what you mean by preparing but if salvation was to be extended it would require an announcement and there would be questions - just like there was for the Jews. Actually the Jews had the same option as the Gentiles: accept (capitulate) and surrender to God or be annihilated.............and Jesus prepared them. When I have asked for sources to consider, you don't have real answers - so it seems all of this is opinion which is fine but, as previously mentioned, in this endeavor - since we have both on numerous occasions referred to Ehrman (and others) - there are scholars who have studied this stuff in depth, and are helpful in trying to get a real understanding of the available sources.
  13. Paul I get that but we both know and have used scholars like Ehrman to make sense of this stuff - so opinion is one thing (and all are entitled to it) but it would seem that we are trying to determine what is accurate here (regarding the OT and the NT) and that requires reference to the Ehrman's of the world. And it is always nice to know what something is based on because I for one like to follow up and determine if I understand correctly or have missed something. Actually I'm reading and quoting Ehrman and others. For the first quote, Ehrman is making a statement on Paul so I have not read into it, it is there for the reading. Whether or not James and Jesus agreed is another issue: James' issue seems to be 'conversion' (Council of Jerusalem resolved that) and we simply don't know if Jesus had any issues with the outreach to Gentiles. Second quote is also simply quoted from Ehrman. If we don't want to call it an invitation, fine - because it's not like if one said no, life would remain the same. However, an announcement so Gentiles would know what was coming, what apostles were talking about and some explanation (as Jesus did for the Jews) seems necessary since we're dealing with human beings. Isaiah was about all nations feasting at the table of God - it was to be inclusive. And, again, people, the Gentiles had to be given some clue about what was happening. The Kingdom didn't come right away, why? Fredriksen writes that it dawned on the disciples that they had to continue the announcement of Jesus to the Jews in order to prepare 'all' of Israel - thus the missionary activity to the Diaspora. I have not misread and I am not simply relying on opinion. Of course there is a reason for Jesus not preaching to the Gentiles and we have been all over that: his focus was on the people of God as God was fulfilling his promise to them. Jesus did not come to announce to the Gentiles but it does not follow that Jesus wasn't aware that they too would be included. As to how he thought they would be included we have no real idea but he was dead, the Kingdom was not established and it was left to his followers. And it wasn't just Paul who reached out to the Gentiles: the Roman community predated him and there were other missionaries in Galatia and of course we have Peter in Rome and dying there in the mid 60s CE. I would have to check but I assume that as head of the Jerusalem community, James was involved with or at the Council when the decision was made in 50 CE. Did he abide by the council or go off on his own?
  14. Ok, so you agree that Jesus understood his own scriptures and he understood that the Kingdom would include the Gentiles. You just believe his understanding was different than Paul's. But where exactly are you getting Jesus' expectation about Gentile domination by God? Sure other kingdoms and kings would cease to exist but are you saying that Jesus expected that the Gentiles who accepted the Kingdom of God would continue to be dominated 'in the Kingdom' or be considered 2nd class or unequal in the eyes of God or the Jews? Did Paul say that other kingdoms would not be defeated - is that why he was different? Did Paul say the Gentile (kingdoms) would not be dominated and destroyed at the end? If not, the only difference is Jesus preached to the Jews and Paul extended that to the Gentiles. And we have already established that the Jews, of necessity, were the focus of Jesus and the ones to whom the announcement of the fulfillment of the promise of the Kingdom must first be announced. I'm not reading into or missing Jesus' point and I have repeatedly acknowledged his focus and the reason for it. The issue now is your interpretation of 'dealing with the Gentiles.' I get what you're saying but where does Jesus say that capitulation is the only way for a Gentile to 'join the Kingdom?' Again, where does he explicitly rule out letting them know about the Kingdom and making a decision for it? No, the 'initial' surprise, as she stated, was the number of Gentiles, pagans, in the first place - when they came to preach in the Diaspora. As she indicated, there were really very few (any?) Gentiles in the rural areas of Galilee and Judea where Jesus taught and traveled with his disciples and few even in Jerusalem. It was a new world, a new experience for them. The Gentiles, not being Jews, would not know that they were to be overthrown by God so how could they be offended (or not be offended) that Jesus didn't care about this - they had no idea what 'this' was? What modified message? Isaiah speaks of all people assembling on the mountain (Jerusalem): both Israel and the nations will feast together on a meal made by God himself...and God will wipe away every tear. And, unless Jesus was not so great at being an apocalyptic prophet, he understood and accepted this. Outside his preaching to the Jews - yes. Outside his intentions is reading into Jesus. But Fredriksen's point, the teaching of the prophets, was that Gentiles or the nations were not meant to 'join the Jews' (i.e. convert or become Jews) but to 'join with' the Jews (they would still be Gentiles in the Kingdom) all worshipping the true God. Again, unless Jesus was really bad at what he did, he knew and understood his own scriptures - although his focus was the Jews.
