NEW SILK STRATEGIES
  • Home
    • Русский язык
    • Français
    • Deutsch
    • Español
  • Geopolitics
    • International Relations
    • Military Affairs
    • News & Analysis
    • Culture
    • Economics and Finance
  • Language
  • Opinion
  • About
  • Contact

Opinion

Your comments on: Jesus did not originally intend to found a new religion

1/26/2018

5 Comments

 
By Vince Dhimos

My third instalment of the article on Iran as Trump’s bogeyman garnered some impassioned responses (the first being here), and they were so long as to merit a separate response.

The long response from an unnamed person whom we shall call Frank, contains this assertion:

Frank: "Vince, sorry, Nope. He did [intend to start a new religion] and He stated, I came not to change the law but to fulfil it, by His life and death."

Vince:

Yes, Frank, modern Bible translations do quote Jesus, in Matthew 5:17, as saying “I came not to change the law but to fulfil it.” This word “fulfil” is the translator’s best guess and it is within the range of possibilities.

However, the verb used in the Greek for Jesus’ quote here is πληρώσαι, a variant of πληρόω. This word can mean to fulfil, but it is also used to mean “to complete” or “complement” (see Strong’s Concordance. BTW, by way of confirmation, the older Classical Greek cognate had the same range of meanings as the later koine Greek of the NT) and based on Christ’s Old Testament references in his teachings, the meaning “to complete” or “complement” seems more likely than “fulfil.” After all, Jesus did not question or criticise the passages that He cited in His teachings. So his doctrine was not a fulfilment but it certainly did add to – complement – the contemporary understanding of the scriptures. He certainly supported all the old Judaic scriptures so his early teachings, aimed at the Jews, could not have been taken as a new theology. Therefore, his original intent was not to found a new religion but to complement the old one. In fact, he told his fellow Jews to obey the teachings of the Pharisees but not to do as they do. Thus for Jesus, the sticking point was not the Judaic law itself but the rigid and hypocritical way it was interpreted by the powerful religious leaders – who eventually would kill him.

As I tried to clarify above, I was referring to Christ’s original intent, not to the modified mission He saw for Himself after the Jews rejected him. The disciples did eventually establish a body of doctrine that was by the most conservative measure a new religion and included the gentiles.
The following is a salient example of how, in his early years, Jesus interpreted the scriptures by adding new insight (complemented them) without changing them:

In Luke 10, a Torah scholar asked Jesus what is the most important commandment for achieving eternal life, and Jesus said: What do you think it is? And the scholar said “love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind and all your strength, and love your neighbour as yourself.”  Jesus said “Yes, do this and you shall live.”

This passage shows that in Jesus’ view, salvation was possible through the Old Testament law as long as you understood where the emphasis should be – namely, on love. Thus He was still teaching Judaism at that point. But it was a different – or complementary – view of Judaism, with the emphasis placed where it belonged, not on a plethora of rigid do’s and don’t’s taught by the Pharisees. Jesus had completed or complemented – not fulfilled – the teachings of the law simply by shifting the emphasis, making love the priority.

One very serious problem in contemporary Christianity is that most US fundamentalists today base their interpretation on the Scofield Reference Bible notes, and indeed Scofield interprets the passage of Matt 5:17 to mean that Jesus was sent to fulfil the law in the sense that He had come to die for the sins of humanity, thereby vicariously  taking the punishment for others’ sins. This is, of course, true and is a remotely possible rendition of that passage. But the problem with these fundamentalists and their sacred Scofield is that this author depends on a consensus of different Bible scholars rather than on sound reason, logic and facts. For example, Scofield, writing during or before 1909, declares in reference to the place names Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38 (places that would attack Israel in the latter days), that these names refer to Russia and that “all agree” on this – meaning all Bible scholars agree. But God does not rely on consensus. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Scofield also draws the conclusion that, in that chapter, Meschech is Moscow and Tubal is Tobolsk, based merely on the similarities of the names – thus Scofield was skating on the very thinnest of ice! But beyond this, he reasons:

“Russia and the northern powers have been the latest persecutors of dispersed Israel.”

