Toto

This was what most of those OT prophets did - berate the Jews, because more was expected of them. Where do you see Jesus berating the gentiles?

The Pharisees were not especially zealous, and no more in favor of separation that other Jews.

But then you have

"Salvation is of the Jews." (John 4:22)

The gentile woman who had to compare herself to a dog getting the crumbs from the master's table, in Matthew 15:23-28

and other statements that I don't have time to look up now.

Even in the NT, it is only after Jesus' death that his disciples start to take the message to the gentiles, and that is based on spiritual movements, not on remembrance of what Jesus told them.

long winded fool

"Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

Peter Kirby

I have to give the early Christians some credit. They didn't invent some stuff that would be highly useful for a growing Gentile church, such as a saying of Jesus during his lifetime that stated "I want you guys to go to different countries and get the pagans to hear the gospel." No. In that, they were reserved, realizing that such a directive could only have come from the risen Christ, as Jesus the man didn't preach or advocate preaching for the repentance of Gentiles.

best,
Peter Kirby

long winded fool

On the contrary: From the Catholic Encyclopedia

Pharisees: A politico-religious sect or faction among the adherents of later Judaism, that came into existence as a class about the third century B.C. After the exile, Israel's monarchial form of government had become a thing of the past; in its place the Jews created a community which was half State, half Church. A growing sense of superiority to the heathen and idolatrous nations among whom their lot was cast came to be one of their main characteristics. They were taught insistently to separate themselves from their neighbours. "And now make confession to the Lord the God of your fathers, and do his pleasure, and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from your strange wives" (I Esd., x, 11). Intermarriage with the heathen was strictly forbidden and many such marriages previously contracted, even of priests, were dissolved in consequence of the legislation promulgated by Esdras. Such was the state of things in the third century when the newly introduced Hellenism threatened Judaism with destruction. The more zealous among the Jews drew apart calling themselves Chasidim or "pious ones", i.e., they dedicated themselves to the realization of the ideas inculcated by Esdras, the holy priest and doctor of the law. In the violent conditions incidental to the Machabean wars these "pious men", sometimes called the Jewish Puritans, became a distinct class. They were called Pharisees, meaning those who separated themselves from the heathen, and from the heathenizing forces and tendencies which constantly invaded the precincts of Judaism (I Mach., i, 11; II Mach., iv, 14 sq.; cf. Josephus Antiq., XII, v, 1).

Correction: "Salvation is from the Jews." And this was absolutely true. Jesus was a Jew.

How about this one: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near'."

The message was obviously meant first to be delivered to the Jews whom already had the law. I don't dispute this at all. Jesus' mission was not to preach to Gentiles, it was to preach to Jews, the lost children of Israel who had forgotten the spirit of the law, even if they had the letter. Teach them the New Covenant so that they can teach others. Preaching to Gentiles at that point in time likely would have gotten the apostles killed before Jesus' work was done. It was only after Christ had died and risen that they allowed themselves to take the risk.

Consider the parable of the Tenants: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. Last of all, he sent his son to them. 'They will respect my son,' he said. But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, "This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance." So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. "Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?"
"He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time."
Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:

'The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes'?

"Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."

The servants (Jewish prophets) were killed by the people they were trying to save, so the landowner sent His son, who was subsequently killed also. What happened? The kingdom was then rented to other tenants who could produce the fruit and Christianity became composed of mainly Gentiles. The parable of the Wedding Banquet has a similar theme. The invited ones bail, so the servants go out and invite anyone they see. A fairly clear indication that Jesus intended the Gentiles to hear the word, but only after it was first given to the Jews.

gregor

Mr. Long winded

You're talking past the premises on which rebuttals are based. Those are three: (i) Paul was the first to preach to the Gentiles as reflected in the most historically accepted NT books - including Galatians and Corinthians, (ii) James, Peter, and the Jerusalem church - as true heirs to Jesus' ministry - opposed such actions (See Galatians), and (iii) later interpolators in the gospels, who were pro-Paul and anti-James had to re-write the gospels - but they couldn't completely obliterate a known gospel.

There is no other reasonable way to explain the incongruous anti-Paulian bias of Matthew, the addition of Mark 16:9-20, the Luke/Acts inconsistency with Galatians, the great commission's edict coming from a risen Christ only, the warning that the 'Kingdom of God' coming before the apostles even get through all of the towns of Israel, and etc.

If you assume gospel inerrancy ab initio, then we haven't much to discuss.

long winded fool

The only rebuttal I'm addressing is the claim that there is no evidence that preaching to Gentiles was part of Jesus' desires for his word. The truth is that there is evidence for this very thing within the context of the story. Perhaps Jesus is a fictional character, but this character clearly meant for his ministry to be taught to Gentiles. He just didn't mean to preach to them himself. There is Biblical evidence of Jesus' motives and it strongly suggests that the Gentiles were explicitly in mind during his ministrations to the Jews of Israel.

If the man called Jesus of Nazareth never existed, then as you say there is nothing to discuss. If we assume for the sake of argument that he did and we accept massive ammount of historical evidence at face value and ignore the various conspiracy theories, then it is clear that Jesus, if no one else, meant for the Gentiles to hear the word after his death.

Peter Kirby

The idea that Jesus meant for his disciples to preach repentance for the Gentiles only after his death, as revealed in the statements of the risen Christ, is obviously the contrived explanation of a nascent Gentile church as to how they could be members when Jesus the man made his ministry to the circumcision and set down no clear precedent for Gentiles being part of the movement.

best,
Peter Kirby

long winded fool

Consider the parable of the Tenants: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. Last of all, he sent his son to them. 'They will respect my son,' he said. But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, "This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance." So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. "Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?"
"He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time."
Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:

'The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes'?

"Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."

The servants (Jewish prophets) were killed by the people they were trying to save, so the landowner sent His son, who was subsequently killed also. What happened? The kingdom was then rented to other tenants who could produce the fruit and Christianity became composed of mainly Gentiles. The parable of the Wedding Banquet has a similar theme. The invited ones bail, so the servants go out and invite anyone they see. A fairly clear indication that Jesus intended the Gentiles to hear the word, but only after it was first given to the Jews.

All together, you're right that Jesus' message was brought to the Jews first, but Jesus' teachings indicate that it was meant for all mankind, Jew and Gentile alike.

Soul Invictus

As a matter of fact, according to the scriptures, he specifically stated not to preach to the Jews. This coupled with the fact that Jesus would have been an adherent of Judaism (versus being a Christian), I am often wondering why we don't have more practicing Jews. Come on...wasn't Judaism the religion of his day?

Soul Invictus

A Jew is an adherent of the Jewish faith. Are you saying that Christians are Gentiles? I don't follow.