Scientific outlook in religion?

[ReverendRV]

Heli was the father of Mary. This is John Gill's Commentary...

Luke 3:23 - Bible Verse Meaning and Commentary

What does Luke 3:23 mean? Read commentary on this popular Bible verse and understand the real meaning behind God's Word using John Gill's Exposition of the Bible.

www.biblestudytools.com

 

[5wize]

I was surprised when I read what he wrote. I wonder if supposed biblical contradictions is what turned him away from Christ.

No, it was not. The main issue was the improbablility of the God of all mankind choosing a specific and isolated nationality to reveal himself entailing the damnation of all else.

That led to studying as much about the origins of the Bible as I could muster, which confirmed to my satisfaction that the Christian god is a nationalistic Hebrew invention, which is why to this day Christianity is not as widely an accepted spiritual human truth as you would expect if Christianity was ever intended by the god of all creation to be a global religion - His vehicle of revelation to the entire world.

 

[Caroljeen]

Heli was the father of Mary. This is John Gill's Commentary...

Luke 3:23 - Bible Verse Meaning and Commentary

What does Luke 3:23 mean? Read commentary on this popular Bible verse and understand the real meaning behind God's Word using John Gill's Exposition of the Bible.

www.biblestudytools.com

From Gill's commentary:


... though it is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter;

Mary was the daughter of Eli:

and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to design the mother of our Lord: for they tell us of one,

``that saw, (yle tb Myrm) , "Mary the daughter of Eli" in the shades, hanging by the fibres of her breasts; and there are that say, the gate, or, as elsewhere F3, the bar of the gate of hell is fixed to her ear.''

By the horrible malice, in the words, you may know who is meant: however, this we gain by it, that by their own confession, Mary is the daughter of Eli; which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews, that

``the family of the mother is not called a family.''

1. The bottom line for Gill seems to be that Joseph's genealogy is in Matthew and not Luke.

2. Luke's genealogy belongs to Mary who is the daughter of Eli [Heli] which is supported by what the Jews wrote about Mary in the " Ib. Chagiga, fol. 77. 4."

3. Since Joseph married Mary, Eli is therefore the father of Joseph [although we would call him the father-in-law of Joseph in our culture].

Did the Jewish men call their father-in-law, father? Would Joseph's father, Jacob, have been offended by that?
When was the Chagiga written? It would have to have been written before the gospel of Luke to support it. Mary and/or her children (Jesus brothers and sisters) were alive to support this genealogy.
Luke could have made it much easier for us if he had explained that it was Mary's genealogy to help future generations of Christians to understand this more readily instead of having to link things together like Gill did.

 

[ReverendRV]

From Gill's commentary:


... though it is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter;

Mary was the daughter of Eli:

and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to design the mother of our Lord: for they tell us of one,


By the horrible malice, in the words, you may know who is meant: however, this we gain by it, that by their own confession, Mary is the daughter of Eli; which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews, that



1. The bottom line for Gill seems to be that Joseph's genealogy is in Matthew and not Luke.

2. Luke's genealogy belongs to Mary who is the daughter of Eli [Heli] which is supported by what the Jews wrote about Mary in the " Ib. Chagiga, fol. 77. 4."

3. Since Joseph married Mary, Eli is therefore the father of Joseph [although we would call him the father-in-law of Joseph in our culture].

Did the Jewish men call their father-in-law, father? Would Joseph's father, Jacob, have been offended by that?
When was the Chagiga written? It would have to have been written before the gospel of Luke to support it. Mary and/or her children (Jesus brothers and sisters) were alive to support this genealogy.
Luke could have made it much easier for us if he had explained that it was Mary's genealogy to help future generations of Christians to understand this more readily instead of having to link things together like Gill did.

It's a Patriarchal Society thing. It helps to read this stuff through the Lens of their Day and Time...

There is a reason the Bible is hard to understand. I started liking John Gill, when I had a new thought; but I wasn't going to run with it until I found at least one Commentary that supported it. I couldn't find it anywhere; until I found a quip about it in the John Gill Commentary...

I'll post a Gospel Tract about it, and highlight the part I'm talking about...

