thormas

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?

51 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I'm wondering it that's all that most of the first Christians had as well. There's this guy Jesus whose spirit can help people out and be a real good thing, and that's it. Seems like the "good news" didn't always have to be this elaborate and complicated thing. People got the faith and some belief and took it from there. It' the belief and faith that counts, not all this blah-blah-blah that we are sometimes subjected to. Nobody had a New Testament, it hadn't even been written yet, but I think they had something good and real going for them all the same.

Seems the 1st Christians had the resurrection experience/insight, however we imagine that.

5 hours ago, thormas said:

Again, any outreach of Jesus to the gentiles is omitted from the NT

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.  

Just now, Elen1107 said:

I agree with you. I hope people leave them alone and just let them have their lives that seem to be a lot better and more sensible than ours, especially since we don't know what we are doing with Christianity right now too. It's like we don't have much if anything to offer them, except maybe that there's this guy Jesus whose spirit can help people out and be a good thing. But that's it, don't tell them anything else, it will just mix them up and make them as messed up as we are.

Agreed.

1 minute ago, Elen1107 said:

I don't know if I can quite explain what I am thinking or my insight into things.

Jesus is eternal. He's an eternal human being, or a human being who became eternal. He is today living in the "Kingdom" of heaven. He also touches and reaches us, living here in this world.

Like wise, the more we are touched by him and his spirit, the more we understand him, the more we enter the "kingdom". The more our understanding changes and we really see which way is up and which way is down, the more we accept his insight  to become our true selves in Christ, the more we enter the "Kingdom".

The "kingdom" might be more in the realm of understanding, spirituality and insight than something we see outside of ourselves like buildings and governments and perhaps even church buildings, and worldly priorities and so forth. A simple person living in caring and kindness might be more in or "higher" in the kingdom of heaven, than the richest most money minded top dog leader as far as this outer "world" is concerned.

I think that we can enter the eternal kingdom as we live our lives here and today. It doesn't need to be a big ta-da here on earth, (though it can be a wonderful ta-da in one's own hearth and spiritual understanding of things).

In this sense the kingdom has been established, it is eternal, and people, all people can enter it. That everyone doesn't see it, well, maybe they are not looking for it or they need to be shown it a bit or something.

I don't know everything, but I hope some of this makes some sense anyways.

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.

4 hours ago, Burl said:

Matthew 10:17-20 continues to say the disciples will eventually bear witness to the Romans and the Gentiles.

Matthew 10:5-6 indicates the disciples are to go to only the most accepting of Jewish households first in order to avoid being persecuted out of business before accumulating critical mass.

These verses would seem to be a matter of ensuring the first seeds of Jesus’ church were planted in fertile ground rather than a restriction of the message.

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. 

13 minutes ago, Burl said:

Maybe we can compromise and just preach to the Amazon Primes.

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.

13 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Just a thought, but if the news about Jesus needs to be preached to all the people's of the earth before God's kingdom can come,... Well we've just now, in the past 50 years or so, discovered people/tribes living in the Amazon. . . . . So if the news and message about Jesus needs to be spoken to or shared with everyone first,... That would be a relatively recent event.

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.

7 minutes ago, Burl said:

Matthew 10:17-20 continues to say the disciples will eventually bear witness to the Romans and the Gentiles.

Matthew 10:5-6 indicates the disciples are to go to only the most accepting of Jewish households first in order to avoid being persecuted out of business before accumulating critical mass.

These verses would seem to be a matter of ensuring the first seeds of Jesus’ church were planted in fertile ground rather than a restriction of the message.

Thanks.

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

I know, but I just discussing this with you, not writing a paper for university.  I don't have time to trawl back through dozens of books and blog posts to quote for you.  I have made some quotes, as have you - I have made some opinion statements and outlined my reasoning.  There isn't a scholar to accurately quote for every thought on these matters.

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.

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

Again, any outreach of Jesus to the gentiles is omitted from the NT, as is any opinion of James and Peter, or the Council.  That seems a little more than convenient for Paul's writings which make up the bulk of the early Christian bible.  But that doesn't seem to hinder you from believing they all fall into line with Paul.  For me, the balance of probability lies with the evidence that is provided, not speculation of what is not.  Jesus never invited gentiles to the kingdom - that should be telling enough.  But on top of that we see that Judaism (prior to and up to Jesus' existence) never invited gentiles into the coming Kingdom but expected them to be coerced into the kingdom by their all-conquering God.  We see nothing of James, the head of the Jerusalem church encouraging broadening the message to the gentiles (other than Paul's account of winning an argument about Jewish law - which is a bit suss if you read Erhman - Erhman thinks he lost the argument) and no examples of James' doing so.  And we have just some noted groups such as the Ebionites who thought Paul was a false prophet - not that he had an element of the message wrong (whether to follow Jewish law or not) but complete disregard for him as a false prophet.  The weight of evidence is simply against Paul and Jesus agreeing that Jesus' message should also be extended to gentiles.  It is a Pauline development (probably helped with earlier developments by somebody).

