Has Saint Paul hijacked Christianity?

[Kenny]

Well, since I am not discussing with the Jews of the time of Jesus, we have got to make with what we have. "When Israel was a child, out of Egypt I called My son" is a text of Hosea 11:1 with reference to Israel, not to Jesus. Where is it told in the Prophets that Jesus went to live in a town called Nazareth? See what I mean? There is nothing in the Tanach as a prophecy pointing to any thing in NT. What was spoken through Isaiah is that Israel aka Messiah Ben Joseph took up the infirmities of Judah aka Messiah Ben David according to a prophecy in Psalm 78:67-70 when the Lord rejected Israel and confirmed Judah as His peculiar People forever.

You may not be discussing it with the Jews of the time of Jesus, but it is still relevant in as much as many a Jewish Rabbi would disagree with another on a specific point. Just because that is your stance doesn't mean that all Jews agreed or agree with you. The fact that the Jews of that time did believe it was Messianic in nature, makes a point that it is in the realm of possibility that it would be you that is mistaken

Does Hosea 11:1 speak of Israel. Absolutely, as you have stated. But there are many scriptures that have a present and a future meaning and thus the people of that time, as I would subscribe to today, it was both Israel as well as the Messiah. No different than Isaac, being a real person, also represents the Messiah in many aspects.

As far as Nazarene, the thought that I subscribe to is better said by this quote"

"[He shall be called a Nazarene.] Those things which are brought from Isaiah 11:1 concerning Netzer, the Branch; ... ... And that by the word, Nazarene, he hints his separation and estrangement from other men, as a despicable person, and unworthy of the society of men.

I. Let it be observed, that the evangelist does not cite some one of the prophets, but all: "spoken by the prophets." But now all the prophets, in a manner, do preach the vile and abject condition of Christ; none, that his original should be out of Nazareth.

II. David, in his person, speaks thus; I was a stranger to my brethren, Psalm 69:9.

III. If you derive the word Nazarene, which not a few do, from Nazir, a Nazirean, that word denotes not only a separation, dedicated to God, such as that of the Nazarenes was; but it signifies also the separation of a man from others, as being unworthy of their society; Genesis 49:26, "They shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren."

Therefore, let us digest the sense of the evangelist by this paraphrase: Joseph was to depart with Christ to Beth-lehem, the city of David, or to Jerusalem, the royal city, had not the fear of Archelaus hindered him. Therefore, by the signification of an angel, he is sent away into Galilee, a very contemptible country, and into the city Nazareth, a place of no account: whence, from this very place, and the name of it, you may observe that fulfilled to a tittle which is so often declared by the prophets, that the Messias should be Nazor, a stranger, or separate from men, as if he were a very vile person, and not worthy of their company."

Since you did not comment on the third one, do I assume you have no response?

My point is simply that the Jew who wrote Matthew, represented a section of people that did believe it was prophetic in nature as do I.

 

[metis]

My point is simply that the Jew who wrote Matthew, represented a section of people that did believe it was prophetic in nature.

But isn't that to be expected?

 

[Kenny]

But isn't that to be expected?

Absolutely, if I understand your application. Even the 10 spies disagreed with the 2 (as everyone can have a different viewpoint) but only the 2 were right and received the promise.

 

[Ben Avraham]

You may not be discussing it with the Jews of the time of Jesus, but it is still relevant in as much as many a Jewish Rabbi would disagree with another on a specific point. Just because that is your stance doesn't mean that all Jews agreed or agree with you. The fact that the Jews of that time did believe it was Messianic in nature, makes a point that it is in the realm of possibility that it would be you that is mistaken.

In fact, many Jews still believe in an individual Messiah to come. That's their prerogative as mine is to adopt the collective concept of Messiah. However, I am still open for some persuasion.

