The Forbidden Gospel

[Shibolet]

Shibolet…

Suppose you put together another version of this but begin with a different assignment from Jesus…
18…Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mt 28:18-20)
Begin with this passage and THEN see if you conclusion holds up.

The reason that the first mission was specifically to the Jewish community was because they, as the “chosen” people, were to be given the first chance at receiving the Good News of the coming of the Messiah. After this was accomplished, and after the passion and Resurrection, the mission was expanded to all the world.

As for Paul only speaking in Synagogues…This is not true. Yes he did go to the synagogues first - again to share the good news of the Messiah with his fellow Jews. But in at least two places the NT speaks of Him preaching away from the synagogue.
One is when he spoke to the Greeks…Read Acts 17: 16-34 - He preached in the marketplace and later at the “Are-op’agus”…Also - (I can’t recall the location) he was rejected by the Jews in the synagogue and he simply went to the gentiles and began preaching.

So it seems that your speculation, based on a number of verses plucked out of context, is wrong on more than one point.

Peace
James

A different assignment! We all know that Mat. 28:19,20 does not explain Mat. 10:5,6. By giving up one text in spite of another, we are admitting contradiction. A contradiction only
depreciates the credibility of the whole book. Besides, in Mat. 10:5,6, we have Jesus himself giving the instructions. In Mat. 28:19,20, Jesus had been gone and the instruction was being given by the gospel writer. Not to mention that the command to baptize in the name of the Trinity could not have been given by Jesus, who spoke, “in the name of the son.” Why not in my name?

You explain above that the reason for Jesus’ FIRST mission was to the Jewish Community because the chosen People were to be given the FIRST chance. Well, my friend, if you read Mat. 15:24 in the Catholic version of the New American Bible, Jesus himself declared that his mission was ONLY to the lost sheep of the House of Israel and not first. Who decided to expand his mission after Jesus was gone? As far as I am concerned, his Apostles did it by assigning Petter to the Gentiles. (Acts 15:7) When Paul showed up in scene, there were already many Gentiles converted by Peter throughout Asia Minor.

And with regards to Paul, He did preach to one or two public places, but I would figure about 2%, while 98% in the synagogues of the Jews. 2% is hardly enough to justify the title of apostle to the Gentiles. And you are right that he was rejected more than several times in the synagogues and did decide to turn to the Gentiles. He shook the dust of his feet but, somehow, he changed his mind, left the place and went to the synagogues of the
Jews of another city in Iconium. (Acts 13:46,51; 14:1) When you say that he simply went to the Gentiles, can you show me the text?

And last but not least, if my speculations are plucked out of context, and wrong for that matter, we must find a text to harmonize the previous one in order to prevent contradictions. Otherwise, we have no choice but to accept everything by faith that dispenses with the struggle to know. But then again, for lack of knowledge, people perish. (Hos. 4:6) What are we supposed to do?

 

[Shibolet]

“From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice, but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. He said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” But she answered him, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” Then he said to her, “For saying that, you may go- the demon has left your daughter.”” Mark 7.24-29 (This is also found in Matthew.)

Yes, the Gospel was for the Jews first. As God’s chosen people and the first among His children, they got the first chance at the good news. After it had been presented to those who accepted it, the Gospel was brought to the Gentiles.

After the resurrection, in an account included in ALL FOUR gospels (plus Acts), Jesus commissions His disciples with their mission:
"And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation.” Mark 16.14

ALL the world. The WHOLE creation. Pretty sure that Gentiles were created and are part of the world.

All right Waanju, you had a good start by showing me with the gospel of Mark what Jesus had not said in the gospel of Matthew. On one hand it is good to understand what happened. On the other hand, “first” and “only” are opposites and not synonyms. In Matthew we have that Jesus’ mission was “only” to the Jews. But then Mark says
“first.” A contradiction in terms, but let us forget it for the time being. And let us also forget the words of that poor mother who asked Jesus to cure her daughter. Let us try to understand why Jesus referred to her as “dogs.” Even by one who reads, his answer was deeply insulting. It is well known throughout the Scriptures that the Jews are considered children of the Most High; but I read nowhere that Gentiles are to be considered as dogs. How could that have come from Jesus of all people?

 

[JRKH]

A different assignment! We all know that Mat. 28:19,20 does not explain Mat. 10:5,6. By giving up one text in spite of another, we are admitting contradiction.

I find no contradiction between these two passages so your statement “we all know that…” is false on it’s face. I don’t “know” this and by the general tenor of responses here, at least a few others don’t “know” it either…So we alldon’t know that…
But setting that aside for the moment, why does mat 28:19-20 need to explain Mt 10:5-6? Two different missions given at different times and for different purposes.

A contradiction only depreciates the credibility of the whole book.

Since no contradiction exists…no explanation is necessary and no credibility issue.

Besides, in Mat. 10:5,6, we have Jesus himself giving the instructions. In Mat. 28:19,20, Jesus had been gone and the instruction was being given by the gospel writer. Not to mention that the command to baptize in the name of the Trinity could not have been given by Jesus, who spoke, “in the name of the son.” Why not in my name?