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? 

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

As I've mentioned earlier, the entire book of Isaiah is directed at Israel, other than possibly the couple of verses that might be interpreted to mean that everybody will share equally in the Kingdom (after it has come and the powers that be have been overthrown).  It just doesn't marry up with the rest of Isaiah or Jewish expectations of a military messiah coming to defeat the gentiles and restore Israel to the seat of power.  I say the Disciples stayed true to Jesus by continuing to preach to the Jews because that's indeed who Jesus' message was for  - it's just that Paul went a different direction to them (and Jesus) and created his own understanding of who Jesus' teachings were for (not necessarily original to Paul in its entirety, but not of Jesus nonetheless).

Consider Isaiah 60 -  foreigners will build up your (Israel's) walls, their kings shall minister to them (i.e. subservience), nations shall bring you their wealth, with their kings led in procession, for the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish.  Doesn't sound like a one-size-fits-all kingdom to me.  Israel will be the boss and those gentiles that submit will survive in the kingdom.  Isaiah is replete with the message of subordination of foreigners.  They weren't being invited into the Kingdom - it was going to happen, irrespective.

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. 

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

That was his focus because the promise was ONLY ever made to the 'people of God'.  It was never a promise or an invitation to the gentiles.  That is clear in the scriptures, old and new.

Peter possibly did make it to Rome but it is likely he wasn't there until some 20-30 years after Jesus died.  I can entertain that his beliefs had modified since immediately following Jesus' death.  Perhaps the success of Paul, following their disputes in Jerusalem, caused him to rethink his views.  Who knows.  

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.

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

As a slight aside - how do you interpret Matthew 10:5-6 where Jesus says to his disciples "“Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans,  but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel".  If Jesus thought his message was for all, why not simply say that and encourage his disciples to share it amongst all?  Following the principle of occam's razor, that would seem a pretty logical conclusion if indeed Jesus did think his message was actually for everybody.  Why the dodge?

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.

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

I know, but I just discussing this with you, not writing a paper for university.  I don't have time to trawl back through dozens of books and blog posts to quote for you.  I have made some quotes, as have you - I have made some opinion statements and outlined my reasoning.  There isn't a scholar to accurately quote for every thought on these matters.

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.

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

Again, any outreach of Jesus to the gentiles is omitted from the NT, as is any opinion of James and Peter, or the Council.  That seems a little more than convenient for Paul's writings which make up the bulk of the early Christian bible.  But that doesn't seem to hinder you from believing they all fall into line with Paul.  For me, the balance of probability lies with the evidence that is provided, not speculation of what is not.  Jesus never invited gentiles to the kingdom - that should be telling enough.  But on top of that we see that Judaism (prior to and up to Jesus' existence) never invited gentiles into the coming Kingdom but expected them to be coerced into the kingdom by their all-conquering God.  We see nothing of James, the head of the Jerusalem church encouraging broadening the message to the gentiles (other than Paul's account of winning an argument about Jewish law - which is a bit suss if you read Erhman - Erhman thinks he lost the argument) and no examples of James' doing so.  And we have just some noted groups such as the Ebionites who thought Paul was a false prophet - not that he had an element of the message wrong (whether to follow Jewish law or not) but complete disregard for him as a false prophet.  The weight of evidence is simply against Paul and Jesus agreeing that Jesus' message should also be extended to gentiles.  It is a Pauline development (probably helped with earlier developments by somebody).

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? 

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

As I've mentioned earlier, the entire book of Isaiah is directed at Israel, other than possibly the couple of verses that might be interpreted to mean that everybody will share equally in the Kingdom (after it has come and the powers that be have been overthrown).  It just doesn't marry up with the rest of Isaiah or Jewish expectations of a military messiah coming to defeat the gentiles and restore Israel to the seat of power.  I say the Disciples stayed true to Jesus by continuing to preach to the Jews because that's indeed who Jesus' message was for  - it's just that Paul went a different direction to them (and Jesus) and created his own understanding of who Jesus' teachings were for (not necessarily original to Paul in its entirety, but not of Jesus nonetheless).