 

[ReverendRV]

It's a Patriarchal Society thing. It helps to read this stuff through the Lens of their Day and Time...

There is a reason the Bible is hard to understand. I started liking John Gill, when I had a new thought; but I wasn't going to run with it until I found at least one Commentary that supported it. I couldn't find it anywhere; until I found a quip about it in the John Gill Commentary...

I'll post a Gospel Tract about it, and highlight the part I'm talking about...

Turning your Swords into Plowshares - by ReverendRV

Isaiah 2:4; He shall judge between the nations, And rebuke many people; They shall beat their swords into plowshares, And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore.

Jesus said to his disciples ‘Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth, and Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God.’ Spiritually speaking, no one begins in life as a peacemaker, but instead we begin as enemies of God. The Bible says that stealing, lying, and cursing with Gods name are all Sin; and they are only the tip of the Iceberg. Jesus also said ‘He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad’, so there is no neutrality. When one decides to repent and follow Jesus they are no longer enemies of God. Even former enemies know the way of weapons but when they no longer have need for them, they can find better ways to put a weapon to use…

Jesus said ‘Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.’ There are times when Christians obey this, but it seems like they can’t get through to some people. Jesus compares the heart of these people to hard, trodden ground; ‘When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path.’ This is when the ground of your heart needs to be tilled…

The Prophet Ezekiel describes it like this; ‘I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.’ God makes the ground of your heart good and then compares it to tilled soil. God uses the Law of God to penetrate your heart, Paul describes it like this; ‘For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.’ A follower of Christ will lay down their carnal swords and pick up the ‘Sword which is the word of God’ and use it as a plowshare to break ground in your heart…

This is what the Apostle Peter did at the first Christian Pentecost. By the power of Gods Holy Spirit, Peter rose and preached to the crowds. Everyone present there knew of how God had been working the last few years in the land of Israel, and there surely were large crowds assembled to see if it would continue. There were people there who would have seen the miracles of Christ; giving sight to the blind, feeding the thousands and raising the dead. There would have been people there who saw the darkness the day Christ was crucified, and when they heard Peter quote the prophecy of Joel they would have known that the darkness was predicted long ago. There would have been people there who told Pontius Pilate to crucify Jesus, and when Peter proclaimed this, ‘They were cut to the heart’. Peter turned the sword that he used to cut off a guard's ear into a plowshare, and turned the spear which pierced Christ's heart into a pruning hook; reaping a harvest that day of three thousand people!

You have reason to worry today my friend if you have not turned to Jesus as your Savior. Moses said this, ‘But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the LORD had said.’ You are the one who trods down the path which is your heart, making it ever harder! If you turn to Jesus as your Lord and risen Savior through Faith, he will give you a new heart and Eternal life will then be able to grow in the furrow which is cut into your heart…

John 5:24; "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

 

[Caroljeen]

No, it was not. The main issue was the improbablility of the God of all mankind choosing a specific and isolated nationality to reveal himself entailing the damnation of all else.

That led to studying as much about the origins of the Bible as I could muster, which confirmed to my satisfaction that the Christian god is a nationalistic Hebrew invention, which is why to this day Christianity is not as widely an accepted spiritual human truth as you would expect if Christianity was ever intended by the god of all creation to be a global religion - His vehicle of revelation to the entire world.

Were you ever a confessed Christian?

Then you've read the OT and the NT? Were you as frustrated by the continued failure of the Israelites to obey God as I was when I first read the OT?
Were you amazed by the effective spread of Christianity in the first 100 years in the face of constant harassment and persecution?

Though Christianity has the most adherents, it is falling in the US and in Europe.

Though I believe that God's ultimate goal is to reconcile everyone in the world to himself through Christ. I think Jesus would disagree with your conclusions. God does not force anyone to come to him.

Luke 18:8 And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”

Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. 14 For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

John 3:16-21 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. 17 “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Those who believe in him are not condemned, but those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. 20 For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. 21 But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.”

And even those who come to Christ have a 1 in 4 chance of continuing on with him. Luke 8:4-21
Nevertheless, Jesus doesn't give up on us easily even when we give up on him.
I would not fault God but his followers, even myself, if his church has not flourished as you would think.

