Chili

You canlt really blame the people if the Gospel of Matthew sends you right to hell.

storytime

Was Jesus a wicked priest as described in OT, that spoke falsehood thus providing a test for the Jews? Would the Jews remain loyal to their OT god in his established laws and covenant requirements, or would they depart from his word and worship another god[Jesus]? Jesus made himself equal to the OT god, instructed his disciples to call him Master and Lord, promised them life, not a hair of their head would be touched if they believed in him, promised that they would never die (compare the serpent's words to Eve in the Garden "thou shalt not surely die").

Jesus and his gospel turned many Jews away from their OT god. How was this possible as even the lay people of Judaism were supposed to have known the laws and prophet sayings that would have condemned their following another god[Jesus]?

Let me see if I can give an example of the bible story in comparison to U.S. constitutional format - We have one U.S. President - the Bush god. Now if another man(Fred Thompson) decides to declare himself president and an equal god to Bush, and without being elected by the people, what are we to think? Should we take Fred seriously and follow him thus busting the constitional process, or tell Fred to immediately see a psychiatrist?

Sorry, that's the best example I could think of at the moment. :wave:

Chadley Krakka

Jesus did not know of other nations at the time because while he is also God, he is still restricted to his own human nature. It is only after the crucifixion that he became all-knowing. (note: This is how my Christian mentor, or some website answered about Jesus' nature). Anyway, it doesn't matter whether Jesus knows or not. The command that Jesus gave in the ending of the gospel of Matthew is clear: Go make disciples of all nations. He didn't say only Israel or Middle East.

Firstly, it is impossible to please everyone. Even Jesus is unable to accomplish that. Secondly, it is all part of a great plan. God's plan was to show his power and glory through Paul, who was an enemy of the faith.

Actually, one of the messages that Jesus was trying to bring to people of his time is that they should not be so legalistic. The Law of God is not just about "Don't do this but do that", it is about moral meaning. We should understand what morality is and it would guide our actions. (This is what I recently learnt when I questioned a pastor as to why do Christians choose not to follow laws like stoning a person for breaking the sabbath).

Jesus would only be ministering on Earth for 3 years before he's crucified as part of the great plan by God/himself. This is why he teaches his disciples instead of focusing on that particular task himself.

Joan of Bark

Sorry to disappoint you, Chadley, but this statement of yours:

is contradicted by Jesus himself:

Matthew 10:5 (NIV)

Matthew 15:24 (NIV)

The passages you are referring to, which occur near the end of the synoptic gospels, are almost certainly interpolations from the followers of Paul, who wished to provide divine support for the inclusion of gentiles into this new sect called Christianity. We know that the last twelve verses of Mark (where Jesus is purported to have said: "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.") are not in the most reliable early manuscripts -- and Matthew and Luke are based on Mark.

Chadley Krakka

Actually, I know how to answer this. From what my ex-mentor told me, salvation shall come to the Jews first. Simply, God’s promises to Abraham stated that through him all the nations would be blessed. After Christ came to fulfill the promises made to Abraham he then sent forth his disciples such as Paul to bless the Gentiles by offering them the hope of the Gospel. It is best not to take the verse out of context, so below's the paragraph that contained Matthew 15:24.

"And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, 'Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.' But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, 'Send her away, for she is crying out after us.' He answered, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' But she came and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, help me.’ And he answered, 'It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.' She said, 'Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.' Then Jesus answered her, 'O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.' And her daughter was healed instantly. Jesus went on from there and walked beside the Sea of Galilee. And he went up on the mountain and sat down there. And great crowds came to him, bringing with them the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute, and many others, and they put them at his feet, and he healed them, so that the crowd wondered, when they saw the mute speaking, the crippled healthy, the lame walking, and the blind seeing. And they glorified the God of Israel." Matthew 15:23-31

The "dogs" referred to the Gentiles. Thus what Jesus meant was that he would put his priority on the Jews, and later on his disciples, especially Paul, would move on to the Gentiles.

It would merely be speculation if you said the verses are interpolations from the followers of the Apostle Paul. Are there any scholarship support that the original gospels had been modified? Not so. The New Testament has a vast number of ancient manuscripts where scholars compared and found to be over 99% consistent with each other. If the gospels had been modified over time, it would be much less consistent wouldn't it?

Also, I might want to point out some double standards. A Creationist who pointed out a problem in the Evolution theory would most likely be accusing of invoking the God of the Gaps argument, while the skeptic has no problem questioning alleged contradictions in the Bible and conclude that it must be false. The Bible should be treated like how criminals are treated in court: Innocent until proven guilty.

Joan of Bark

Response to Chadley ...

True enough, but it makes a lot of sense when one considers that the passages were interpolations that contradict Jesus' own statements.

Absolutely! Even the NIV admits that

For more on this subject, I suggest Misquoting Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Bart D. Ehrman, a textual critic that posters on this board are familiar with. In his book he claims that there are about 5700 original NT manuscripts, with at least 200,000 discrepencies. While he admits that most of them are insignificant wrt doctrine, that still leaves a large number of serious disagreements between the manuscripts.

Quoting contradictions merely means that at least one of the statements is false. Besides, the Bible is supposed to be the word of God -- there should be no contradictions.

gdeering

Just to add one note - as has been said before: The amazing thing is that there are so few errors after centuries of coping. Which only highlights the fact many non-trivial changes must have been made to purposely alter content.

The ending of Mark is something else, hardly “scribal error.”


Gregg

Jayrok

Is there biblical support for Jesus being "restricted" to a human nature, as well as support that teaches the he only became "all-knowing" after the crucifixion? Or is this just a guess?

Luke writes that Caesar Augustus sent a decree that all the world would be taxed. He didn't say only the Roman Empire, yet he didn't collect taxes from inhabitants of the Americas. Perhaps Matthew's Jesus only meant the whole world as in Palestine and surrounding provinces.


People from other cultures and religions of history lived moral lives and they've never heard of Jesus or the Hebrew God. What makes anyone think that it took Jesus to come to Earth to teach morality?

If moral living is what God wanted all along why not just point everyone of his people to emulate other gentle cultures/religions like Buddhists?


Jesus kept teaching after his resurrection. Some of his own disciples didn't even believe he had risen until he physically showed his scars (Thomas). And it took him physically (or a spiritual vision) revealing himself to Paul on the road to Damascus for Paul to believe... and Paul, as you say, was God's real chosen plan to spread his word to the world.

So if it took Jesus to prove himself after his resurrection to the key components of his plan, why wouldn't he continue this and reveal himself to others who are willing to accept if they only could believe?

Paul and Thomas didn't need faith, they needed proof. And they got it. Why can't the rest of us get it?

Chili

Until crucifixion Jesus was torn between two natures of which one had to die, yes, and later be placed subservient to the God nature. The crucifixion made the move into the upper room possible wherein the disciples are [to be] recalled so that reason can prevail.

That is censorship by natural law when the whole world is placed subordinate to heaven in the mind of the believer. Remember here that the world is the illusion when heaven is real in the same way that life is an illusion when eternal life is real.

huff

nice post jayrok, i have never even considered that!