Consider Isaiah 60 -  foreigners will build up your (Israel's) walls, their kings shall minister to them (i.e. subservience), nations shall bring you their wealth, with their kings led in procession, for the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish.  Doesn't sound like a one-size-fits-all kingdom to me.  Israel will be the boss and those gentiles that submit will survive in the kingdom.  Isaiah is replete with the message of subordination of foreigners.  They weren't being invited into the Kingdom - it was going to happen, irrespective.

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.

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

That was his focus because the promise was ONLY ever made to the 'people of God'.  It was never a promise or an invitation to the gentiles.  That is clear in the scriptures, old and new.

Peter possibly did make it to Rome but it is likely he wasn't there until some 20-30 years after Jesus died.  I can entertain that his beliefs had modified since immediately following Jesus' death.  Perhaps the success of Paul, following their disputes in Jerusalem, caused him to rethink his views.  Who knows.  

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.  

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

As a slight aside - how do you interpret Matthew 10:5-6 where Jesus says to his disciples "“Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans,  but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel".  If Jesus thought his message was for all, why not simply say that and encourage his disciples to share it amongst all?  Following the principle of occam's razor, that would seem a pretty logical conclusion if indeed Jesus did think his message was actually for everybody.  Why the dodge?

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.

8 hours ago, PaulS said:

Years ago, I couldn't even entertain somebody behaving and saying so many stupid things like this, much less the President of the United States.  I have to say, as an outsider I am flabbergasted so many Americans accept it and worse, defend it.  I am genuinely curious to see how the US will vote in November.

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. 

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.

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. 

15 hours ago, PaulS said:

 

15 hours ago, PaulS said:

 

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. 

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.

14 hours ago, PaulS said:

You are reading too much into Erhman I think.

"for Paul the conversion of the Gentiles was the final major event in the history of the world before the end came."  For Paul!  I don't think anybody else saw it that way - Jesus and James included.

"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.".  At the end of time, not before it.  And at the end, they will be saved if they capitulated to the God of Israel.  They were not being 'invited' into the Kingdom.  The prophets (Isaiah) were prophesying the end results after God had intervened.  There was no talk in Isaiah or other Jewish expectations about gentiles 'preparing' for the end times.  I think you misread 'Jewish expectations' in this regard.

There's a reason Jesus didn't preach to the gentiles, didn't go on a mission to gentile nations during his 3 years, and reasons James as the head of the christian church wasn't pro-preaching to the Gentiles.  Paul was the creator of this new view.

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? 

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

You are missing my point.  It is not that Jesus didn't think gentiles would eventually be in the coming Kingdom, but HOW that looked to Jesus was different to Paul.  Jesus expected gentiles to be dominated by God at world's end and to THEN  join the kingdom, but in no way equal to God's chosen people who would be the rulers.  Jesus wasn't interested in telling the 'good news' of the Kingdom to the Gentiles because they were not Jews, God would sort them out, and then those that capitulated would live under the God of Israel's rule.  It is a completely different understanding than that of Paul's.

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? 

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

Because the message of Jesus wasn't for them - that's why it was a surprise that they took to it!  Rather than being offended that Jesus didn't care that they were to be overthrown by the God of Israel, the Gentiles accepted the modified message and ran with 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. 

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

Absolutely - outside of the teachings and intentions of Jesus.

Outside his preaching to the Jews - yes. Outside his intentions is reading into Jesus.

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

Depends which Jew you ask I guess.  The largest Jewish opinion was that even if one converted to Judaism, they weren't a true Jew, a true member of the chosen people of the God of Israel.  But they were accepted to a lesser degree.  This later became irrelevant as Jewish Christianity took hold.

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.

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.' 

7 hours ago, PaulS said:

No, the Jews only believed all nations would be included in the context that entering the kingdom wasn't something gentiles would need to be prepared for - they would either capitulate and join the new kingdom or they would be annihilated.  There was no invitation being extended to them either according to Jewish expectations or Jesus.  Paul changed this picture.  I'm pointing to things like the disagreement and fallout with James, the lack of any other side of the story in the NT (which by the time it was being written had a large gentile influence) and early Christian groups like the Ebionites that were anti-Paul.  I don't think they were anti-Paul just because he said gentiles didn't need to follow Jewish law, but rather it was because he was working with gentiles and inviting them into the Jewish kingdom.