Does Hosea 11:1 speak of Israel. Absolutely, as you have stated. But there are many scriptures that have a present and a future meaning and thus the people of that time, as I would subscribe to today, it was both Israel as well as the Messiah. No different than Isaac, being a real person, also represents the Messiah in many aspects.

Now, you are speculating. Although you have all the right in the world, it does not make any sense at all to my understanding.

As far as Nazarene, the thought that I subscribe to is better said by this quote" "[He shall be called a Nazarene.] Those things which are brought from Isaiah 11:1 concerning Netzer, the Branch; ... ... And that by the word, Nazarene, he hints his separation and estrangement from other men, as a despicable person, and unworthy of the society of men. I. Let it be observed, that the evangelist does not cite some one of the prophets, but all: "spoken by the prophets." But now all the prophets, in a manner, do preach the vile and abject condition of Christ; none, that his original should be out of Nazareth. II. David, in his person, speaks thus; I was a stranger to my brethren, Psalm 69:9. III. If you derive the word Nazarene, which not a few do, from Nazir, a Nazirean, that word denotes not only a separation, dedicated to God, such as that of the Nazarenes was; but it signifies also the separation of a man from others, as being unworthy of their society; Genesis 49:26, "They shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren."

You are confusing "Nazarite" with Nazarene. One had nothing to do with the other. Nazarene is a reference "from Nazareth". Nazarite was a spiritual vow of a temporal character.

Therefore, let us digest the sense of the evangelist by this paraphrase: Joseph was to depart with Christ to Beth-lehem, the city of David, or to Jerusalem, the royal city, had not the fear of Archelaus hindered him. Therefore, by the signification of an angel, he is sent away into Galilee, a very contemptible country, and into the city Nazareth, a place of no account: whence, from this very place, and the name of it, you may observe that fulfilled to a tittle which is so often declared by the prophets, that the Messias should be Nazor, a stranger, or separate from men, as if he were a very vile person, and not worthy of their company."

That's about Jesus according to Matthew. Luke, by default, denies Egypt in the life of Jesus. Meaning, he was never there.

Since you did not comment on the third one, do I assume you have no response? My point is simply that the Jew who wrote Matthew, represented a section of people that did believe it was prophetic in nature as do I.

Never a Jew wrote a single page of the NT. The gospel of Matthew shows an strong evidence that someone else wrote that gospel and attributed it to Matthew the apostle probably to enhance credibility to the gospel of Paul aka the NT. Read Mat. 9:9.

 

[metis]

Absolutely, if I understand your application. Even the 10 spies disagreed with the 2 (as everyone can have a different viewpoint) but only the 2 were right and received the promise.

Yes, and my point was that what we are reading in Mathew is from a Jew(s) who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but what we don't have for us to read are those who didn't. Historians are pretty much convinced in terms of what's not written that Jesus was actually quite a minor figure with a very limited following. Now, for some people, this might sound like heresy, but I've seen this position cited from some Christian theologians as well.

However, this is not to say nor imply Matthew was wrong-- I just wasn't there to confirm it one way or another. IOW, I'm not quite as old as @RabbiO thinks I am.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes, and my point was that what we are reading in Mathew is from a Jew(s) who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but what we don't have for us to read are those who didn't. Historians are pretty much convinced in terms of what's not written that Jesus was actually quite a minor figure with a very limited following. Now, for some people, this might sound like heresy, but I've seen this position cited from some Christian theologians as well.

However, this is not to say nor imply Matthew was wrong-- I just wasn't there to confirm it one way or another. IOW, I'm not quite as old as @RabbiO thinks I am.

Merely because some Jews did not accept Jesus as 'a' Messiah /theres a distinction there, because the second coming has not happened, and another Messiah has not arrived/,, does not mean that Jesus did not fulfill all the Messianic duties prescribed to Him. Some people do not accept Him as the Messiah, who cares? Some people are Buddhists, some people worship trees, some people are atheists..

