What Did Jesus Intend?

[SusanDoris]

I rather like the Duke of Edinburgh's article about engineers and the short part of the interview on Today this morning. He was saing that everything that is not the natural world was invented by engineers.  Oh, I would have loved to hear him say he long ago stopped believing in God!  However, he just couldn't do that of course.

[floo]

I rather like the Duke of Edinburgh's article about engineers and the short part of the interview on Today this morning. He was saing that everything that is not the natural world was invented by engineers.  Oh, I would have loved to hear him say he long ago stopped believing in God!  However, he just couldn't do that of course.

His Missus would probably put him in The Tower if he did!

[Sassy]

I heard an off the cuff comment on the radio the other day which said Jesus had no intention of forming a new religion.

So what do people think was Jesus' intentions in all that preaching that he ministered?

Would he be surprised by its outcome and how events have unfolded?

Christ fulfilled the Jewish religion prophecies. In doing so he set the precedent for Gods truth to be revealed to man and his plan.
Christ's intentions was to bring the truth to all men both Jews and Gentile to allow all to become the Children of God.
Born of Spirit and the truth. It is a living ministry and built on the Words of God in the OT and the setting straight of what God wanted from people.

Nothing is a surprise as God knew the end from the beginning and foretold it.
A complete knowledge and understanding of all that which he created.

[Spud]

"I am sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel" "Go not unto the gentiles, but only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel".
All other texts are add-ons, seen through the filters of St Paul's and St John's views about Jesus. The quoted texts may be something like words uttered by a wandering preacher called Jesus. With these in mind, it is difficult to believe that he ordered his followers to make 'disciples of all nations'

Something I read about Matthew's gospel might help put your quoted texts in perspective. It's from Rosenstock-Huessy's book Fruit of Lips, on pages 23 and 24.

http://tinyurl.com/ppwtpk9

[Red Giant]

Something I read about Matthew's gospel might help put your quoted texts in perspective. It's from Rosenstock-Huessy's book Fruit of Lips, on pages 23 and 24.

http://tinyurl.com/ppwtpk9

This is total fantasy.  "Matthew" didn't "write" the Gospel, it's a cut-and-paste job.  "Mark" wrote half of it.  The bit at the end is transparently a clumsy add-on.  Nobody thinks that really happened - not least because no other Gospel has a remotely similar story.  Luke, John and the end of Mark were all written later than most of Matthew and are essentially 3 denials that Matthew's Great Commission on the mountain in Galilee ever happened.  (Though not intentionally, since that bit hadn't been written yet.)

[Leonard James]

I rather like the Duke of Edinburgh's article about engineers and the short part of the interview on Today this morning. He was saing that everything that is not the natural world was invented by engineers.  Oh, I would have loved to hear him say he long ago stopped believing in God!  However, he just couldn't do that of course.

I'm sure the Queen and the rest of the royal family are as aware as the church moguls of the anomalies in the Christian "God" story.

I am also sure that a few of them swallow the daft 'God knows best and moves in mysterious ways' answers which try to cover those glaring contradictions.

But it is inevitable that a growing number refuse to be taken in by it and simply can't believe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm sure the Queen and the rest of the royal family are as aware as the church moguls of the anomalies in the Christian "God" story.

I am also sure that a few of them swallow the daft 'God knows best and moves in mysterious ways' answers which try to cover those glaring contradictions.

But it is inevitable that a growing number refuse to be taken in by it and simply can't believe.

Talking of glaring contradictions there is a laddy on another board claiming the universe isn't uncreated and it isn't created.

[floo]

Christ fulfilled the Jewish religion prophecies. In doing so he set the precedent for Gods truth to be revealed to man and his plan.
Christ's intentions was to bring the truth to all men both Jews and Gentile to allow all to become the Children of God.
Born of Spirit and the truth. It is a living ministry and built on the Words of God in the OT and the setting straight of what God wanted from people.

Nothing is a surprise as God knew the end from the beginning and foretold it.
A complete knowledge and understanding of all that which he created.

An assertion without proof!

[Jack Knave]

Fine! But unfortunately the word  "God" is usually used by believers to imply much more knowledge of him than that.

Maybe you would be better using the word "Cause" to avoid the imagined claptrap that is so often assocˇated with "God". 

Or "Something".

[Jack Knave]

Christ fulfilled the Jewish religion prophecies. In doing so he set the precedent for Gods truth to be revealed to man and his plan.
Christ's intentions was to bring the truth to all men both Jews and Gentile to allow all to become the Children of God.
Born of Spirit and the truth. It is a living ministry and built on the Words of God in the OT and the setting straight of what God wanted from people.

Nothing is a surprise as God knew the end from the beginning and foretold it.
A complete knowledge and understanding of all that which he created.