 

[5wize]

Were you ever a confessed Christian?

Yes.

Then you've read the OT and the NT?

Plenty, yes.

Were you as frustrated by the continued failure of the Israelites to obey God as I was when I first read the OT?

No. What I learned was that the Israelites thought that they were the chosen of God, a special breed among all god's creation, yet when the reality of the world did not comport to this national view, instead of altering such a hubristic view of themselves in relation to the world, they created a cult of excuses (the era of the prophets) as to not only why they have failed, but also why their god is not in charge of this world, but a new world invented where god did reign and their righteousness would be rewarded. All of this started pretty close to the court of king Josiah when he needed to steel the hearts of Judah against the oncoming Syrian assault (which ended up being Persian by the time it arrived). He needed to invent a cultural promise to make his people fight for the land they took. This is when the basic cannon of the OT started to congeal, during this time where a national identity needed to be forged, complete with a promise of god himself, for national survival.

Were you amazed by the effective spread of Christianity in the first 100 years in the face of constant harassment and persecution?

No. Many political events took place in the first 300 years after the sects were first gathering. 1) the destruction of the temple and the disbursement of the Jews leaving Christianity almost completely un-opposed in the Levant as a grass roots cultural phenomenon. 2) The spread of Hellenization in the Mediterranean world that allowed for the spread of the sect out of the embattled Levant into a more philosophically explorative, free, and affluent population allowing it to blend with and reflect more palatable Greek and Roman philosophies of the area. 3). Constantine needing to congeal his nation behind a single system of belief to create a more focused and efficient central culture.

From there it was just a matter of conquest. In the near east the same story played out for Islam. In the Far East it played out for Shinto, and Buddhism.

Though Christianity has the most adherents, it is falling in the US and in Europe.

Though I believe that God's ultimate goal is to reconcile everyone in the world to himself through Christ. I think Jesus would disagree with your conclusions.

Why do you believe Jesus would disagree with the ineffectiveness of such a global truth being deployed so parochially?

God does not force anyone to come to him.

I never mentioned force. I am merely talking about the lack of global reach of the most important message that every culture on the earth at that time, and now, needed to hear for their sake's and God's. Why is the revelation so bound to a singular nation and culture if it is for all mankind? How many generations of Chinese, Japanese, Persian, Ottoman, the Americas, Scandinavian, Germanic, Aborigine, the African, the Pacific Islander had to perish outside the spread of this most important message? How long does it take god to reveal himself if in fact he does want the world reconciled?

Luke 18:8 And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?”

Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. 14 For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

John 3:16-21 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. 17 “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Those who believe in him are not condemned, but those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. 20 For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. 21 But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.”

And even those who come to Christ have a 1 in 4 chance of continuing on with him. Luke 8:4-21
Nevertheless, Jesus doesn't give up on us easily even when we give up on him.
I would not fault God but his followers, even myself, if his church has not flourished as you would think.

My point isn't about those who once thought they knew Jesus but no longer care, or had the opportunity to know Jesus but didn't take it. The point is that Christianity never was a global spiritual movement at all, and not because men loved the darknesss rather than the light, but because Christianity is a cultural phenomenon, not a global one, yet Christianity claims God is the father of ALL mankind.... but his revelation was not.

Why do you think God didn't reveal himself to (not force himself on) all humanity if his goal is the reconciliation of all humanity?

 

[5wize]

Though I believe that God's ultimate goal is to reconcile everyone in the world to himself through Christ. I think Jesus would disagree with your conclusions.

A little more commentary is needed on this point. Remember, Jesus was a Jew and he thought he was sent as the Jewish Messiah in the Maccabean tradition. He never thought of himself as the savior of any gentile, let alone the world. This was a later invention of Paul to spread the sect out of the Levant. Jesus's unaltered message had no legs outside Judaism as the ancient Hebrew Scriptures told him he was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel.

 

[Harry Leggs]

A little more commentary is needed on this point. Remember, Jesus was a Jew and he thought he was sent as the Jewish Messiah in the Maccabean tradition.

Where does He say that? In the Maccabean tradition?

He never thought of himself as the savior of any gentile, let alone the world.