Shabbat Shalom

 

[metis]

Merely because some Jews did not accept Jesus as 'a' Messiah /theres a distinction there, because the second coming has not happened, and another Messiah has not arrived/,, does not mean that Jesus did not fulfill all the Messianic duties prescribed to Him. Some people do not accept Him as the Messiah, who cares? Some people are Buddhists, some people worship trees, some people are atheists..

Shabbat Shalom

It really isn't that simple at all because so much is based on interpretation and interpretation is variable from person to person.
Frankly, I have no belief in "a Messiah", which is not to say there could be one, so I really doubt very much that Jesus was one.

 

[Desert Snake]

It really isn't that simple at all because so much is based on interpretation and interpretation is variable from person to person.
Frankly, I have no belief in "a Messiah", which is not to say there could be one, so I really doubt very much that Jesus was one.

I don't have a problem with that, however the argument is about the Messiah nature of Jesus, and since He did fulfill those duties, /those specific duties which in the Messiah concept are necessary, then that is what we have.. There isn't another Messiah, so right now any talk of ''Messiah''', outside the context of Jesus, is just theoretical.

 

[metis]

I don't have a problem with that, however the argument is about the Messiah nature of Jesus, and since He did fulfill those duties, /those specific duties which in the Messiah concept are necessary, then that is what we have.. There isn't another Messiah, so right now any talk of ''Messiah''', outside the context of Jesus, is just theoretical.

As is any talk about Jesus being the Messiah.

BTW, do remember that there's the quote whereas Jesus says that he would return in "this generation", and that was only a bit over 1900 years ago.

 

[Desert Snake]

As is any talk about Jesus being the Messiah.

...

BTW, do remember that there's the quote whereas Jesus says that he would return in "this generation", and that was only a bit over 1900 years ago.

No, it doesn't mean what you are inferring/interpreted it as.
This statement /there is some differing opinion, but we know what it can't mean/, means that beginning of these events started before that generation shall pass.
We note this thusly, from the context of the statement
Matthew 24:5
'many shall come'
Matthew 24:7
'kingdom against kingdom
Matthew 24:11
false prophets
Matthew 24:24
leading to the verse in question,
Matthew 24:34
Clearly these verses are referring to future events, because they speak of 'many false prophets, and so forth. That obviously could not occur all 'within that generation'.

 

[metis]

...


No, it doesn't mean what you are inferring/interpreted it as.
This statement /there is some differing opinion, but we know what it can't mean/, means that beginning of these events started before that generation shall pass.
We note this thusly, from the context of the statement
Matthew 24:5
'many shall come'
Matthew 24:7
'kingdom against kingdom
Matthew 24:11
false prophets
Matthew 24: 24
leading to the verse in question,
Matthew 24:34
Clearly these verses are referring to future events, because they speak of 'many false prophets, and so forth. That obviously could not occur all 'within that generation'.

Tjhis is what Matthew 24:34 says: "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place." Note that he is talking to people of his generation, not anyone else's.

BTW, I use the RSV because it is the closest translation to the original Koine Greek, which is why many verses don't read too smoothly. Compare that to the KJV that I grew up reading that is quite poetic but doesn't translate as directly from the Greek.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, and my point was that what we are reading in Mathew is from a Jew(s) who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but what we don't have for us to read are those who didn't. Historians are pretty much convinced in terms of what's not written that Jesus was actually quite a minor figure with a very limited following. Now, for some people, this might sound like heresy, but I've seen this position cited from some Christian theologians as well.

However, this is not to say nor imply Matthew was wrong-- I just wasn't there to confirm it one way or another. IOW, I'm not quite as old as @RabbiO thinks I am.

Absolutely. And thus Paul and the Apostles had one problem after another from the Jews who didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah and we, to this day, are still arguing about whether he is or isn't. Certainly we know that the foundation of believers started at that moment and moved quickly thanks to the Roman roads.

Of course, I am in the camp that believe he is.

