Freethought & Rationalism Archive

storytime · 11-26-2009, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

But Jesus seemed to believe that the Jews were the elect.

Christ has no interest in the gentiles, and shares the common Jewish attitude toward them. As Constantin Brunner puts it:

What the Galileans themselves thought about the gentiles can be seen from the Gospels: the Galileans thought like the rest of the Jews, and the Jews thought of the gentiles as the Greeks did of the barbarians, without, however, arriving at such severity of judgement as Aristotle, for instance, with his assertion that the barbarians are the born slaves of the Greeks; the eventual admission of all gentiles into the kingdom of Jahve is an essentially fundamental idea in Judaism. But Christ does not think of this; he looks exclusively to his time and place, not to the gentiles, not to the future, and does not think of wanting to be the redeemer of mankind. This was not in his consciousness, for his consciousness was that of the perfect mystic. And plainly, Christ’s thoughts about the gentiles are exceptionally hard and dismissive. In this matter he would appear to fall far short of the great prophets, were it not borne in mind that, as a mystic, he actually does not think about the gentiles at all, and therefore speaks about them entirely in accordance with the blindness of his surroundings, as a Jew to whom the gentiles certainly presented themselves badly enough at that time and to whom the heathen nature had to be an abomination.--Our Christ, p. 432.

I agree, Jesus is portrayed as having no interest in Gentiles in his statement "I am sent to none but the lost sheep in the house of Israel." Christians[Gentiles] override this obvious exclusion of themselves by relying on Peter's vision of Gentile inclusion.

I disagree with Brunner's thought that Gentile inclusion is an esentually fundamental idea in Judaism. That would be, should it be true, the recipe for disaster in it's ability to wipe out "Jewish" as name, and tradition altogether. The two, Judaism and Gentilism[Christianity] cannot stand as one. That is a no no, not ever. Or at least not anytime soon.

aa5874 · 11-26-2009, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David_M

.... The statement "The disciples went into hiding" does mean ALL the disciples unless you qualify it to exclude people, which you never did until challenged.

Well, if "the disciples" means "all the disciples" then was not Peter also hiding for fear of the Jews based on John 20.19?

oh 20:19 -

Quote:

Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

It MUST noted that Peter was not excluded from John 20.19 when Jesus appeared in the evening of the first day of the week.

Only one of the twelve named Thomas/ Didymus was excluded.

Joh 20:24 -

Quote:

But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

Based on your claim that "the disciples" means "all the disciples", Peter, one of the twelve, was hiding for fear of the Jews on the evening of the first day when Jesus appeared since only Didymus was excluded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David_M

You have failed to establish that the disciples have fled, the only textual support mentions then fleeing the crowd that arrests Jesus. You have extended this to general fleeing and hiding without textual support.

It is claimed that all the disciples FLED in gMatthew.

Mt 26:56 -

Quote:

But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

It is claimed in the NT that the disciples were in hiding for fear of the Jews, Peter not excluded.

John 20:19 -

Quote:

Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

It is claimed in the Gospels, the Good News that those who visited the tomb were shivering with fear and fled the burial site when the body of Jesus was found missing.

Mark 16:8 -

Quote:

And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre, for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man, for they were afraid.

The disciple called Peter the so-called bishop of Rome, LIED multiple times about his association with Jesus in the Gospels, the Good News.

Matthew 26:72 -

Quote:

And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.

So, this is the GOOD NEWS, the Gospel, so far.

1. The disciples have fled.

2. Peter lied multiple times.

3. The body of Jesus is missing.

4. On the evening of the first day, the disciples are hiding for fear of the Jews.

This is the situation as of the evening of the first day of the week.

Who will go to the Jews and begin to lie and claim Jesus resurrected, when his body is missing, and worship him as a God and ask Jesus to forgive their sins and abandon the Laws of Moses?

Who will make blasphemous statements about Jesus in Judea and put their own lives at risk?

Jesus is to be worshiped as a God is not Good News for the Jews.

The Jews are looking for the disciples.

Why do the disciples FEAR the Jews?

How are the disciples going to SPREAD their BLASPHEMY about Jesus ?

The HJ makes no sense. Jesus must resurrect.

No Robots · 11-26-2009, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

I agree, Jesus is portrayed as having no interest in Gentiles in his statement "I am sent to none but the lost sheep in the house of Israel." Christians[Gentiles] override this obvious exclusion of themselves by relying on Peter's vision of Gentile inclusion.

I disagree with Brunner's thought that Gentile inclusion is an esentually fundamental idea in Judaism. That would be, should it be true, the recipe for disaster in it's ability to wipe out "Jewish" as name, and tradition altogether. The two, Judaism and Gentilism[Christianity] cannot stand as one. That is a no no, not ever. Or at least not anytime soon.

Thanks very much for your thoughtful and humane response.

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-26-2009, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

I agree, Jesus is portrayed as having no interest in Gentiles in his statement "I am sent to none but the lost sheep in the house of Israel." Christians[Gentiles] override this obvious exclusion of themselves by relying on Peter's vision of Gentile inclusion.

I disagree with Brunner's thought that Gentile inclusion is an esentually fundamental idea in Judaism. That would be, should it be true, the recipe for disaster in it's ability to wipe out "Jewish" as name, and tradition altogether. The two, Judaism and Gentilism[Christianity] cannot stand as one. That is a no no, not ever. Or at least not anytime soon.

