NT Wright on women preachers

[PaulS]

9 hours ago, thormas said:

Don't worry, I can take it.

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. 

Which parables from Mark, the earliest gospel?  I think it is much more likely, and would indeed appear to be the case, that the very few references to gentiles in the kingdom mentioned in Matthew & Luke may simply be the authors own view - later stories that simply don't marry up with the vast majority of the reported actions of Jesus?  

9 hours ago, thormas said:

We have established he didn't preach to them because he came to announce the good news to the people of God. It might seem a stretch to you but that was the mission and he apparently took it seriously right to the end.

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.

9 hours ago, thormas said:

*I get that you have issues with Paul of the NT (that he took Christianity in a way contrary to what Jesus preached) but you seem to allow that have an adverse impact on your understanding that the sole focus of Jesus on the Jews did not necessarily mean that "he wasn't interested in gentiles."  They were simply and understandably were not his focus. 

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.

9 hours ago, thormas said:

Can you point to any scholars who is this definitive? I am curious.

I'm yet to find a scholar who talks about this either way as a definitive.

9 hours ago, thormas said:

*p.s. that is the equivalent of you saying I read into Ehrman 😜

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

 

[thormas]

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.

 

[PaulS]

2 hours 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 Edit> I'm sorry, these are Canaanite areas. I don't always do so well when just typing from memory.

Areas populated by Jews.  Jews and gentiles didn't mix.  It's a stretch to think that all of a sudden there are crowds of them all co-mingling.

[PaulS]

2 minutes ago, thormas said:

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

You are saying something that you interpret them as saying.

[PaulS]

2 hours 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.

It is most likely that later gospel authors such as Matthew and Luke, who had an element of gentile audiences, would have added gentile-friendly stories about Jesus to fit their own personal beliefs.  As I have mentioned, these stories simply don't exist in Mark, our earliest Gospel, that Matthew and Luke build on.

[thormas]

2 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Which parables from Mark, the earliest gospel?  I think it is much more likely, and would indeed appear to be the case, that the very few references to gentiles in the kingdom mentioned in Matthew & Luke may simply be the authors own view - later stories that simply don't marry up with the vast majority of the reported actions of Jesus?  

 

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 :+}

[thormas]

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.

[PaulS]

28 minutes ago, thormas said:

I gave you the reference above. 

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).

28 minutes ago, thormas said:

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.

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'.

Quote

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.

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...

24 minutes ago, thormas said:

Actually, I'm not as I still have lots of questions and have made no definitive conclusion - as if that is possible.

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.

[JosephM]

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

The Mark examples?  What, the single story where Jesus likens the gentile woman to a dog?  What other Markan examples are you drawing on to conclude an emphasis on a global mission being in accordance with Jesus' teaching?  And in our earlier sources of Mark there was no command to preach the gospel to the world.  This seems to be a later edition.  I wonder why.

You have to read it in context with Mathew 15. We see in this passage that Jesus does not in fact call the Gentile woman “a dog” or even “a little dog.”  Rather, He compares the situation of conflicting needs to the situation of hungry children sitting at a food-laden table with hungry little dogs underneath, and says that the children at the table must be fed first—to explain why He cannot accompany her to her home.  His willingness to grant her second and amended request shows His great love for her, and for all the children of men.  That love even bridged the gap between Jew and Gentile, giving to the Canaanite woman in advance what would later come to all the Gentiles of the world.

Also the Roman Centurion was not a Jew and he granted his wish. 

 

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

All men meaning all Jews.  That's how they were referring to God's people.

Perhaps your definition of all?  Read the Greek and the rest of the Gospels  and you might get a better understanding of what was meant. I guess you think when he said all the world he only meant all of Israel even though they are 2 different Greek words! 😄

 

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

I disagree.  I think one has to try and thread that together rather than just accept the relatively obvious - Jesus wasn't interested in preaching to the gentiles.

Disagreement is okay. But the fact is his mission was to the Jews but both in parables and in other quotations he asked his followers to go into all the world with the gospel. Unless of course you want to cherry pick and assume you know Jesus and his plan. 🙂

 

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

I agree.  It seems to me though that the argument for Jesus outreaching to all is taken out of context wherever it is considered (later endings to Mark, calling a gentile woman a dog actually meaning the Kingdom was equally for them, etc).

With all the good works he did it is and his follow through on the 2 recorded Gentile incidents and the context of the word "little dog" from the Greek you might understand he wasn't trying to offend her but had othger plans at the time but after seeing her persistence and faith granted her wish.

[PaulS]

3 hours ago, JosephM said:

You have to read it in context with Mathew 15. We see in this passage that Jesus does not in fact call the Gentile woman “a dog” or even “a little dog.”  Rather, He compares the situation of conflicting needs to the situation of hungry children sitting at a food-laden table with hungry little dogs underneath, and says that the children at the table must be fed first—to explain why He cannot accompany her to her home.  His willingness to grant her second and amended request shows His great love for her, and for all the children of men.  That love even bridged the gap between Jew and Gentile, giving to the Canaanite woman in advance what would later come to all the Gentiles of the world.

Why do you 'have' to?  Because it won't harmonize if you don't?  You don't entertain the notion that Matthew, following Mark and living in a more gentile community, might have softened the message somewhat?

Quote

Also the Roman Centurion was not a Jew and he granted his wish. 

Not in Mark he didn't.  I don't think that's an omission.  I would lean toward Matthew, with a more gentile audience, adding such a story.

Quote

Perhaps your definition of all?  Read the Greek and the rest of the Gospels  and you might get a better understanding of what was meant. I guess you think when he said all the world he only meant all of Israel even though they are 2 different Greek words! 😄

I know when I use the word 'all' I sometimes don't actually mean everybody in the world, but rather the audience to which I am talking.  It is in this context that I can easily imagine Jesus only referring to the Jews in his audience as the 'all' he is referring to.