That is not true. He worked with plenty on non Jews during His ministry.Roman centurions, non Jew females, Mixed race not considered Jews by that culture.

This was a later invention of Paul to spread the sect out of the Levant.

More BS. Falsified by the great commission at the end of Matthew.

Jesus's unaltered message had no legs outside Judaism as the ancient Hebrew Scriptures told him he was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel.

Yeah that is Matthew and it was a faith test to a non Jew woman. He ended up granting her request. Going on memory here. Matthew was for a Jewish audience. Mark was mix race and Luke was a nonJew. Non of them would have been allowed in the Temple parts exclusive to Jews

 

[5wize]

Where does He say that? In the Maccabean tradition?

It is an easy inference as to what the Jews traditionally thought through their scriptures of how their nation would be lifted from bondage and oppression by a specific type of Messiah. That Jesus thought himself that specific messiah is confirmed in Matt, Mark, and Luke with the answer to the question "And who do you say I am"?

That is not true. He worked with plenty on non Jews during His ministry.Roman centurions, non Jew females, Mixed race not considered Jews by that culture.

After the first gospel Mark, the remaining gospels were crafted to enforce a 1st century split from Judaic roots, artificially straining to create a narrative that bridged to the Hebrew Scriptures and prophesies - prophesies that never were meant for the gentile.

More BS. Falsified by the great commission at the end of Matthew.

The grand commission itself being more of the B.S. I describe above.

Yeah that is Matthew and it was a faith test to a non Jew woman.

Where does Jesus say it was a faith test to originally shew her? Did you infer it by the outcome?

No. It was one of the rare and unvarnished original truths about what Jesus and his disciples truly believed as reflected in the scriptures they were referencing in that day - in their belief paradigm

He ended up granting her request. Going on memory here. Matthew was for a Jewish audience. Mark was mix race and Luke was a nonJew. Non of them would have been allowed in the Temple parts exclusive to Jews

That's irrelevant as to what Jesus thought himself to be - and I don't understand why that would even be necessary for a rogue jewish cult. Even his entry into Jerusalem for passover was a scripted throwback to the Jewish Messianic promise. If Jesus thought himself some hybrid savior of the entire world, neither the pharisees or sadducees would have bothered with him. There were plenty of those wild eyed prophets belching out nonsense from the top of an overturned basket in the town square. He claimed to be be THEIR specific long awaited messiah. That's why he needed such talk kept quiet when his identity was revealed by Simon.

 

[Harry Leggs]

It is an easy inference as to what the Jews traditionally thought through their scriptures of how their nation would be lifted from bondage and oppression by a specific type of Messiah.

Right that happens later.

The grand commission itself being more of the B.S. I describe above.

BS is opinion. The actual text falsifies your claims. The gospel is for all people and Jesus is Messiah of all including nonJews and women. The Jews were first and mostly rejected so it went to the Gentiles. Jesus had a predictive parable about it. The invitation to the wedding where the initial guests are no shows so they go out and invite street people. Yours is factually and historically wrong. The start point for Christianity has to do with the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Prior events was really when Christianity did not exist even if Jesus did.

No. It was one of the rare and unvarnished original truths about what Jesus and his disciples truly believed as reflected in the scriptures they were referencing.

That's irrelevant as to what Jesus thought himself to be - and I don't understand why that would even be necessary for a rogue jewish cult. Even his entry into Jerusalem for passover was a scripted throwback to the Jewish Messianic promise.

You do not know if it was scripted or organic.

If Jesus thought himself some hybrid savior of the entire world, neither the pharisees or sadducees would have bothered with him.

Speculation. You got nuthing

That's irrelevant as to what Jesus thought himself to be

Jesus did not believe He had a human biological father according to John. So how can Jesus be fully human without a biological father?

There were plenty of those wild eyed prophets belching out nonsense from the top of an overturned basket in the town square. He claimed to be be THEIR long awaited messiah. That's why he needed such talk kept quiet when his identity was revealed by Simon.

Yawn. This is all opinion backed by nothing. Luke 4:24-30 is another example where the 1st century audience understood what Jesus was saying to them about non Jews and Jesus. Using Elijah and Elisha as examples of going to NonJews and ministering.