It is not evident at all that the Ebionites were at odds with their own scriptures, but it is clear that you think they are.  I think you misinterpret and misunderstand Jewish expectations of the kingdom.  I think Jesus is more aligned to those, but Paul much less so.

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. 

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

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

The early Christian Ebionites revered James the Just, brother of Jesus; and rejected Paul as a false apostle.  

Interestingly, Wikipedia (I know how you love that source  ) says that "while the Church Fathers consider the Ebionites identical with other Jewish Christian sects, such as the Nazarenes; some modern scholars argue that not only were the Ebionites a distinct sect, but they have may been the most faithful inheritors of the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus.

So for me, not unusual that they reject Paul who was preaching to the Gentiles.  It wasn't true to Jesus' teaching.

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.

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

And this from a Google search of 'her' (Paula's) book "Paul, The Pagan's Apostle" (she wasn't saying Paul was a pagan):

One of Fredriksen’s innovations in this book is her historical reconstruction of the early Jesus movement. The book argues that the apocalyptic message of the historical Jesus did not include gentiles, and thus early followers of Jesus were initially surprised at gentiles’ acceptance of their message. The gentiles who heard the message hospitably in Fredriksen’s reconstruction were participants in diaspora Jewish synagogues who worshipped God but also continued to worship other gods; in other words, “god-fearers” rather than proselytes. Fredriksen asserts that apostles had to develop policies for gentile inclusion in the early Jesus movement, and Paul’s writings to gentiles (“ex-pagan pagans”) in his communities participate in these larger efforts of gentile inclusion, entering into a conversation that pre-dated him.

So again, we see evidence that Jesus' message was not for Gentiles, but that it became part of a later drive post-Jesus and his preaching.

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?

16 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think Jesus' expectation was more in line with Jewish expectations - a dominance by the God of Israel that would submit their enemies when the Kingdom of God arrived, whereas Paul was changing it to an invitation to Gentiles (not in line with Jewish expectations)

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.

3 minutes ago, Pipiripi said:

Okay, one thing more we are the FEW remnant people that holding completely to the Bible wors Biblical. So for a better understanding we are the people of Revelation 14:12 and 12:17. We are the FEW that can preached the Everlasting Gospel to the World.

Good luck with that effort................

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

I guess we will have to put the sensationalism and repeating headlines aside and wait for more scientific evidence to answer the real question of how long antibodies remain effective in keeping one immune to a repeat of the virus.

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.

1 hour ago, Burl said:

There were many early forms of Christianity.  The Ebionites were probably the most ‘Jewish’. 

Ehrman is the best introduction to early Christianities imo.

Agreed

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

I disagree.  I think Jesus' expectation was more in line with Jewish expectations - a dominance by the God of Israel that would submit their enemies when the Kingdom of God arrived, whereas Paul was changing it to an invitation to Gentiles (not in line with Jewish expectations) and further that the way to enter the Kingdom was to believe in Jesus and his Resurrection (again, definitely not Jewish expectations).  No 'belief' in a Messiah was required for entry into the Kingdom in Jewish expectations.  Jesus believed you entered the Kingdom by being a good Jew and following Jewish law (as Jesus interpreted such law and not the pedantic practices it had become).  Following Jewish law was not something gentiles were expected to do, unless it was via submission and dominance by Israel.

"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.

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think you misunderstand Jewish expectations through your interpretation of Isaiah.  Later Christian communities did indeed begin to include gentiles, but I don't think this was Jesus' intention.  He didn't care about them.

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?

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

I don't think the synoptics were written for gentiles or for Jews specifically.  By that stage gentiles were a part of the story, but I think their involvement still needed legitimizing to the Jewish part of the audience, hence the few drops added to the Jesus story.

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.

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

The Matthean community is understood to have evolved within Judaism so has strong Jewish roots.  E.g. "Saldarini (1994:21) has remarked: 'The author of Matthew … is most probably a Jew who, though expelled from the assembly in his city, still identifies himself as a member of the Jewish community'.  So whilst Matthew's message is softened to include gentiles but it is primarily written with Jews in mind.  Luke less so - again, still strong connection to Judaism but he lives in southrn greece and has a more gentile audience than Matthew.

Here we have a seeming difference with Ehrman. Does Saldarini (?) indicate precisely what in Matthew was softened? I am interested.

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think he changed Jesus' message to include gentiles.  I don;'t think that was ever Jesus' intention, as previously mentioned.

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