As far as limited, who knows? Our records show 3,000 on the first day -- another 5,000 not too long afterwards and then it spread quite rapidly. So what is limited? Didn't sound to limited to me but I wasn't there either.

One thing for sure... when the Messiah comes to reign, there won't be any more arguments about it.

 

[Thief]

What I think is that mainstream Christianity has been totally and inexorably influenced by Saint Paul's philosophical speculation which doesn't match with the most important principles of the evangelical message (the Gospels) To sum them up, it is sufficient to say that the Gospels clearly speak of the Kingdom of God, which is attainable only through men's efforts, so therefore Heaven is reached only through free will, that is, the choice of Good and the rejection of sin.
On the contrary, Paul speaks of a mankind that can't do but sin, and only through the faith in Jesus' blood it can be redeemed. So..according to this Anatolian philosopher, it is sufficient to believe that Christ was crucified to save us from sin, and that all our sins are forgiven through this simple act of faith.

I would like to ask rationalists here :...do you think there's something logical in this? I think there's nothing more twisted, anti-Christian and illogical than this theological principle.
This contradict all Jesus' parables, which clearly say that only the choice of good and altruism is the key to both worldly and otherworldly happiness.

You don't need to be a psychologist to understand the reason why Paul invented this concept.
Paul had been a wicked person who persecuted Christians (among whom St Stephen) and probably executed some of them. Suddenly and miraculously, he was enlightened by God and found out he was doing evil. Once he saw the light, he surely was ashamed of himself. And this shame was accentuated by the fact that there were so many Jews and Pagans, whose behavior was irreproachable: Jews whose life was very spiritual and Christian-like, and Pagans (especially after the Pagan renewing movement) who had never hurt anybody, but practiced abstinence and chastity.
The only way to feel better than these people was to create a concept that excluded Non-Christians from salvation.That is, inventing the concept of salvation by faith alone, making us believe that all sins are equal and redemption is earned by faith, regardless of personal merits.
Saul said to himself: "How can I feel a better person than those people? Simple: I rely on the story that Jesus's blood redeems people and erases sin. So, no matter how good and sinless Jews and Pagans are, I will always be better than them, because I believe that Jesus' blood has saved me."


I don't want to deny that there are lots of Christian-like concepts in Paul's epistles. Nevertheless, reading his works as a whole, it is clear that his personality was very tormented, surely devoured by a grave inner conflict.

I know that some Christians will "massacre" me...that's why I would really use the help and support of @wizanda and @Kelly of the Phoenix

yep....I don't follow Paul

did I miss it?.....did anyone note?
Paul (allegedly) never met Jesus

 

[Kenny]

Tjhis is what Matthew 24:34 says: "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place." Note that he is talking to people of his generation, not anyone else's.

BTW, I use the RSV because it is the closest translation to the original Koine Greek, which is why many verses don't read too smoothly. Compare that to the KJV that I grew up reading that is quite poetic but doesn't translate as directly from the Greek.

I wouldn't agree with that interpretation. When he says "this" generation... he is talking about the generation that will see those things come to pass.

Notice what "this" generation he was talking about in context:

10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.
11 And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.
12And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death;
13 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.
14 "But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains;
15 let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything away;
16 and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle.
17 And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!
18 Pray that it may not happen in winter.
19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be.
20 And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
21 And then if any one says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or'Look, there he is!' do not believe it.
22False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
23 But take heed; I have told you all things beforehand.
24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
26 And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
27 And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

The context of "this" generation is the generation that fulfills the scriptures before the statement and it very specifically says the gospel must first be preached to all nations. "That" generation didn't accomplish that. However "this" (one) generation is and will if it continues as it is today..

It very specifically talks about the generation of the tribulation. "This" generation is the one he is referring to.

 

[roger1440]

Besides, I think that it would be interesting and helpful for us Christians to listen to a Jewish person's opinion.

