sschlichter

You mean besides the perspicuous meaning of the immediate context?

ok, John makes it very clear that he is talking about Judas and supplies the prophecy earlier in the same conversation.

(John 13:18)
"What I am saying does not refer to all of you. I know the ones I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture, ' The one who eats my bread has turned against me.'

(Psa 41:9) Even my close friend whom I trusted,
he who shared meals with me, has turned against me.

another is quoted in Acts 1.

(Psa 109:8) May his days be few!
May another take his job!

Matthew and Mark say the same thing talking about the same conversation.

(Mark 14:21) For the Son of Man will go as it is written about him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for him if he had never been born."

(Matt 26:21) And while they were eating he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me."
(Matt 26:22) They became greatly distressed and each one began to say to him, "Surely not I, Lord?"
(Matt 26:23) He answered, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me.
(Matt 26:24) The Son of Man will go as it is written about him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for him if he had never been born."

No mention of Edomites anywhere!

sschlichter

storytime,

You are allowing the quote tags to get mixed up and it is hard to tell who is saying what.

We have not discussed a parable, so I do not see much need for speculation. I used Jesus' explanation of a parable (which he supplies for many parables) as a proof that the Kingdom of God will be based on faith, not on circumcision. I disagree that the meaning is not clear. If you avoid eisegesis, it is very clear what the author is saying.

What Christians claims the KJV is inerrant? I have never met a Christian that beleives that.

~Steve

Doug Shaver

I was referring to real statements by real people. Even assuming Jesus' historical existence, we have no idea what he ever actually said to anybody.

If I'm trying to educate somebody about the story, what I do with it is demonstrate the nonexistence of any good reason to believe any of it regardless of its coherence or lack thereof.

Trying to convince a believer that the Bible is inconsistent is a paradigmatic exercise in futility. And that's using the conventional arguments. Bringing in unconventional arguments, such as trying to prove that Jesus and Peter were bald-faced liars, goes beyond futility.

storytime

But, did Jesus base the kingdom of God on faith? I don't read the story as Jesus having done that, especially as the kingdom was already a predistined place of promise to the one seed called Jacob who was the inheritor of it. Not a future inheritance but an already existing and claimed inheritance. In this regard, neither faith nor works seems to play a part as what God willed to be, so it was done. This then shows why Esau could not obtain the promise even though he sought it with faith in God and tears of pleadings. And, in this regard, Esau was the son of perdition, the man of sin. I'm sure a Jewish scholar would be able to explain this situation of Esau and Jacob much better than I, and relieve your speculation on whether or not the story moves itself to include Gentiles receiving a new covenant in lawlessness and thereby making Gentiles a people of God.

The predistined seed of promise, from the way I read the story, was determined from Abraham to Isaac and rested in Jacob called Israel. The two sons Esau and Jacob were both blessed until Esau married outside his family ties. His marriage to his uncle's daughter who was Egyptian/Syrian then began a different group of people called Edomites. The predistined promise was not meant for Edomites and so Esau became the hated son, the son of perdition. And Jacob became the one seed who inherited the promise because Jacob remained in his family ties and did not intermarry with other people. So, if Judas happened to have been in the Edomite lineage then is it reasonable to think that this is why Jesus might have described him as the son of perdition, the one he lost, "so that the scripture might be fulfilled?"

Whatever, this NT bible story is not meant for Gentile inclusion as if Gentiles were to be a people of God, or set as the idea of some Christians today who impose themselves declaring "we are Israel now". The story and its theme is Jewish, and from my perspective, excludes Gentiles in making testimony against them in their uncircumcised and lawless manner[way of life]. (Mt.10:18)

"But beware of men; for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; and ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my namesake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles".

Question:
Do you consider identity theft as taking what does not belong to you? This is what Christianity has tried to do in robbing Judaism of its promise, and had it not been for the writers overlooking of a few important details they should have "fixed"(in order for the plan to be successful), such as Jesus never making a new covenant with uncircumcised and lawless Gentiles, and merely implied conscent by Eusebius and Constantine or whoever decided to take over the middle east with this bible-babble strategy, they would have gotten away with it. But they didn't or haven't and so we are her on this forum debating the points of those scriptures, "so that the scriptures might be fulfilled", so to speak.

storytime

And, if I'm trying to educate people about the bible story, and educate people who believe without doubt this bible story is truth, and people who are willing to die for their beliefs in the bible story; what I do is point out that Jesus excluded Gentiles and for his reasons of maintaining identity, name and place in his people who were Jewish. You may not realize it, but this little bit of information comes as quite a shock to some fundamentalist Christians.