Of course, 1909 was well before the emergence of the 3rd Reich. If Scofield had commented on this passage after WW II, he would certainly have deduced that Ezekiel was talking about Germany. And more to the point, ancient Assyrian court records, since then discovered by archaeologists, show that Gog and Magog were in what is now Turkey. So much for the sacred opinion that Ezekiel referred to Russia (this misinterpretation surely has contributed much to  the current anti-Russia hysteria). My point is that the reasoning methods used by Bible scholars in Scofield’s day were so flawed as to render any comment by Scofield highly questionable if not useless. Yet fundamentalists today rely on his notes, treating them with the same reverence as they do the scriptures themselves. Not far from blasphemy,
 
Another friend responded to the article on my FB page, arguing that Jesus did not just come for the Jews. But I had said that his original mission – not his ultimate one – was to minister to the Jews and not the gentiles.

My response:

In Matthew 15:22-24 Jesus specifically said "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." His original plan was to minister to the Jews, but they rejected Him. All of his ministry is centred on the Torah but also the rest of the Tanakh (OT).
​
It was not until He saw that the Jews rejected Him that He began to focus on the gentiles.
This discussion is not over, and it should not be. Please add your thoughts below or in the forum here.
​
5 Comments
Dr. Tom Lawson
1/26/2018 01:51:02 pm

Vince
Your overall themes are sensible so I will accept them thematically. Further, I agree that theologically, Fundamentalist Christians have created a theology that is self encompassing and not open to dialogue,
It appears to me that your major points on initial,y ministering only to the Jews may be accurate, but incomplete. Why? Because Jesus and John, apparently had very close ties to the Essence community, which had already totally rejected temple worship, even though they themselves were very ritualistically pure.
The theme that Jesus ‘tried to reach out’ to his fellow Jews but was rejected and therefore widened his ministry to gentiles also is reasonable however he had to start somewhere. Further, the very term Israel may well include the idea of ‘seeker’ of God. Or at least should, since that is what Judaism is about, seeking God via mai tenance of the law, creating ‘tinnun olam’ So that the Messiah will eventually come.
My major point however I hold, that of even though you may argue that Christ’s ministry was originally to only the Jews appears to be limiting to God’s and Emmanuel’s original and cosmic redemptive goals.
I can agree that Jesus may have started off ‘at home’ with Hos fellow Jews, but this belies the idea of a cosmic redemptive act that His life may have represented, IF, it represented Salvation by His death, something that was not codified into Christian theology until after the arguments on original sin were settled, in the third and fourth centuries.
It appears to me that the issue of Saul/Paul you failed to address, since if Jesus never had the desire to reach out to tne gentiles, as you appear to argue, then it could be argued that there was not a ‘cosmic redemption’ intent in the incarnation ever intended, something that I find incredulous. After all, if His Fatjer sent Him, He sure as heck knew of WHY and had thought through the ideals and purposes as to the implications of that why BEFORE the incarnation and the Saul/Paul issue, for me anyway, shows clear intent because if Jesus did not do the Paul meeting, His Life, by all accounts would have been of very limited impact, since it would have remained tied to Jerusalem, the laws and the Temple.

Reply
Vince
1/27/2018 06:38:40 am

Thanks, Dr. Lawson.
Meantime, I also received a personal email that deserves to be posted here (either the sender will post at my request or I will). He too touches on the subject of Jesus ministering to the gentiles. It turns out He did, and then after His resurrection, he told his disciples to to out into the whole world and preach the gospel.
Nonetheless, I stick to my guns on the proposition that his original target audience was ONLY Jews.
Dr. Lawson, you say "He sure as heck knew why..." and I assume that goes to His supposed ominscience, But here is a little discussed fact about Jesus: there were things he did NOT know. Mark 13: 31Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away. 32But as for that day or hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.


