Jesus Failed Right?

[Kenny]

Actually no. The disciples struggled greatly converting jews, because a crucified messiah (an oxymoron, to a Jew at that time) was a total non-starter Their message, as Paul admitted, a stumbling block to Jews. Its what got Paul kicked and strapped and chased all over the place every time he'd try to talk about it. The early Christians enjoyed their greatest success converting gentiles, this has ben well-documented by several studies (i.e. the demographics of the rising Jesus movement)).

I think you need to reread the Book of Acts. What you are referencing was Paul who was called to the Gentiles. Peter and James were quite successful with the Jewish people:

Acts 6:7
Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

"Multiplied greatly" doesn’t mean a few.

 

[Kenny]

There were millions of Jews in the Roman empire. Several thousand believed. I'd hardly call that "many."

Where did you get your number from?

Acts 6:7
Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

You don’t think that “multiplied greatly” at the beginning means “many”?

 

[Kenny]

Jews are a diverse lot. We entertain all sorts of ideas. However, in this case, the issue was thoroughly discussed and alternative interpretations were ditched for exactly the reasons that I gave you.

As someone who has taught English literature and composition, there are instances where legitimate differences in interpretation can exist. And there are other times where I have to give a student a failing grade because the text simply doesn't support their conclusions. In this instance, you cannot support the conclusion that Isaiah 53 is messianic--its an idea you completely pull out of your hat. I on the other hand, have given more than adequate textual support for Isaiah 53 being about Israel.

I realize that Christians are deeply and emotionally attached to Isaiah 53 being about Jesus. Given the tendency of humans towards confirmation bias, I do not expect you to see my point.

I sorry, but when the Jewish writers disagree with your position, they may have given you a failing grade in your viewpoint.

Now… I realize that you aren’t a believer and that you are approaching it on that basis. And, of course, you could say that I am doing the same thing.

But as you said, the Jews are a diverse lot.

I’ll stick with this Jewish interpretations:

Matt 8:17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: He Himself took our infirmities And bore our sicknesses.”

1 Peter 2:24 (A)who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, (B)that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—(C)by whose stripes you were healed.

And other Jewish writers.

 

[Kenny]

Galatians 5:2-6

2 Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.

Yes, in reference to salvation, it isn’t the circumcision of the foreskin that avails but rather the circumcision of the heart as it said in Deut and Jeremiah.

However:

Acts 16:3
Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.

So may want to redress what you are trying to say

 

[Kenny]

1 Corinthians 7:19
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.

Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value.

Galatians 6:15
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything;

Please read all that I posted.. (Deut.’; Jeremiah

and...

Acts 16:3
Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.

 

[Kenny]

Different interpretations aside, it is truly amazing to me that some like to prove points quoting the Bible when in fact they do not believe what is written.
NIV -"He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.".
2 Peter 3:16

I like the quote:

"Buzzards look for dead meat and eagles look for live meat and both birds find what they are looking for."

The application of that statement is simply that if you approach it as “I don’t believe” you will find anything that supports what you don’t believe” - even if it isn’t true.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Some Jews today are still looking for The Messiah.

Right, because the Jewish messiah (for Jews) never had anything to do with dying for our sins or any such thing. This was something Christians invented after the fact (i.e. of Jesus's death).

THe order of events went something like this:

1. 1st century Jews believed the messiah- the future and promised King of Israel- would throw off the Roman occupation and re-establish Israel as a sovereign nation as per the Davidic covenant
2. Jesus and/or his followers came to believe he was the messiah
3. oops, Jesus got crucified!
4. Jesus's followers re-invent what it means to be the messiah, since if Jesus is the messiah and Jesus is dead, it must be that the messiah wasn't supposed to defeat the Romans after all

Meanwhile Jews went on believing that the messiah was the future Davidic King who would re-establish Israel and fulfill the Davidic covenant... many to this day.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I think you need to reread the Book of Acts. What you are referencing was Paul who was called to the Gentiles. Peter and James were quite successful with the Jewish people:

I'm familiar with Acts. I also don't take things at face value without considering context. And then there's the relevant critical scholarship to consider.

All considered, the jury is out: the early Christian church had great success converting gentiles... and very tough going converting Jews. Which makes sense, because Paul tells us as much, and especially once you consider the early evangelists were basically telling Jewish people their entire religion was wrong (again, for Jews, messiah = powerful military figure who defeats and expels the Romans, NOT a lowly peasant preacher crucified for treason)

 

[Kenny]

I'm familiar with Acts. I also don't take things at face value without considering context. And then there's the relevant critical scholarship to consider.

All considered, the jury is out: the early Christian church had great success converting gentiles... and very tough going converting Jews. Which makes sense, because Paul tells us as much, and especially once you consider the early evangelists were basically telling Jewish people their entire religion was wrong (again, for Jews, messiah = powerful military figure who defeats and expels the Romans, NOT a lowly peasant preacher crucified for treason)

I disagree by what is written.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But in the beginning of the story, he was pretty arrogant towards the Canaanite woman, implying that he was certain that the Jews would follow him.
Same here.. “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6)

To me arrogant is one's POV and 'yes' don't go to the people of the nations nor the Samaritans (Matt. 15:24) as the woman at the well knew - John 4:9-15 - but no arrogance there.
Perhaps Acts 4:25-26 might help because notice the word 'first' there.
First indicates more to come. Jesus shows his connection to 'more' at John 8:12 by saying he is the light of the WORLD. World indicates more then just the Jews.
So, God had a set time or appointed time (divine timing) 'first' for the Jews - Mark 1:15 - to repent and believe.
Think too, we are speaking about a small group of first followers of Jesus. 1st-century followers at that time frame.
How could such a small group even cover more area than the Jewish territory?
By the time of Acts 1:8 then the timing or time was right to expand upon the first.
Jesus parting instructions 'now' included more than just a Jewish area or territory.
Because of persecution we find Philip in Samaria at Acts 8:1-5,14 and there he's preaching to the Samaritans.
I hope this has been of some help as to why the Jews first, Samaritans second, Gentiles third.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Jesus would accomplish this mission also if he died natural death and then resurrected. No execution necessary. Even the whole mission was unnecessary. To whom was he proving anything? To Father?

