Jews Rejected God's Offer

Which Beatle are you talking about, Sargent Pepper? I think you mean Paul.

After reading Amlodhi’s Message 194 I did a cursory read through of the synoptics and I found the following concerning what the apostles possibly knew.BEFORE THE CRUCIFIXION:Peter’s Confession that Jesus is the Messiah
(Mark 8:27-29, Matthew 16:13-16, Luke 9:18-20)
Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.Jesus Taught of his Suffering
(Mark 8:31-9:1, Matthew 16:21-28, Luke 9:22-27)
Jesus began to teach them how the Son of Man must suffer, but he didn’t say they must be silent or that they don’t understand.Transfiguration
(Mark 9:2-8, Matthew 17:1-13, Luke 9:28-36)
Peter, James, and John saw Moses and Elijah and Jesus told them not to tell anyone what they had seen.Jesus Again Teaches he must suffer
(Mark 9:30-32, Matthew 17:22-23, Luke 9:44-45)
Mark - Disciples did not understand
Matthew — Disciples were filled with grief.
Luke — Betrayed — Disciples did not grasp it.
In all they were afraid to ask for explanation!AFTER THE RESURRECTION:Mark — Nothing
Matthew — 28:16-20 (Baptize and teach the nations to obey everything Jesus commanded his disciples)
Luke — 24:45-49 (He opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures. He told them this was written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.)Next I looked through Acts when the apostles were supposed to receive the Holy Spirit.In Acts 1 after the resurrection and Jesus was teaching the apostles, the apostles asked Jesus directly: Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel? and Jesus answered It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority... Doesn’t sound like Israel was kicked out of the running yet.In Acts 2 they receive the Holy Spirit and Peter addresses the crowd and quotes Joel 2:28-32 which ended with And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. In Joel the word LORD is in all caps denoting the name of God. The same for his quote according to a Psalm of David a few verses later. I saw the LORD always before me... (16) and The LORD said to my Lord:... (110)
So when Peter says Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. The people ask what they should do?Needless to say this would be the perfect time to spill the beans!Peter replies Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far offfor all whom the Lord our God will call.In Acts 3 Peter speaks to others saying: Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of the refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for youeven Jesus. He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything...These instructions do not say that one must believe that Jesus is the messiah. The message is still repent, which is what Jesus taught. Isn’t the time of the refreshing the Kingdom of God?Now Peter also quotes Moses: The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people.Unfortunately since Jesus told the apostles to be silent about who he was, he wasn’t presented to the Jewish people as a prophet to heed.The prayer in Acts 4:24-30 even shows the people prayed to God and that the death of Jesus was decided beforehand by God.Tentative Conclusion: After they received the Holy Spirit, the apostles did, according to the author, reveal that Jesus was the messiah after his death, they did teach that the prophets spoke of Jesus and what he was to endure, they did not appear confused as to the message they were supposed to spread, and the apostles still preached the message of repent and be baptized. They also continued their practice of temple Judaism.What I didn’t see was the requirement to believe that Jesus was the Son of God (in the sense of being part deity) or to give up Judaism.I did not see an "offer" that would disown the Jewish people because everyone or their leaders did not repent or did not believe that Jesus was the messiah.This message has been edited by purpledawn, 12-06-2004 11:04 AM

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

Originally posted by purpledawn

​

I did not see an "offer" that would disown the Jewish people because everyone or their leaders did not repent or did not believe that Jesus was the messiah.

---

Hi purpledawn,Great synopsis.According to the "prophetic" words of Ezekiel (Chapter 43 for instance), temple ritual and animal sacrifice would be going on even during the kingdom age under the rule of the messiah.According to the writings of the Qumran documents (the War Scroll for instance), the messianic expectation of pious Jews living just prior to, and during, the 1st century AD was that a messiah would be appointed by YHWH who would vanquish all of Israel's enemies (Rome primarily) and make Jerusalem the ruling city of the world.IMO then, the offer as it was understood by the apostles (and their followers) is that Jesus had been appointed as such a messiah (either at his baptism or upon his resurrection).They expected that "any day now" this messiah would return and lead Israel to vanquish the enemies of YHWH and Israel (by the physical, bloody slaughter of the infidels).At that time then, all those who had been believers and followers of this messiah (whether in Jerusalem or elsewhere) would be spared annihilation; i.e. they would be "saved".Jerusalem would become the ruling center of the world under the reign of YHWH's appointed king (messiah). All of the survivors of the massacre all over the world would then understand that YHWH was the one God and that Jesus was his appointed king over the world.And, in accordance with OT messianic prophecy, all the people in all the world would then make pilgrimages to Jerusalem to make their sacrifices to YHWH and view the dead, burning bodies of the infidels which would be stacked like cordwood in the valley ben Hinnom (Gehenna).This was the (messianic) Jewish expectation and, IMO, the only "offer" the Jews ever conceived of.The not-surprising truth of the matter, however, was that it didn't happen. In the real world, Judah was decimated because they provoked the very nation that the messianic Jews expected to subdue, i.e. Rome.The Pauline Christians, off on a tangent of their own, extrapolated the concepts and terminology used by the apostles into something totally other. Hence, they are still waiting for Jesus to come and destroy some euphemistic "Rome".That, IMO, is the only "offer" the Jews ever knew. The "offer" expounded by the Pauline Christians is an extrapolation, a "spinoff", which uses concepts and terminology that have been effectively divorced from their original intent and meaning.JMHO,Amlodhi

Amlodhi,It does seem that first Christians and that includes Paul thought Jesus would return very soon within the lifetimes of some them.It appears to me that later Christians i.e. the Catholic church had to develope a religion that would fill in the void that the failure of Christ to return had created for them. At the core of this is the denial of failure and a living for a future time that seems about to happen, should happen any day now, only year after year for 2 milenia it hasn't. Talk about dopamine fueled anticipation!lfen

Thank you,Now I need to write it down somewhere so I don't forget.

quote:

---

That, IMO, is the only "offer" the Jews ever knew. The "offer" expounded by the Pauline Christians is an extrapolation, a "spinoff", which uses concepts and terminology that have been effectively divorced from their original intent and meaning.