  15. I assume that is accurate yet Paul, other missionaries to the Gentiles, the Jerusalem Council and the Jewish scriptures and the prophets have a different understanding about this. Seems Paul was right on this and if he wasn't then we, Gentiles, wouldn't be having this discussion 😜 I believe that Jesus' message was for Jews but it doesn't follow that the message of the Kingdom, the End-Time, was not for 'all nations.' Paul, I have no problem exploring this however everything I'm reading points to the Kingdom being announced to the Gentiles: to join the Kingdom or not requires a choice and, like the Jews, they had to be told what was happening and be encouraged to make that decision for the Kingdom (that those deciding against the Kingdom would be annihilated, I get). Even your sentence (above) assumes a choice: capitulation or annihilation - and a choice requires some understanding. Where, exactly, are you getting this other than it being your opinion? Have you read Ehrman or someone else with similar expertise - I would like to know so I can check it out. I agree that it is apparent that there was a disagreement - however the Council of Jerusalem settled the matter in Paul's favor around 50 CE. And it does appear (unless you have further information) that this finding was in line with the Jewish prophets about the end-time. I get that we don't have writings of Peter and James - but we do have the Council and its finding. As for the Ebonities, given their position, they were not on the side that 'won' at the Council. Paul was preaching to the Gentiles about the Kingdom - and Paul was not alone: there were other missionaries to the Gentiles as evidenced in his letters to the Romans and Galatians. I do think, based on the scholars that I'm reading, that the Ebonities were on the wrong side of this and at odds with the their prophets/scriptures. Where exactly have I misunderstood the Jewish expectation and on what - other than your opinion - are you basing that. I have been careful to not simply give my opinion but to present the findings of biblical experts on this issue.
  16. That is an accurate and sad summary. Then you have this, showing his supporters what exactly they're supporting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/10/i-still-believe-president-president/?hpid=hp_save-opinions-float-right-4-0_opinion-card-f-right%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans
  17. Of course they did because Paul did not require the Gentiles to become Jews.........and the Ebionites were Jews. However if the prophets preached a Kingdom to include the Jews and all nations (which they did) and the Ebionites rejected the Gentiles becoming followers of Jesus without becoming Jews, it is evident that the Ebionites were at odds with their own scriptures for they rejected 'all nations' while the prophets preached their acceptance. It would be interesting to delve into this more.