 

[5wize]

BS is opinion.

Keep that in mind.

The actual text falsifies your claims.

The claim is that the text grew organically after the fact to support a different narrative after the failure of the messiah.

The gospel is for all people and Jesus is Messiah of all including nonJews and women.

That was a later invention by an un-authoritative man - Paul.

The Jews were first and mostly rejected so it went to the Gentiles.

Which was never the prophetic intent. This was all 1st-3rd century narrative crafting, not the message of the life of the actual Jesus.

Jesus had a predictive parable about it. The invitation to the wedding where the initial guests are no shows so they go out and invite street people.

As I state... crafted to support a new un-authoritative narrative....

Yours is factually and historically wrong. The start point for Christianity has to do with the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Prior events was really when Christianity did not exist even if Jesus did.

I know that. My point is that Christianity was crafted after the fact as the tradition of the messiah failed on the cross and the kingdom did not come in the generation that stood before Jesus. By the end of the first century, with the Jews now culturally absent, the narrative grew from the humble message of Mark (Jesus being the savior of the lost sheep of Israel alone) to the far out non synoptic mysticism of John and Revelation.

Speculation. You got nuthing

Yawn. This is all opinion backed by nothing

As is the Christian narrative.

 

[Harry Leggs]

Keep that in mind.

The claim is that the text grew organically after the fact to support a different narrative after the failure of the messiah.

The end of Matthew. You mean added later? Prove it.

That was a later invention by an un-authoritative man - Paul.

No evidence claim.

Which was never the prophetic intent. This was all 1st-3rd century narrative crafting, not the message of the life of the actual Jesus.

This is all crap. The Gospels were meant for a Jewish audience and there was no Jewish audience in the third century. Israel was gone.

As I state... crafted to support a new un-authoritative narrative....

Wiht no evidential support what so ever which means opinion.

I know that. My point is that Christianity was crafted after the fact as the tradition of the messiah failed on the cross and the kingdom did not come in the generation that stood before Jesus. By the end of the first century, with the Jews now culturally absent, the narrative grew from the humble message of Mark (Jesus being the savior of the lost sheep of Israel alone)

That might have worked if the Jews accepted Jesus as the Messiah but that is not what happened. They rejected Jesus.

 

[5wize]

The end of Matthew. You mean added later?

I do not mean added later as an appendage to a book. I mean that after Mark, a new narrative was being made that used Mark as a basis for an entire set of new gospel messages crafted just right to fabricate Jesus as something different than what he was.

There are some un-authoratative additions to the gospels added by scribes in an attempt to compensate for the errors of narratives in flux, but the claim is the entire set of writings after Mark was a fudge.

No evidence claim.

The evolution of the gospel message, and the contradictions these new messages create, is the evidence.

This is all crap.

It is supported by the changes in the narrative over time.

Wiht no evidential support what so ever which means opinion.

You thinking the gospels are true reflections of Jesus is the opinion under focus in my estimation.

That might have worked if the Jews accepted Jesus as the Messiah but that is not what happened. They rejected Jesus.

Further evidence of a claim looking for an audience as opposed to a truth applying to reality on its own merit.

 

[Caroljeen]

A little more commentary is needed on this point. Remember, Jesus was a Jew and he thought he was sent as the Jewish Messiah in the Maccabean tradition. He never thought of himself as the savior of any gentile, let alone the world.

Seriously? John 10:16, John 3:16, Matthew 28:18-20
Jesus came first for the Jews and then to the Gentiles.

This was a later invention of Paul to spread the sect out of the Levant

Peter, not Paul, is the one who brought the gospel to the gentiles at God's command. Acts 10

. Jesus's unaltered message had no legs outside Judaism as the ancient Hebrew Scriptures told him he was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel.

I agree, the message of the gospel was first brought to the Jews and expanded to the Gentiles, which was the plan from the beginning.
John 3:16 God love the world, not just the Jews.

 

[Caroljeen]

I do not mean added later as an appendage to a book. I mean that after Mark, a new narrative was being made that used Mark as a basis for an entire set of new gospel messages crafted just right to fabricate Jesus as something different than what he was.