The parts of the OT that are claimed to refer to these prophecies are in symbolic language which by their very nature can be made to mean anything, and therefore can not express what the writer had in mind.

[Spud]

This is total fantasy.  "Matthew" didn't "write" the Gospel, it's a cut-and-paste job.  "Mark" wrote half of it.  The bit at the end is transparently a clumsy add-on.  Nobody thinks that really happened - not least because no other Gospel has a remotely similar story.  Luke, John and the end of Mark were all written later than most of Matthew and are essentially 3 denials that Matthew's Great Commission on the mountain in Galilee ever happened.  (Though not intentionally, since that bit hadn't been written yet.)

In fact if you read the book I linked to, it points out that Mark quotes from Matthew, carrying on in 1:1 where Matthew  left off: Jesus, the son of Abraham, is now the Son of God (Matt 28:19). Mark introduces him as the Son of God. Part of Mark's job, being under the instruction of Peter, is to show Jesus and him only to be the Saviour. Peter's importance is played down. (Eg instead of "I will put up three shelters", " let us put up three shelters" in the transfiguration accounts)

Anyway, if you read on in Mat. 10 you find Jesus talking about the disciples' mission to the Gentiles. So Dicky is incorrect, according to that

[jeremyp]

In fact if you read the book I linked to, it points out that Mark quotes from Matthew

You have it the wrong way round. Matthew copies almost all of Mark.

[Red Giant]

In fact if you read the book I linked to, it points out that Mark quotes from Matthew, carrying on in 1:1 where Matthew  left off: Jesus, the son of Abraham, is now the Son of God (Matt 28:19).

Mark has a few adjustments retrofitted.

[Red Giant]

Talking of glaring contradictions there is a laddy on another board claiming the universe isn't uncreated and it isn't created.

Sounds good to me.  What would "create" mean when applied to the universe?  If we don't know what we would mean by saying it was or it wasn't, how can we ask which is true?

[Hope]

An assertion without proof!

So, she's learning from you, Floo 

[Hope]

I'm sure the Queen and the rest of the royal family are as aware as the church moguls of the anomalies in the Christian "God" story.

And those anomalies would be?

But it is inevitable that a growing number refuse to be taken in by it and simply can't believe.

Interestingly, on a board I used to be a member of - and now defuncy, I'm afraid - we had a sizeable thread based on a couple of the skeptics websites.  Over a period of time, we (and 'we' included many of the professed atheists) ended up pointing out the weaknesses that the websites had in their arguments.

[Leonard James]

And those anomalies would be?

One of them is the claim that a loving "God" would create a system of life in which half of the living creatures has to pursue, kill and eat the other half.

Interestingly, on a board I used to be a member of - and now defuncy, I'm afraid - we had a sizeable thread based on a couple of the skeptics websites.  Over a period of time, we (and 'we' included many of the professed atheists) ended up pointing out the weaknesses that the websites had in their arguments.

Most arguments have weaknesses somewhere, and religious arguments have their fair share and more.

[Hope]

One of them is the claim that a loving "God" would create a system of life in which half of the living creatures has to pursue, kill and eat the other half.

That's not an anomaly; its a dynamic system.

Most arguments have weaknesses somewhere, and religious arguments have their fair share and more.

No more than any other, Len.

[Shaker]

That's not an anomaly; its a dynamic system.

One which an omni god of the traditional would not create.

No more than any other, Len

Len was correct.

[Dicky Underpants]

Anyway, if you read on in Mat. 10 you find Jesus talking about the disciples' mission to the Gentiles. So Dicky is incorrect, according to that

Matthew 10 epitomises this evangelist's confusion. Early in the chapter he has Jesus saying "Go nowhere among the Gentiles". Later on, he seems to recollect something different, because he talks of "testimony to the Gentiles". Later still, he goes back to restate Jesus' purely Judaic mission, emphasising how short the time left is:
 " When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes."

This confusion permeates Matthew's gospel: on the one hand, he seems to be writing for a predominantly Jewish audience, so Jesus' apparent parochialism is stressed. On the other hand, there is rather a lot of extra stuff about his mission to the world (ending with the notorious final verse).
I don't see how these two views of Jesus can be really reconciled, apart from the idea that he was open to certain gentiles when they showed enough interest and faith in Judaism. But for all I know, those encounters may be as fabricated as the ending of this gospel obviously is. (The whole lot could be fabricated, if you hold to the Jesus' mythicist view: I don't)

[Jack Knave]

Matthew 10 epitomises this evangelist's confusion. Early in the chapter he has Jesus saying "Go nowhere among the Gentiles". Later on, he seems to recollect something different, because he talks of "testimony to the Gentiles". Later still, he goes back to restate Jesus' purely Judaic mission, emphasising how short the time left is:
 " When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes."