---

I agree, now we'll see if anyone refutes this position.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

You are right.The writer of the gospel of John never met Jesus in person either. That
gospel was written very late in the first century at the earliest.The standard time frame given for the Gospel of John is between 90 and 120 C.E.

Ramoss, you are thus telling me that in your scholastic search, John the Apostle did not write John the Gospel? You really should stop listening to the atheistic scholars with swollen egos. Why do you think that the authorship of John was NOT the Apostle? Here in Denver, Dr. Craig Blomberg at Denver Seminary has numerous scholastic sources that support the Apostle as author. Are you purposefully ignoring church sources due to bias? Even Church scholars have a brain...they don't just support each others facts because "God wrote it!" They actually do research and in many instances their research exceeds the secular scholars who take a different road merely to make a name for themselves and...unofficially...because they consciously despise the Biblical literalists and their supporters.

Phat,What are his sources? Scholastic sounds to me like medieval theology i.e. Thomas Aquinas and philosophers of his time.lfen

I'll tell you some of the sources used by the apologists if you tell me yours.
I gotta go to work now, and its a pain copying all these names down. I'll get back to ya, though. One question: How do you and I agree on who is and is not an authority? For every naysayer there is an opponent. I suspect that we will not agree on this, but we will see.

Yes, that is my contention.And, of course, my scholarly sources are NOT atheistic. From
Gospel of JohnRobert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

​

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status. and Kysar states concerning the dating of the Gospel of John: "Those who relate the expulsion to a formal effort on the part of Judaism to purge itself of Christian believers link the composition of the gospel with a date soon after the Council of Jamnia, which is supposed to have promulgated such an action. Hence, these scholars would date John after 90. Those inclined to see the expulsion more in terms of an informal action on the part of a local synagogue are free to propose an earlier date." (p. 919) Many more sources too.Unless you are going to claim that the late Father Raymond Edward Brown was an athiest, you really should stop with the attacks, and
actually LOOK at what the legitiment scholars say.

OK, I looked up some of the sources that you mention. Ramoss, I can not say that these people are atheists. they certainly do not square with the Christian apologetic literature which I have read from the likes of Greg Boyd, R.C. Sproul, and Josh McDowell.I found that Robert Kysar, Ph. D., is Professor of Preaching and New Testament at Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta. He is the author of many books about the Bible.Dr. Kysar is the author of nearly twenty books and scores of articles and reviews and videos. He is considered the national authority on the Gospel of John. During his career he has been active with social service agencies, college committees, community organizations, professional organizations and with the Lutheran Church.I also saw the types of similar books mentioned with your source. My tradition is one of Biblical Inerrency, whereas these scholars are critics. Are they right? If so, does that negate the reality of a living Spirit and a living Word? I will concede that your source, although more from Lutheran/Catholic scholarship, is respected and thorough.My only fear is some of that Gnostic stuff. It is definitely NOT of my Orthodox belief. My experiences have come more from the Charismatic impartated side of Christianity, whereas the respected sources that you mention are of the "study of religion" which includes the Gnostic stuff. Im still leery of educated wisdom, but I can readily see where many more people are leery of backwoods fundamentalism.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 12-10-2004 01:56 AM

When it comes to looking at scholarship and truth, I would trust a Raymond Brown , who had a TH.D and taught in a major Catholic university
over someone whose books showed a lot of poor scholarship, bad logic, and extremely biased research (such as Josh McDowell). I don't know the
other two.The biggest critism I have about many (not all) of the apologists is that they start out with a specific viewpoint, and reject or misinterpret the information that is available to fit their predeterminted viewpoint.When it specficially comes to such works as John, they start with the
concept it was written BY John, and will not look at the historical or internal evidence. For example, the gospel of Luke specifically says
within it that the author of Luke was taking it from other sources, yet I have seen people claim that the Gospel of Luke was writen BY the apostle Luke.IMO, you need something more than just faith, and the reliance on some
hick authors to be able to make a valid evaluation about things.And, you know, I think you are looking at the Gnositic stuff in the wrong light. Yes, the Gnositic stuff is not of your belief, and I
certainly would not want to try to get anybody to actually believe it,
but it is certainly interesting in it's own right from a historical
point of view.. on the ways that different groups religious beliefs
developed,and trying to understand why some of those survived,and others did not.The part I don't like about innerancy, is that the contortions that people have to go through to try to explain obvious contradiction, both religious and historical. For example, I have yet to find one
person who believed in Inerrency that could explain the contradiction
of the date of Jesus's birth between Matthew and Luke. They mention
historical events that make their accounts mutually exclusive.

Can you post the verses so we can look at them?

I'm not following this but it seems this is time for a new thread rather than taking this one off track.As well, 300 posts isn't that far off.

My apologies.Ramoss,Please create a new thread if you would like your question addressed.