A good place to start is YouTube. There are a few Rabbis and Jewish professors got my interest. Check these guys out.

Dr. Henry Abramson Henry Abramson



Henry Abramson
Henry Abramson, a specialist in Jewish history and thought, serves as Dean at the mighty Avenue J campus of Tour...


Jews for Judaism Jews for Judaism
jewsforjudaism.ca/inside-the-missionary-mind/














Jews for Judaism
JEWS FOR JUDAISM responds to Jews for Jesus messianic Jewish Christian missionaries One for Israel Maoz TBN ASKD...

 

[metis]

Absolutely. And thus Paul and the Apostles had one problem after another from the Jews who didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah and we, to this day, are still arguing about whether he is or isn't. Certainly we know that the foundation of believers started at that moment and moved quickly thanks to the Roman roads.

Of course, I am in the camp that believe he is.

As far as limited, who knows? Our records show 3,000 on the first day -- another 5,000 not too long afterwards and then it spread quite rapidly. So what is limited? Didn't sound to limited to me but I wasn't there either.

One thing for sure... when the Messiah comes to reign, there won't be any more arguments about it.

At least some of the Christian theologians that I have read feel that the numbers were highly inflated. First of all, we have to remember that the authors were highly subjective with their writings. People may have been curious and may have even gotten to the point of seeing him, but there's no real indication that the numbers could have been that high that stuck with the movement, especially after Jesus was outs of the picture.

Secondly, if the numbers were that high, then the movement would have made more "headlines" in the "Jewish press", but the fact is so little is said about Jesus other that which came from his followers. One has to try and picture this: "I am God's only son, and I was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit, and I am a prophet and the Messiah". OK, you believe me, right? Now try and sell that to Jews that were/are brought up not to believe in this kind of stuff, now or then.

Thirdly, if we're dealing with thousands converting, we have to remember that the population of eretz Israel simply was not that large to begin with. Those numbers would indicate a relatively large movement, and yet the communities in the diasporah were quite small to the point whereas Martin Marty (Lutheran) believes it was probably close to being largely wiped out at three intervals in its early history. Even by the time of Constantine these communities appear to not get much outside "press" pretty much anywhere. I know some theologians/historians believe that without Constantine's conversion and making Christianity the state religion that it would have remained a relatively minor religion.

Ah, but early "history" tends to be so speculative, so this is simply "academic" to me. Instead, I'd rather focus on Jesus' message of compassion and justice/fairness, which is a very significant legacy that he left that indeed has influenced much of the world for the better. Fortunately, he was not the only person the world who taught that.

 

[metis]

I wouldn't agree with that interpretation. When he says "this" generation... he is talking about the generation that will see those things come to pass.

Notice what "this" generation he was talking about in context:

10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.
11 And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.
12And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death;
13 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.
14 "But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains;
15 let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything away;
16 and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle.
17 And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!
18 Pray that it may not happen in winter.
19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be.
20 And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
21 And then if any one says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or'Look, there he is!' do not believe it.
22False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
23 But take heed; I have told you all things beforehand.
24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
26 And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
27 And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

The context of "this" generation is the generation that fulfills the scriptures before the statement and it very specifically says the gospel must first be preached to all nations. "That" generation didn't accomplish that. However "this" (one) generation is and will if it continues as it is today..

It very specifically talks about the generation of the tribulation. "This" generation is the one he is referring to.

Sorry, but that's just playing fast and loose with what was written. Now, whether it was recorded in Matthew correctly is another question.

And if there was a doubt about this, then we cannot explain why it was that Paul teaches the flock not to marry, plus there was an expectation in the early church that Jesus was coming back sooner rather than later. Your position just doesn't add up in terms of what happens next.

But whatever.

 

[Hawkins]

The 12 are to witness Jesus' deeds while they are the Jews without a full understanding what's going on theologically. Paul is a formally trained Pharisee (by a famous Pharisee teacher) thus he is chose by Jesus Himself to explain the New Covenant from a more theological perspective. This is definitely a necessity for later on Christians to grasp the concept of salvation theoretically.