Thanks very much for your thoughtful and humane response.

However thoughtful the response might be, it is woefully under informed, as are you, on the topic at hand.

May I suggest that before either of you go any further in these claims about Jesus and Gentiles, you first digest the discussion of this topic made, e.g., by Joachim Jeremias in his Jesus Promise to the Gentiles (or via: amazon.co.uk) (available at Questia here) who notes, among other things on this topic, that

... Jesus expressly promised the Gentiles a share in the Kingdom of God, and even warned his Jewish hearers that their own place might be taken by the Gentiles.

and

... that the incorporation of the Gentiles in the Kingdom of God promised by the prophets, was expected and announced by Jesus as God’s eschatological act of power, as the great final manifestation of God’s free grace. For the last time God brings life out of death, creates children to Abraham out of stones, when in the hour of final revelation he summons the nations to Zion, and by constituting the universal people of God from Jews and Gentiles abolishes all earthly distinctions.

as well as that found in Michael Bird's CBR review of Jeremias' claims, in his Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission (available at Google books here), and in the literature that is cited therein.

As these will show, Brunner (and anyone who relies on what he says on this point) hardly knows what they are talking about.

Jeffrey

kcdad · 11-26-2009, 04:25 PM

What about the Centurion? The woman at the well? To argue Jesus was interested only in the Jews is just fantasy.

aa5874 · 11-26-2009, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

What about the Centurion? The woman at the well? To argue Jesus was interested only in the Jews is just fantasy.

The Synoptic Jesus came only or primarily to the house of Israel.

Matthew 10:5-6 -

Quote:

5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 15.24

Quote:

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel

.

storytime · 11-26-2009, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

I agree, Jesus is portrayed as having no interest in Gentiles in his statement "I am sent to none but the lost sheep in the house of Israel." Christians[Gentiles] override this obvious exclusion of themselves by relying on Peter's vision of Gentile inclusion.

I disagree with Brunner's thought that Gentile inclusion is an esentually fundamental idea in Judaism. That would be, should it be true, the recipe for disaster in it's ability to wipe out "Jewish" as name, and tradition altogether. The two, Judaism and Gentilism[Christianity] cannot stand as one. That is a no no, not ever. Or at least not anytime soon.

Thanks very much for your thoughtful and humane response.

And you are most welcome.

I tend to be, at least most of the time, thoughtful and humane.

storytime · 11-26-2009, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Thanks very much for your thoughtful and humane response.

However thoughtful the response might be, it is woefully under informed, as are you, on the topic at hand.

May I suggest that before either of you go any further in these claims about Jesus and Gentiles, you first digest the discussion of this topic made, e.g., by Joachim Jeremias in his Jesus Promise to the Gentiles (or via: amazon.co.uk) (available at Questia here) who notes, among other things on this topic, that

... Jesus expressly promised the Gentiles a share in the Kingdom of God, and even warned his Jewish hearers that their own place might be taken by the Gentiles.

and

... that the incorporation of the Gentiles in the Kingdom of God promised by the prophets, was expected and announced by Jesus as God’s eschatological act of power, as the great final manifestation of God’s free grace. For the last time God brings life out of death, creates children to Abraham out of stones, when in the hour of final revelation he summons the nations to Zion, and by constituting the universal people of God from Jews and Gentiles abolishes all earthly distinctions.

as well as that found in Michael Bird's CBR review of Jeremias' claims, in his Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission (available at Google books here), and in the literature that is cited therein.

As these will show, Brunner (and anyone who relies on what he says on this point) hardly knows what they are talking about.

Jeffrey

Woefully under informed?

Jesus promise to Gentiles? What promise? As a Jew under Law, Jesus would not have been permitted, nor authorized to make any promise to an unclean uncircumcised and lawless Gentile that his God had deemed as an abomination, as a beast of the field, an idolator, not worthy of His predistined plan. And most assuredly the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob never called Gentiles "my people". He may however, have called them unclean and uproductive Genitals as it was obvious from the story that these were not producing children for armies to kill in his name.

Really Jeffery, I think it is you are under informed and woefully ignorant of the Jewish pious self serving tradition.

kcdad · 11-27-2009, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

What about the Centurion? The woman at the well? To argue Jesus was interested only in the Jews is just fantasy.

The Synoptic Jesus came only or primarily to the house of Israel.

Matthew 10:5-6 -

Matthew 15.24

Quote:

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel

.

Who was Matthew written for? Who was Luke written for? Who was Mark written for?

aa5874 · 11-27-2009, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Synoptic Jesus came only or primarily to the house of Israel.

Matthew 10:5-6 -

Matthew 15.24.

Who was Matthew written for? Who was Luke written for? Who was Mark written for?

And who now read Matthew, Mark and Luke?

How do your questions affect the so-called words of Jesus?

It is written that Jesus claimed he came for the lost sheep of Israel and asked his disciples to go only to the house of Israel.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-26-2009, 04:25 PM	#145
kcdad Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: illinois Posts: 688	What about the Centurion? The woman at the well? To argue Jesus was interested only in the Jews is just fantasy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.