Quote

Disagreement is okay. But the fact is his mission was to the Jews but both in parables and in other quotations he asked his followers to go into all the world with the gospel. Unless of course you want to cherry pick and assume you know Jesus and his plan. 🙂

It's not cherry picking but are you ignoring that Jesus never does that in Mark?  You don't entertain that later authors to Mark built on the Jesus story with their own interpretation and perhaps influence from Pauline Christianity?  

Quote

With all the good works he did it is and his follow through on the 2 recorded Gentile incidents and the context of the word "little dog" from the Greek you might understand he wasn't trying to offend her but had othger plans at the time but after seeing her persistence and faith granted her wish.

I think it is a tiny hook that you are hanging the hat on.  What was the actual aramaic word that Jesus most likely used?

To me, what seems more reasonable - a Jesus who in Mark never mentions preaching to the gentiles and never says the Kingdom is equally for the gentiles, versus a Jesus that becomes harmonized with Paul and other gospel authors that follow and build on Mark?  And this is the face of the Prophets who never prophesied going out and sharing the 'good news' with the world, but rather predicting a apocalypse during which the God of Israel would destroy the enemies of Israel (not much good news for them) and after some gentiles would survive in the Kingdom.  But they don't seem to share an equal part in the Kingdom according to Jesus, because it's not them but Jews (the disciples) who sit on the 12 thrones. 

I simply don't understand this insistence to make the story fit when clearly, to me, it doesn't.  For me, it doesn't detract from an even better message than Jesus's, that is that all people should think of living in a Kingdom rather than some having power over others.  It's just that Jesus, the very human Jew, was limited in this area because he thought the message was for Jews only.

[thormas]

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?

[thormas]

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.

 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2020 by thormas

[JosephM]

9 hours ago, PaulS said:

Why do you 'have' to?  Because it won't harmonize if you don't?  You don't entertain the notion that Matthew, following Mark and living in a more gentile community, might have softened the message somewhat?

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.

 

[thormas]

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.

 

[JosephM]

PS: I meant to add but forgot in my post above this one ...

 In Matthew 15:21–28, Jesus encounters a Canaanite (Syrophoenician) woman who begs Him to cure her daughter. Jesus initially refuses her request by saying, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs” (Matthew 15:26). Taken out of context, and especially in English, it’s easy to mistake this for an insult. In the flow of the story, however, it’s clear Jesus is creating a metaphor meant to explain the priorities of His ministry. He is also teaching an important lesson to His disciples.

Jews in Jesus’ day sometimes referred to Gentiles as “dogs.” In Greek, this word is kuon, meaning “wild cur” (Matthew 7:6; Luke 16:21; Philippians 3:2). Non-Jews were considered so unspiritual that even being in their presence could make a person ceremonially unclean (John 18:28). Much of Jesus’ ministry, however, involved turning expectations and prejudices on their heads (Matthew 11:19; John 4:9–10). According to Matthew’s narrative, Jesus left Israel and went into Tyre and Sidon, which was Gentile territory (Matthew 15:21). When the Canaanite woman approached and repeatedly asked for healing, the disciples were annoyed and asked Jesus to send her away (Matthew 15:23).

At this point, Jesus explained His current ministry in a way that both the woman and the watching disciples could understand. At that time, His duty was to the people of Israel, not to the Gentiles (Matthew 15:24). Recklessly taking His attention from Israel, in violation of His mission, would be like a father taking food from his children in order to throw it to their pets (Matthews 15:26). The exact word Jesus used here, in Greek, was kunarion, meaning “small dog” or “pet dog.” This is a completely different word from the term kuon, used to refer to unspiritual people or to an “unclean” animal.

And the important part .... he granted her wish.

[Burl]

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?

[thormas]

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?

[Burl]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Which question?

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

[thormas]

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 :+}

[PaulS]

11 hours ago, thormas said:

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?

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.

[PaulS]

10 hours 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.

 

To the contrary Joseph, some of the best scholarly work done on the bible has resulted in not looking at the bible collaboratively but rather trying to look at the individual writers on their merits, in their own particular societal and culture settings, at different moments throughout history.  Matthew is acknowledged as having different influences than Mark.  This is important and cannot be overlooked when discussing what 'the' NT means.  It just doesn't stand to reason that these must be viewed collaboratively, or more to the point, viewed collaboratively in all that they say.  Getting to the bottom of what each individual is trying to say is more important, I think.

If you read the Gospel of Mark for instance, Jesus did not train Apostles to go out into the world and he in fact specifically advised them to NOT go to the gentiles.  And whilst you say Jesus did not specifically exclude the Gentiles, he did nothing in the Gospel of Mark to include them and in fact, referred to them ( a woman at the well) as a dog.  Big, little or otherwise.

It may be enough for you to not to want to discuss what was actual and what was not in Jesus day.  For me, I feel that I can't just write my views off in order to make it easier to harmonise some sort of spiritual message that one thinks I should learn.  Each to their own I say.  Indeed the debates may be endless, but to me, that is no reason to not debate and search for the truth.  Scholars have made huge, huge breakthroughs in understanding scripture in just the last 50 years.  Who imagines what could come next with further debate, discussion and understanding.

You are convinced of what you are convinced of concerning the Kingdom.  That works for you and am I glad.  For me, I think Jesus was preaching a physical kingdom about to arrive and physically reinstate itself on the planet earth.  What that can mean for modern day people is of interest to me, and hence I discuss it in a debate forum.

[thormas]

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

 

 

[PaulS]

6 hours ago, Burl said:

What am I missing?

The debate around the question.

[PaulS]

2 hours ago, thormas said:

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???

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.

[thormas]

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.