21 gAnd Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, ha Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, i“Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, j“Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” 24 He answered, k“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and lknelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and mthrow it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat nthe crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, ogreat is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” qAnd her daughter was phealed instantly.5

Reply
Dr. Tom
1/27/2018 01:35:34 pm

Vince
Please think about your thesis and ask yourself this.
What would be the purpose of Him ONLY focusing, even initially, on Jews alone?
For what reason when He came to YOM KIPPUR ALL back to God?

Vince
1/28/2018 08:17:03 am

If the NT were not clear enough on the question of whether Jesus originally came exclusively for the Jews, then it would make sense to examine theories and ask quesions like the one you suggest. But once Jesus has made a statement, then there is no longer any need to delve into theory, using logic and reason to come to a conclusion.
Matt 15:24 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Reply
Vince from MARINE friend
1/28/2018 03:32:58 pm

This is a response that agrees with me but also provides scripture showing the issue is not that simple. It gives a few points to Dr. Lawson, who believes the intent was to minister to both Jew and gentile alike:
With regard to the subject, I agree with you, he came to establish God's original relationship with Abram, that turned to one which gave God cause to rename him Abraham, away for "only the Hebrew people" of the region, and to anyone who will take up "his cross", but what is taken up is the law and the prophets, and their fulfillment. It is an act of delivering that which was originally reserved for "that people", and because of their stubbornness, open the door to the same, for all who will take it up in Jesus' name.
I believe most people don't understand, religions are merely the different ways different cultures perceived their connection with God, and to my own mind, it seems God made separate connections with what appears to be every people on earth, or one can take the multitudinous statements, "I am the most high God, thou shalt have no other Gods before me" and so forth, and recognize first off, God is an "alien", He must have been elsewhere when He set the singularity in place, and it expanded to become our universe, and proper translation implies definitively, there were other "Gods", and it is clear the purpose of all in connection with mankind, was to establish a universal set of principles and laws to minimize the natural clashes which must happen with our nature as it is.
When the gentile woman asked Jesus for salvation, he answered, "I was sent for my own children to save". The woman then returns with; "but Lord, even the dogs eat the crumbs the children let fall from the table", and "Jesus marveled at her faith" and told her by her faith she was saved.
It's my lay opinion, God intended man to live well, fully, and made it possible for all of us to do so, without strife, except that we are fallen, by choice, and we can't escape the evil we allowed to enter our lives, and all our descendants. God dispersed Israel across the world because they rejected him when he came to "them" to save them from having fallen into "religion", and out of faith. His second act, having fulfilled prophetic baptism, and his time in the desert, was to "scourge the buyers and sellers on the temple mount" for turning "the Temple from a house of worship to den of thieves". I believe that act was God's waving his arm over what he called into being, and saying "you've built it, worshiped in it, but now you buy and sell in it, and have ruined its real value, as a temple", and in essence, discarding the Temple as the center of God driven culture and nations in the region.
All of Jesus' acts after that are the assembling of another set of priests, these to "preach the gospel", and rather than God, resting in the Temple, receiving "the people", it became "God, through those who choose him, going in the highways and byways, and reaching out to "The Peoples", putting the temple in our hearts, and calling "persons" to himself, allowing nations, but no longer calling them. All who live with God live with the laws he gave Moses, with the faith of the "street people" who were the focus of Jesus and God, when his own rejected Him, and he fulfilled his promise to Jacob, called Israel, having accepted the temple, the people's faith, and their folly so many times, and he also fulfilled his oath to do if He would not be followed, and "the People" turned away. He never said He would open his house to all, if "His people turned", but it is the logical response when those not called, see the boon, and beg for it, giving over their hearts as demonstrated by the willingness to discard "self-respect", and take the position of "dogs", as being better than where she was without Jesus.
Thanks for so many interesting and informative leads and links, it's extremely valuable in these times of trouble, and so much B.S. being spread, as if war could warm our Father's heart.
God Bless you and your work,
Semper Fidelis,

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • Home
    • Русский язык
    • Français
    • Deutsch
    • Español
  • Geopolitics
    • International Relations
    • Military Affairs
    • News & Analysis
    • Culture
    • Economics and Finance
  • Language
  • Opinion
  • About
  • Contact