  18. Exactly. Jesus' focus was the Jews - there is no argument with that at all (and this holds whether or not he reached out to non-Jews during his ministry). The Jews were his focus and that had to happen first (they were the people of God and God was fulfilling his promise to them). It doesn't mean that Jesus, an apocalyptic prophet, did not know or understand that the Gentiles of all nations were to be included in the Kingdom as told by the prophets before him and the scriptures of his people. We both accept from Ehrman and others that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who accepted that the end-time was upon the world. It would be absurd to say that such a prophet would not understand the prophecies of his own people or his own scriptures. We both agree with Fredriksen that Jesus did not include the Gentiles. She argues that except for Roman soldiers (whom they would typically have nothing to do with) and some others there were not many Gentiles in Galilee or Judea (including Jerusalem) and the Jewish Christians encountered a 'world of Gentiles' in the Diaspora. I bet it was a surprise........but the surprise, as indicated in your post, was not the outreach to the Gentiles but the ".....gentiles’ acceptance of their message." The Christians had to be preaching to the Gentiles first (i.e. including the Gentiles at the direction of the Jewish scriptures and the prophets) for them to then react to the Gentiles and be surprised at their acceptance of the good news. I accept that Jesus did not preach to Gentiles and they became part of the later drive or the 'final event of the End-Time.' And that was the work, the mission of the disciples - and Paul. Note: wasn't the main policy for 'inclusion' having to become a Jew or not? Were there other policies or is that one pretty much the crux of the Gentile issue?
  19. As a further note, Paul Fredriksen in her book "Paul, The Pagan Apostle' writes that "the anticipated destruction of their (pagan) idols did not imply, at the End, that scripture's eschatological pagans 'converted' to Judaism, thereby becoming Jews." She adds "....at the End, say these visionary (Jewish) texts, eschatological pagans join with Israel; but they do not join Israel..........the nations, even at the eschatological End-time, remain distinct from israel." Given this it appears that Paul was well in agreement with Jewish expectations by not only reaching out to the Gentiles but rightly recognizing that pagans did not have to convert, become Jews and join Israel.......only join with Israel.
  20. Good luck with that effort................
  21. From your lips to the trumpeter's ears - perhaps he'll make a change (less of his sensational and erroneous claims and constant repetition) with today's press conference on Covid. Fingers Crossed.
  22. "Paul was changing it to an invitation to Gentiles (not in line with Jewish expectations)" ........where are you getting this or is your opinion and if so what is it based on? I just took the time to reread Ehrman's book on Paul (and others) and he writes: "even as a Pharisee, before his conversion, Paul held to apocalyptic views of the world" "once he came to believe that Christ was raised from the dead, Paul did not jettison his apocalyptic expectations..................radically confirmed what Paul had already thought that the end was imminent." "for Paul the resurrection of the dead was about to occur and people needed to be ready." "for Paul the conversion of the Gentiles was the final major event in the history of the world before the end came." "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. "And the news of this salvation was to be delivered by.........Paul........."the apostle to the Gentiles." It is obvious that, as you agree, Jesus delivered the word of salvation, of God's kingdom about to be established, to Israel. And, given Ehrman and others, it is just as obvious that Paul's mission was the 'final major event' before the coming of God's Kingdom - as told by the prophets of Israel. Two moments or events in the same reality of salvation to ALL. Paul was in line with Jewish expectations! Nobody is debating the change in Paul's emphasis on faith in the messenger, Jesus Christ. We were discussing, however, Paul and the Jewish expectation extending to the Gentiles and Ehrman has confirmed that: Paul did not change it to an invitation to the Gentiles as that was in line with the Jewish expectation of God's Kingdom. I don't misunderstand at all. Apparently, the Gentiles were not the focus for Jesus which makes perfect sense because he came to announce the news to Israel - the first major event. That he didn't care is your opinion - on what is it based? I found this to be a surprise myself as I thought Matthew was a Jew who wrote for a Jewish audience but this (see above) appears to be what Ehrman is saying. Ehrman said by this time (later part of the 1st C) that Jewish Christianity was on the margins. However the 'few drops' scenario seems to be opinion. I am continuing to explore these points. Here we have a seeming difference with Ehrman. Does Saldarini (?) indicate precisely what in Matthew was softened? I am interested. I agree that Paul changed from the message to the messenger and I don't (didn't) think that Jesus thought of himself as the instrument of salvation of the Kingdom but Allison seems to indicate that it appears that Jesus had a high self-conception and might have thought of himself this way, as "the locus of the end-time scenario." Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service