Ok, thanks. Another important thing though is methodological considerations. I'm happy to discuss this but sometimes talking about the NT has turned out to be an exercise in futility because I'm looking at them as historical documents, and the people or person I'm talking to is applying Christian interpretations (which is fine, but it makes dialogue quite difficult). For example, I think that there is evidence to support the idea that Jesus never intended his message to extend to gentiles. But the last time I discussed this with someone (my brother, who is a hardcore Catholic) he simply applied the Church's interpretation and we didn't get anywhere.
In any event, I think we can agree that Paul certainly wanted to spread the "good news" to the gentiles. However, Jesus seems to have been somewhere between unconcerned with gentiles to almost hostile. He tended to avoid not only largely gentile locations, but gentiles in general, and encouraged his followers to do the same (Matt. 10:5). There are indications that he did have some positive interactions with gentiles, but it is hard to tell the extent to which these are historical (IMO, given the oral nature of the Jesus tradition, and the way orality works, it's much more likely that his teachings were more accurately remembered than any given event). And even here, not everything is positive. For example, in Mark (7:26-29) Jesus does help the Syrophenician woman, but he invokes (as he does elsewhere, cf. Mat. 7:6) a comparison between gentiles or those who are not of Israel and dogs. That such hostility or at least disregard is recorded in apologetic texts which were written in Greek after Paul and others had already begun a mission of gentile conversions suggested that it was fairly firmly rooted. And, althought it is an argument from silence, Paul's letters (particularly Galations) show a rift in the early church because not everyone was as eager to preach to gentiles as he. Yet he does not invoke Jesus' example or any teaching. Similarly (i.e., an argument from silence) while there every indication that Jesus was known for interacting with the "untouchables" (tax collectors, sinners, the poor), this stands in stark contrast to his avoidance/neglect of (perhaps hostility to) non-jews.
Very well, thank you too.
To review your main point, Jesus may not have intended to expound to the gentiles, and Paul may have taken this upon himself.
I hope that is safe enough to paraphrase you, because I want to make sure I understand your point.
If that is correct, can we not look at the entire bible very generally to say that God throughout the bible gave indications he was tired with the people of Israel, but never the less kept a remnant of them for his purposes? I mean if one only reads the OT once, it would be blatantly obvious, God's chosen people were kept in part because as the OT put it, God "said he would have a people to himself".
So, Jesus comes along, entirely Jewish and as such maintains the laws as I suppose he saw fit to keep them, and had a duty to perform. How often did Jesus say I am about my father's business here. So, we do not know that his mission was simply to do what he did indeed do.
I guess what I am missing as proof in the contradiction you are presenting is the prevalent thought that Jesus was against going "also" to the gentiles. "Also" being a key word here, because I think the point is, that many of the established Israelites rejected him, so what choice would he have but go to the gentiles with salvation eventually. Isn't that logical at all? I mean, the bible says also, that God would provoke his people to jealousy by going after a new people.
So, it is possible God chose the gentiles to provoke jealousy in the Israelites, so that some of them would come back to God. Of course I realize this is absurd to Jews today, and back then for the most part, but does underline why the gentiles were inevitably going to be sought after. At least that is what I am proposing as a basic counter to your position.
So to review, the claim is Jesus was against teaching Gentiles, or at least looked at them as less than equal with Israelites. You cited the woman he referenced as a dog, to which I will say that is certainly an option, but does take a bit of interpretation on your part to make the conclusion you have made.
You said you want to avoid interpretation, but I think we are both going to be forced to do a bit of interpreting as we move forward. Yet, I also believe we can stay civil if we choose to
Hope this was a respectful response.