This confusion permeates Matthew's gospel: on the one hand, he seems to be writing for a predominantly Jewish audience, so Jesus' apparent parochialism is stressed. On the other hand, there is rather a lot of extra stuff about his mission to the world (ending with the notorious final verse).
I don't see how these two views of Jesus can be really reconciled, apart from the idea that he was open to certain gentiles when they showed enough interest and faith in Judaism. But for all I know, those encounters may be as fabricated as the ending of this gospel obviously is. (The whole lot could be fabricated, if you hold to the Jesus' mythicist view: I don't)

By this standard JC has truly failed.

[Hope]

Matthew 10 epitomises this evangelist's confusion. Early in the chapter he has Jesus saying "Go nowhere among the Gentiles". Later on, he seems to recollect something different, because he talks of "testimony to the Gentiles". Later still, he goes back to restate Jesus' purely Judaic mission, emphasising how short the time left is:
 " When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes."
This confusion permeates Matthew's gospel: on the one hand, he seems to be writing for a predominantly Jewish audience, so Jesus' apparent parochialism is stressed. On the other hand, there is rather a lot of extra stuff about his mission to the world (ending with the notorious final verse).
I don't see how these two views of Jesus can be really reconciled, apart from the idea that he was open to certain gentiles when they showed enough interest and faith in Judaism. But for all I know, those encounters may be as fabricated as the ending of this gospel obviously is. (The whole lot could be fabricated, if you hold to the Jesus' mythicist view: I don't)

And this whole post shows how poorly you have studied the Bible and Jewish religion, DU.  It is clear from the Hebrew Scriptures that the Jews had been chosen to be 'a light to the Gentiles' - a purpose that the same Scriptures are keen to highlight as having been failed in.  Understandably, God offers the Jewish people the chance to redeem themselves in this regard by sending his son to them, rather than to another group, but when their leaders seem unwilling to get involved, he encourages the Jews he has gathered around him to bypass them and go directly to the Gentiles themselves - thus fulfilling the purpose the Jews were chosen for.  As such, there aren't 'two views of Jesus' as you suggest, just two aspects of the same purpose. 

[Dicky Underpants]

And this whole post shows how poorly you have studied the Bible and Jewish religion, DU.  It is clear from the Hebrew Scriptures that the Jews had been chosen to be 'a light to the Gentiles' - a purpose that the same Scriptures are keen to highlight as having been failed in.  Understandably, God offers the Jewish people the chance to redeem themselves in this regard by sending his son to them, rather than to another group, but when their leaders seem unwilling to get involved, he encourages the Jews he has gathered around him to bypass them and go directly to the Gentiles themselves - thus fulfilling the purpose the Jews were chosen for.  As such, there aren't 'two views of Jesus' as you suggest, just two aspects of the same purpose.

I am fully aware that there is a corpus of ideas in the OT that the Jews are chosen to "be a light to the Gentiles", though this view is by no means consistently stressed, and 'God' is often portrayed as being narrow-mindedly tribal. However, I'd agree that it relates that 'through Abraham's seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed' - and in the NT, St Paul, by semantic sophistry, tries to insist that this refers to Christ, rather than the Jewish people. You seem very glued to the idea that the Bible puts forward a totally consistent message - it doesn't, neither in the OT, nor the confused melee of quotation (often misquotation) and contrived exegesis apparent in the NT.
Which brings us back to the texts in Matthew, which you didn't really deal with in any satisfactory way. The narrative is very confused, and it is a wonder that Matthew himself seems to have made little attempt to iron out the contradictions. Maybe the Jewish references relate back to definitive memories of what the historical Jesus actually said, however inconvenient these may seem to M's other attempts to portray Jesus as having  a universal message. There is certainly no indication in the texts I quoted to indicate that Jesus wished to reaffirm God's message to the Jews first, before his teaching should be spread to the wider world, especially (as in the text which Jack highlighted) it is clear that the Jesus quoted in these texts thought the whole system of things was about to be wound up, and there would therefore be no time for a more widespread mission.
Lastly, I can't for the life of me think how you can reconcile this text from Mat 15 with the idea that Jesus had a mission to spread his message to the whole world (he is speaking to the Canaanite woman - or Syro-Phoenician elsewhere):

[24] "He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
 

[Spud]

Dicky, does this help:

(Peter is speaking to his fellow Israelites)

24Indeed, beginning with Samuel, all the prophets who have spoken have foretold these days. 25And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’b 26When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.

And God speaking to his servant in Isaiah 49:

And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

[Spud]

Also, remember that Peter was speaking after Pentecost, when the Spirit came. Jesus was sent to the Jews only, but the Spirit enabled the disciples to speak in the languages of all nations.