I also point out that Jesus is a false prophet according to old testament standards of God saying that God is not a man, and no man is equal to God. That God did not need a savior or a man that Jews should worship and that Gentiles should adopt as their god in the flesh.

This is a story with inconsistencies and such that should be discussed. If I call Jesus and Peter liars, that's because they are proven so by old testament standards of God having no one beside him. There was no need for a savior and no need for a Gentile covenant as everything was already provided for the people of Israel in their laws by which they were to live.

In discussing this bible story I'm not giving any more credibility to the old testament than the new, I consider both to be the ideologies of superstitous men. And I don't think it futile to argue and debate points of contention, and in fact, I think to point out the many inconsistences forces the mind of the bible believer to study what he has not investigated before. Instead of beng a drone in the party line of ignorance, the bible believer can be manipulated through his own curiosity.

sschlichter

yes, Jesus most definitely held the faith of Jews and Gentiles alike in very high regard. I quoted John, Paul, and Peter, never mentioned Eusebius and certainly do not see any relevance to Constantine. Christianity grew outside of Rome before Constantine. He is irrelevant to this conversation.

The only culprits that you can possibly accuse of conspiracy is either Jesus or the disciples. I personally feel the conspiracy is somewhere between Jesus and his Father.

By the way, the preposition in that verse is not best translated against as it is in the KJV. However, it does not matter because the Jews are included in the same clause. Ie. What I would translate "as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles" does not help your point. the Gentiles are not separated from the Jews in that clause. If you insist on using 'against', that is fine but it is against the Jews as much as the Gentiles and provides no support of your argument.

~Steve

storytime

Even if Jesus held the faith of both Jews and Gentiles in high regard, this still does not provide evidence that Jesus made a new covenant with uncircumcised and lawless Gentiles. Due to the legality of his laws, it was impossible for Jesus the Jew to override commandments already established and established for the purpose of maintaining the identity of Jews/Israel.

Concerning the conspiracy of Jesus, his was the conspiracy in overturning the ruling party at Jerusalem and seating himself on the throne of David (at the right hand of God). Jesus promotes himself as the way, truth and life and one and the same with his father. His testimony against the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herod[the fox], cast them as children of the devil.

As to the Gentiles, Jesus spoke against them per his laws. His testimony as a Jew would have necessarily been against uncircumcised and lawless people. Jesus excluded Gentiles due to his laws that prohibited Gentiles from entering the kingdom of God. The idol worshiping Gentiles, uncircumcised in flesh and heart, and not ever having been given the laws of Moses, were always spoken against and never considered as a people of God.

The laws of Israel confined Jesus to his Jewish people, his Judaism. He had no power or authority outside his own religious tradition. Jesus could not take his laws to Rome and demand that Caesar convert to Judaism and Roman citizens begin slaughtering lambs in observance of the Jewish passover, and this why Jesus said he was sent to none but the lost sheep in the house of Israel. But he could make testimony against the Gentiles to warn his Jewish brethren that they should not go in the way of the Gentiles. The Jewish way of doing things was quite a bit different.

bacht

sschlichter doesn't seem to acknowledge that, whatever actually happened in the 1st C, by the 2nd C, later generations of gentile Christians felt justified in editing the old documents to reflect their reality: a non-Jewish salvation movement without the end-of-the-world urgency of the first generation of Judeans.

There are no "inerrant" texts because the originals are long gone, and their descendants were revised without guilt by Christian scribes.

sschlichter

correct. I do not acknowledge that at all. I will if you can prove it to me. Give me the book and the date and the method you used to prove it was later editted. Without proof, I would have to accept that on faith, I am sure you would not want me to do that.

~Steve

sschlichter

Not if, he DID praise and reward faith from Jews and Gentiles. You said earlier that Jesus said adherence to the law was the way, truth, and life. I am glad to see that you now acknowledge that he was referring to himself. He also claimed to be the one who cut the covenant with Abraham and had the right to remind the Jews of its desired outcome.

(John 8:56) Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad."
(John 8:57) Then the Judeans replied, "You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?"
(John 8:58) Jesus said to them, "I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!"

In Matt 15 where you are alluding to, is where a Gentile women's faith was praised and she was healed. As he was sent, he also sent the disciples to the Gentiles to be a witness to them. Why do you allude to the fact that Jesus was sent by God and not that the disciples were sent by Jesus. Is it easier for you to beleive that Jesus was sent by God or that Jesus the man sent the disciples?

~Steve