Please notice the challenge from Satan at Job 2:4-5.
Sinner Satan challenges ALL of us (includes Jesus) that under adverse conditions No one would be faithful to God.
In other words, Satan was using everything within his power so that Jesus would walk away from execution.
Remember: unlike us Jesus could have walked away at any time to rid himself of such agony and suffering.
Jesus proved that under the favorable conditions as Adam had in Eden then Adam could have easily been faithful.
What the man Job and Jesus proved is under adverse conditions a person can prove faithful to God.
Jesus was proving that he truly is the Son of God as John wrote at John 20:30-31
Jesus' actions showed to all in Heaven besides us how much he was willing to sacrifice for you and me.

 

[Spice]

Yes, in reference to salvation, it isn’t the circumcision of the foreskin that avails but rather the circumcision of the heart as it said in Deut and Jeremiah.

However:

Acts 16:3
Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.

So may want to redress what you are trying to say

Well "circumcision of the heart" ALWAYS matters, so Paul must have been speaking to physical circumcision. But I haven't anything to say, as I was just answering your request for NT text on the other posters position.
Namaste

 

[Ajax]

So, God had a set time or appointed time (divine timing) 'first' for the Jews - Mark 1:15 - to repent and believe......
.....By the time of Acts 1:8 then the timing or time was right to expand upon the first.
Jesus parting instructions 'now' included more than just a Jewish area or territory....
...I hope this has been of some help as to why the Jews first, Samaritans second, Gentiles third.

I think you forgot that Jesus said..“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel">
Trust you understand what "only" means in the context.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I think you forgot that Jesus said..“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel">
Trust you understand what "only" means in the context.

No, I did Not forget what Jesus said, but why stop reading at those words?
Comprehend that Jesus did Not say those words later at Acts 1:8 .
Time frame: Jesus while on Earth: only to Israel
Time frame: after Jesus resurrection more than Israel but the whole world.
Jesus as the light of the world, world is more than Israel.
Can't only also mean first ?
First only to Israel.
Second to Samaria
Third to the people of the nations.

 

[Ajax]

No, I did Not forget what Jesus said, but why stop reading at those words?
Comprehend that Jesus did Not say those words later at Acts 1:8 .

Then Jesus must forgot what he said earlier, or the writers got it wrong.
To my mind "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel" means to Israel only.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Well "circumcision of the heart" ALWAYS matters, so Paul must have been speaking to physical circumcision. But I haven't anything to say, as I was just answering your request for NT text on the other posters position.
Namaste

Did Paul show honor in taking the lead - Romans 12:10 ________
We find Paul remains humble - 1st Corinthians 15:9-11
This we can see how Paul handled the physical circumcision problem at Antioch at Acts 14:26-15:2
Paul was appointed to take the lead in preaching. - Galatians 2:8-9
However, when Paul's efforts did Not clear up the Antioch issue, Paul went along with the elders decision in Jerusalem.
Paul fully co-operated with them and agreed to be one of their messengers - Acts 15:22-31
Thus, Paul even took the lead in showing honor to his fellow believers.

 

[Spice]

Did Paul show honor in taking the lead - Romans 12:10 ________
We find Paul remains humble - 1st Corinthians 15:9-11
This we can see how Paul handled the physical circumcision problem at Antioch at Acts 14:26-15:2
Paul was appointed to take the lead in preaching. - Galatians 2:8-9
However, when Paul's efforts did Not clear up the Antioch issue, Paul went along with the elders decision in Jerusalem.
Paul fully co-operated with them and agreed to be one of their messengers - Acts 15:22-31
Thus, Paul even took the lead in showing honor to his fellow believers.

I have nothing against Paul, but I do take his spiritual position as supposedly voiced personally in his epistles, and generally believed penned by his follower, Luke, in Acts, with a discernable eye. He served an honorable purpose in keeping the Good News a living message, but his "details" have caused great harm to many. He seemed to have had a great need to find redemption through power rather than humility.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Please read all that I posted.. (Deut.’; Jeremiah

and...

Acts 16:3
Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.

And why do you think Paul circumcised Timothy? Especially after he bragged about NOT circumcising Titus. Do you think it was because he supported Jewish law for believers?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I sorry, but when the Jewish writers disagree with your position, they may have given you a failing grade in your viewpoint.

Your whole approach is based on a false assumption, that being that you think if any Jew espoused a view in the past, that this makes it a Jewish view. That is just not the case. Judaism progresses. We have a long history of entertaining possibilities that we then rule out and discard.

I gave you the REASONS why you are mistaken. I suggest you address those verses.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Then Jesus must forgot what he said earlier, or the writers got it wrong.
To my mind "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel" means to Israel only.

Why would you conclude Jesus forgot what he said ?
Yes, Jesus meant what he said because when Jesus was alive on Earth was only only only to Israel.
Perhaps you could read Post # 390.
Luke writes resurrected Jesus' words at Acts 1:8 that his followers would continue to expand his preaching work.
Jesus method of Luke 4:43 is starting to expand at Luke 10 that his followers should also preach.
How could such a small beginning group reach beyond Israel at that time frame ?
Do you believe as Jesus said that Jesus is the Light of the world _________
Israel is less than the world.
Do you believe the person speaking at Acts 9:4 is Jesus ?
If you believe it was Jesus then you can reason that Jesus was now including more than Israel.