 

[Kenny]

At least some of the Christian theologians that I have read feel that the numbers were highly inflated. First of all, we have to remember that the authors were highly subjective with their writings. People may have been curious and may have even gotten to the point of seeing him, but there's no real indication that the numbers could have been that high that stuck with the movement, especially after Jesus was outs of the picture.

Secondly, if the numbers were that high, then the movement would have made more "headlines" in the "Jewish press", but the fact is so little is said about Jesus other that which came from his followers. One has to try and picture this: "I am God's only son, and I was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit, and I am a prophet and the Messiah". OK, you believe me, right? Now try and sell that to Jews that were/are brought up not to believe in this kind of stuff, now or then.

Thirdly, if we're dealing with thousands converting, we have to remember that the population of eretz Israel simply was not that large to begin with. Those numbers would indicate a relatively large movement, and yet the communities in the diasporah were quite small to the point whereas Martin Marty (Lutheran) believes it was probably close to being largely wiped out at three intervals in its early history. Even by the time of Constantine these communities appear to not get much outside "press" pretty much anywhere. I know some theologians/historians believe that without Constantine's conversion and making Christianity the state religion that it would have remained a relatively minor religion.

Ah, but early "history" tends to be so speculative, so this is simply "academic" to me. Instead, I'd rather focus on Jesus' message of compassion and justice/fairness, which is a very significant legacy that he left that indeed has influenced much of the world for the better. Fortunately, he was not the only person the world who taught that.

Yes, we have a large spectrum of opinions as we look back with limited information. Not sure how you can say "the numbers could (not) have been that high". It reached Rome and the Colosseum was filled with the death of them. We have the same problem with how many people left Egypt, were they really in Egypt, is the record given of the Israelites true... it seems like everyone wants to prove there is no real Israel. I would also hold the record of Israel is also true and continues to be verified as archaeological discoveries are made.

Obviously, (my bias), I would be of the opinion that it wasn't inflated. Three thousand died at the inception of the giving of the law and three thousand lived at the inception of grace. I think numbers are significant. Were both numbers rounded? Maybe. But rounded is still significant in quantity.

On the "second" point, I think you have hit something and we sure could start another thread on this. (and we may make these responses too long if we continue to add 1-3 points and developing sub-points to these points

1. It didn't hit the press because it was suppressed. Much like today, many things don't hit the press because they don't want it out of the bag
2. The Roman Empire also had its effect. Remembering that Jerusalem was destroyed not long after, there were other fronts that were taking precedent over the press
3. In that Josephus did speak about it as a historian... maybe there was more to it than what records we have available today.

There are more... but it gets too long.

Point three... It was a High-Sabbath... therefore the population would have mushroomed much larger than the population existing at the capital.

But, yes, history is speculative.

And the message of Jesus is of utmost importance. "All we need is love" la la la la.. (Beatles) I would say "agape" love.

 

[Kenny]

Sorry, but that's just playing fast and loose with what was written. Now, whether it was recorded in Matthew correctly is another question.

And if there was a doubt about this, then we cannot explain why it was that Paul teaches the flock not to marry, plus there was an expectation in the early church that Jesus was coming back sooner rather than later. Your position just doesn't add up in terms of what happens next.

But whatever.

I'm not sure it is "playing fast" as I read it -- but I am willing to restudy that portion as I am always open to having a better understanding.

However, I would find your application of Paul and marriage apples and oranges.

Yes, my understanding is that they did believe it was sooner than later. But I find that more of a projection of what they wanted and superimposing their bias on what they heard even as they thought Jesus was going to set the Kingdom before he died on the cross and it wasn't until after the fact that they re-interpreted what they knew and saw what was written in a better light. It still happens today. What was written doesn't change--how we understand it does.