HUH??? The above makes no sense. Jesus gave the instructions in Mt 28 in person.
16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mt 28:16-20) (Bolding mine)
Jesus gave these instructions in (glorified) person shortly before His ascension into heaven.

You explain above that the reason for Jesus’ FIRST mission was to the Jewish Community because the chosen People were to be given the FIRST chance. Well, my friend, if you read Mat. 15:24 in the Catholic version of the New American Bible, Jesus himself declared that his mission was ONLY to the lost sheep of the House of Israel and not first.

Yes, while Jesus was here incarnate, His mission was to the Jews. This was necessary in order that they either accept or reject Him…Their rejection and the subsequent death and resurrection…completed that mission after which he gave the instructions I quoted above. "Make disciples of all nations.

Who decided to expand his mission after Jesus was gone? As far as I am concerned, his Apostles did it by assigning Peter to the Gentiles. (Acts 15:7) When Paul showed up in scene, there were already many Gentiles converted by Peter throughout Asia Minor.

Well - Since my quote above demonstrates that it was Jesus Himself who expanded the mission, the Apostles only did what they had been instructed to do and in which they were guided by God’s Holy Spirit.

And with regards to Paul, He did preach to one or two public places, but I would figure about 2%, while 98% in the synagogues of the Jews. 2% is hardly enough to justify the title of apostle to the Gentiles. And you are right that he was rejected more than several times in the synagogues and did decide to turn to the Gentiles. He shook the dust of his feet but, somehow, he changed his mind, left the place and went to the synagogues of the
Jews of another city in Iconium. (Acts 13:46,51; 14:1) When you say that he simply went to the Gentiles, can you show me the text?

I’m not that familiar with the various texts etc…
But in so far as the whole Church being more than welcoming to Gentiles, I would simply refer to the Council in Acts 15 in which it “seemed good to the Holy Spirit” and to the Apostles to set aside much of the OT law in regards to Gentile converts.
This may not directly answer your questions about where Paul preached, but it does clearly state that the Church in general, guided by the Spirit, was quite welcoming of Gentiles.

And last but not least, if my speculations are plucked out of context, and wrong for that matter, we must find a text to harmonize the previous one in order to prevent contradictions. Otherwise, we have no choice but to accept everything by faith that dispenses with the struggle to know. But then again, for lack of knowledge, people perish. (Hos. 4:6) What are we supposed to do?

What we are suppose to do is to follow the instructions provided in Mt 18:15-18…When there are such issues that need resolved, we can take them to “The Church” and “Listen to The Church”. Thus all is harmonized and we remain in the unity for which Christ prayed in John 13:34-35.

I can only say again that no contradiction exists. The Gospel story - as presented in Scripture - is just fine.

Peace
James

 

[Shibolet]

You’re exactly right.

You’re about 280 years off. And what’s with this “Church of Paul” bit anyway? Paul himself would have read you the riot act if you’d said that in front of him. Paul was quite adamant that there is one church only, and it is the church of Jesus Christ.

Yes Nan S, whenever I refer to the church of Paul, I mean Christianity. It happens that when the Nazarene synagogue of Antioch was growing out of proportions, James and the Elders in Jerusalem had assigned Barnabas to serve as the Rabbi or Pastor, well, the leader of that synagogue. Then, Barnabas took upon himself to go look for Paul in Tarsus and invited him to work with him. All it took was a whole year and the disciples started being called Christians for the first time. Why? Probably because Paul would teach about Jesus as Christ. That’s in Acts 11:19-26. Then, IMO, Christianity started with the first church aka the Catholic Church and from then on, till all the divisions we have today.

 

[Shibolet]

Weren’t Ephesians and Hebrews written by Peter? Also, Saul didn’t convert until after the Ascension, even

Well, according to the Catholic version of the NAB, Ephesians was written by Paul; and some scholars do attest that Paul wrote the letter to the Hebrews without identify himself in order not to endanger the status of a very few Christian community before the Jewish authorities because of the havoc he had caused in Jerusalem when he was preaching about Jesus as the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. So, he was expelled back to Tarsus where he stayed for 14 years. That’s why the small Christian community would gather in private houses. (Acts 9:20-30; Gal. 2:1)

Paul converted only about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. He was about 25 or 30 when he went to the High Priest for letters to arrest followers of the “New Way” in the synagogues of Damascus. (Acts 9:1,2)

 

[Shibolet]

The OP perhaps would have received a more appropriate response had he clarified his source from where the conversation piece comes from. Now it has been 15 posts and we are still guessing. Probably some of us thrive in suspense.

I don’t know where to start. It does not make sense because everything there is based on wrong premises so there is nothing to talk about other than saying that what is laid there is wrong. Perhaps you should have revealed your source to see the context.

Hey Reuben, to say that something is wrong without why it is wrong, is not much of a help
in the field of learning. My source is well quoted in the text of the gospels. Now, if you mean to appeal to “authorities” it becomes more akin to a fallacy than a challenge to research. You can see the context by going to the source in the very gospel text.

 

[Shibolet]

But setting that aside for the moment, why does mat 28:19-20 need to explain Mt 10:5-6? Two different missions given at different times and for different purposes.