There are some un-authoratative additions to the gospels added by scribes in an attempt to compensate for the errors of narratives in flux, but the claim is the entire set of writings after Mark was a fudge.

The evolution of the gospel message, and the contradictions these new messages create, is the evidence.

It is supported by the changes in the narrative over time.


You thinking the gospels are true reflections of Jesus is the opinion under focus in my estimation.

Further evidence of a claim looking for an audience as opposed to a truth applying to reality on its own merit.

You must have read the same book that The Pixie did in which the gospel of Mark is given priority. What is the name of it?

 

[5wize]

You must have read the same book that The Pixie did in which the gospel of Mark is given priority. What is the name of it?

There wasn't a single book in my case. It was a collection of common biblical knowledge, both Christian and secular, that ended up supporting a theory that made more sense as to the origins and evolution of early Christian thought and the authors intent and audience for specific gospels and OT scriptures. Authors like Ehrman, MacCullough, and Friedman.... all biblical scholars.

 

[5wize]

Seriously? John 10:16, John 3:16, Matthew 28:18-20
Jesus came first for the Jews and then to the Gentiles.

Yes... this is the narrative evolution, a cleaving away from Mark and Judaism that was being developed by the sects. A first century religion shifting and forming under your very eyes in the gospels.

Peter, not Paul, is the one who brought the gospel to the gentiles at God's command. Acts 10

Paul's epistles were the earliest NT writings. Paul was traveling the Hellenized world, preaching to gentiles, and bringing money from these affluent enclaves back to Jerusalem to gain a strained legitimacy with James and Peter - the church of Jerusalem, and causing many cultural and ceremonial problems for the very, very Jewish church of Jerusalem that still held to strict Judaic laws concerning dining and worshiping with gentiles and unclean foods.

Luke, the author of Acts, a disciple of Paul, would of course use Acts as a further advancement of Pauline doctrine as being legitimately apostolic.

I agree, the message of the gospel was first brought to the Jews and expanded to the Gentiles, which was the plan from the beginning.

There are no prophesies in support of that.

John 3:16 God love the world, not just the Jews.

John was the last gospel, written as a highly supernatural apologetic to super-size, so to speak, a failed messiah of wholly jewish tradition whose prophesy of a kingdom to come before those that stood before him was failing as the century came to a close. That is why John is not even considered synoptic. It is a wholly different narrative describing a completely new supernatural Christ tradition to replace the failed one.

 

[Caroljeen]

No. What I learned was that the Israelites thought that they were the chosen of God, a special breed among all god's creation

Not true. they were chosen to represent YHWH to the world. God reminded them to not think highly of themselves in that they were once slaves in Egypt. They were not a "special breed" but a chosen people who were to inherit the promises of their ancestor, Abraham. Isaiah 43 1-12

, yet when the reality of the world did not comport to this national view, instead of altering such a hubristic view of themselves in relation to the world, they created a cult of excuses (the era of the prophets) as to not only why they have failed, but also why their god is not in charge of this world, but a new world invented where god did reign and their righteousness would be rewarded. All of this started pretty close to the court of king Josiah when he needed to steel the hearts of Judah against the oncoming Syrian assault (which ended up being Persian by the time it arrived). He needed to invent a cultural promise to make his people fight for the land they took. This is when the basic cannon of the OT started to congeal, during this time where a national identity needed to be forged, complete with a promise of god himself, for national survival.

Where did you get this interpretation?

No. Many political events took place in the first 300 years after the sects were first gathering. 1) the destruction of the temple and the disbursement of the Jews leaving Christianity almost completely un-opposed in the Levant as a grass roots cultural phenomenon.

The Christians had already spread due to persecution from the Jews in Jerusalem and surrounding areas even unto Damascus.

2) The spread of Hellenization in the Mediterranean world that allowed for the spread of the sect out of the embattled Levant into a more philosophically explorative, free, and affluent population allowing it to blend with and reflect more palatable Greek and Roman philosophies of the area.

The gospel didn't change. The early Christians were persecuted and spoken harshly against by the Greeks and Romans as they traveled to spread their message to the world as Christ had commanded them. Up until the time of Constantine, Christians were persecuted and frowned upon.

3). Constantine needing to congeal his nation behind a single system of belief to create a more focused and efficient central culture.

This is speculation unless you have a quote from Constantine that this was his motive.

From there it was just a matter of conquest. In the near east the same story played out for Islam. In the Far East it played out for Shinto, and Buddhism.

Islam didn't begin until ~600 ce.
I don't know the history of the East.
The acknowledgement of Rome was the ruin of the church in the west. It no longer resembled Christ.

Why do you believe Jesus would disagree with the ineffectiveness of such a global truth being deployed so parochially?

What do you mean?

Paul warned the Ephesians of the same in Act 20-25-36

29 I know that after I have gone, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Some even from your own group will come distorting the truth in order to entice the disciples to follow them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to warn everyone with tears. 32 And now I commend you to God and to the message of his grace, a message that is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all who are sanctified.

Paul's goal was to spread a big net but he knew that only SOME would respond positively to the gospel. 1 Cor 9: 22


Jesus expected his disciples to spread his gospel to the four corners of the earth. Have you ever read how far the original apostles took his message? Tradition has it that Thomas went to India to spread the gospel.

I never mentioned force. I am merely talking about the lack of global reach of the most important message that every culture on the earth at that time, and now, needed to hear for their sake's and God's.

How do you know that there was a lack of global reach? The apostles brought it out to India, Spain, Rome, Turkey. Those who believed spread it further, etc.
Did you ever read in the book of Acts where the Holy Spirit prevented Paul from going to Asia to preach the gospel? Acts 16:6
Or how Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, was locked up for a couple of years in prison in Caesarea and then again when he arrived in Rome?
Did this hinder the spread of the gospel? Why did God allow it?

Why is the revelation so bound to a singular nation and culture if it is for all mankind? How many generations of Chinese, Japanese, Persian, Ottoman, the Americas, Scandinavian, Germanic, Aborigine, the African, the Pacific Islander had to perish outside the spread of this most important message? How long does it take god to reveal himself if in fact he does want the world reconciled?

The gospel wasn't bound to a single nation but given to all of mankind. Jesus entrusted his disciples to spread this message and God went with them confirming his words with signs and wonders all over the world.
As for the nations that hadn't heard, that's for God to judge. I trust that God is good and just, much more than we are.

My point isn't about those who once thought they knew Jesus but no longer care, or had the opportunity to know Jesus but didn't take it. The point is that Christianity never was a global spiritual movement at all, and not because men loved the darknesss rather than the light, but because Christianity is a cultural phenomenon, not a global one, yet Christianity claims God is the father of ALL mankind.... but his revelation was not.

Can you prove what you are saying?

Why do you think God didn't reveal himself to (not force himself on) all humanity if his goal is the reconciliation of all humanity?

God's revelation of himself was through Jesus Christ. Jesus gave his message of reconciliation to his disciples to spread throughout the earth.
I don't believe you nor anyone else can prove that God didn't enable the spread of his word in the earth. How could any of us possibly know the extent of how far the gospel has been spread by word of mouth from the time of the early church until the beginning of the technological era that we live in?

Are you asking me something totally different? Why did God use humans to spread the good news?

Jesus is the full revelation of God. Jesus has already died on the cross, thereby making reconciliation with God possible by the forgiveness of sins. Jesus has sent his disciples out to preach the gospel to the world with the empowerment of the indwelling Holy Spirit. What more would you like God to do? What would you have done any different if you were God to reveal yourself to all humanity.

 

[Caroljeen]

There are no prophesies in support of that.

Please read Romans 9-11. Paul uses an abundance of OT prophesies to support his ministry to the Gentiles. I expect you to know these things by what you have written so far so that I don't have to show them to you.

Whoever you have read and gleaned this narrative about Israel, Jesus, and God, did not do a good job. I expect you to prove from the Bible and other sources everything that you are saying and not just give summary paragraphs.
If this is your own interpretation, then you have missed many important scriptures by narrowing your focus to fit your own narrative of Israel and God.

I'm going to leave this discussion because I don't have enough time to invest in this and the other thread on the Dawkins and Lennox debate which I started. Sorry...