Good Christian Woman I met yesterday

I think he understands that but is giving you the Christian view (consistent with the view of most religions) that there are spiritual forms of communication and that Paul (in whose mission/conversion Christians believe) did (on the Christian view) become an “apostle” thusly.

I like that - under the couch. Hopefully I can rmember it for next time.

I couldn’t even watch the whole thing. That woman is a fucking psycho.

Correct. He got hit with some blinding light, while on the road to Damascus (with Bob Hope and Bing Crosby?). He never met Jesus. Ever.

Amendment… They never met in the sense of physical eyeball to eyeball two people gabbing in the miiddle of the road sense. Paul said he was smacked with the blidning light, and then he says he heard the voice of Jesus asking “why do you persecute me”. It was more of a revelation than a meeting. We only have Paul’s word for it.

Obviously you don’t know the meaning of the word *inconceivable * either. :rolleyes:

Sure I do. I just don’t think it’s relevant to the debate you two seemed to be having, which I understood as (grossly reducing and paraphrashing):

You: In contrast to received religion, Jesus was all about openness and equal love for all.
Him: Not exactly, he was sent to be the Messiah to the Jews alone.
You: Okay.
Him: Of course, later Paul as an exponent of Christianity took Jesus’s message to others.

As I understood the debate to be one about whether Jesus was buds with everyone on equal terms or whether he had a more particularistic “discriminating” mission (in the first instance), I didn’t think it was very relevant whether one believed (as you don’t and he does) that Paul was converted and received divine communication from God (anymore than it is relevant whether Jesus was or was not the Messiah, another point on which of course you two will disagree too).

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the part I bolded above. It is not at all inconceivable that someone could write a series of letters and have people believe that are divinely inspired.

I realize that you come from the viewpoint that this is the case, but logically it is entirely possible that those letters were simply the product of one or more persons imagination.

Well if that’s the case, god must’ve been working *overtime * with Stephen King.

I’ts based on something I originally read on the SDMB. I would give credit, but I can’t remember who made the post.

Wow. This is a huge assumption especially that last line. I find that Christianity taking this assumption and believing it in the way you present it here, in that any other option is inconceivable, is unfounded, unrealistic and very unfortunate.

I also reject that Jesus was sent only to to Jews. He himself was Jewish and understood Jewish law but he also communed with God in a way that revealed spiritual truth to him far beyond Jewish law.

As noted previously when asked by an expert in Jewish law asked Jesus what he must do to receive eternal life Jesus named two amendments and added
“Do this and you will Live” I agree with the previous poster that pursuing these two commandments will fulfill all the requirements.
In that same chapter when asked “But who is my neighbor” Jesus tells the story of the good Samaritan indicating that we are to extend that love to all.

‘Was Jesus sent only to the Jews?’ and ‘What was Jesus’ attitude about gentiles?’ are two seperate issues. Jewish law already included the golden rule. That Jesus would feed or heal gentiles would not seem strange to the majority of Jews in the area (a small percentage of Jews would have been hateful bigots and disapproved). What’s the passage where a gentile woman asks Jesus for help and he says ‘It is not meet to give take food from the children and give it to the dog.’. She says ‘But even a dog may eat the scraps that fall from the table.’. After that, he agrees to help her.

I will repeat my oft repeated advice to the lurkers. Read it for yourself. Don’t take my advice for it, or anyone else’s. Don’t get your knowledge from a message board. (given this conversation has been a hijack of sorts, I have not given cites as is my usual practice) Do not drink the SDMB “we’re smarter than anyone else on the internet” kool-aid. (that references me also)

With all due respect cosmosdan, the texts you reference are taken out of context, and while I don’t think you do this disingenuously, I think it is a common thing from you. Your posts on this topic always seem to be collision of Christianty, new age, and feel good spirituality. You are certainly to pick and choose what you will, and won’t, believe in the texts, and I have no quarrel with that.

But misapplying texts, or using them out of context, suggests that you either don’t have a thorough grasp of the bible, or you simply use it ala carte.

I don’t have a lot of time—certainly the time it takes for these type of debates—and I don’t know I can devote the time. But, if you want to cite these texts (I know them, but don’t want to cite your texts) I will respond and we’ll see if they hold up to scrutiny.

Cite?

Cites please, and context.

DocCathode hit the nail on the head.

The texts cosmosdan speak to what Jew should feel towards a Gentile—to show love, concern and empathy for all people–Jew or not.

But those texts do not show that Jesus was sent to Gentiles!

In fact, in the parables Jesus was speaking about, who was his audience? Who was he preaching to? Jews!

Jesus was showing that correct Judaism should not lack empathy or concern for fellow man—in fact later Christianity would invest much energy in reaching out to Gentiles, for the purpose of converting them to Christianity.

The text DocCathode references speaks directly to this issue. Some texts use the words “little dogs” so as to make his comment to the woman a bit less harsh—and he did in fact help her. (Her comeback to Jesus showed her need, humility and sincerity) Jesus made it clear to this woman that he had compassion for her and her plight, but that his primary mission was not directed toward her. (being a non-Jew) Jesus himself said he was sent “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

I was thinking of the Council Of Jerusalem. The long version is full of theological issues and terms. The short version-

Until that time, you had to be Jewish to become Christian. Paul of Tarsus argued that this was unnecessary and that gentiles could come directly to Christianity. The council essentially agreed.

I’m not sure if this is a request to spoiler the ending, so here goes: (warning spoiler re: the ending):


remember how the lady was so indignant about refusing the station’s money. Later it was revealed how the 50k was allocated to the family, should they choose to take it. 20k of it was allocated for the woman’s gastric bypass, so she folds and takes the money

How about the sermon on the mount where he specifically addresses Jewish law and expands on it to a much deeper spiritual sense.

I said Luke chapter 10. That is the cite and the context isn’t it?

I think the fact that Jesus is talking to a man who is an expert in Jewish law and uses the parable of the Samaritan who helps the needy Jew {rather than the other way around} after other Jews have passed by is pretty significant. He’s not just teaching Jews be nice to gentiles. He asks the expert “who was the neighbor " The reply " The one who showed compassion” Jesus says “Go thee and do likewise.”

AS I already noted. That doesn’t support your point.
In this story Jesus makes a point to stress love and compassion, toward everyone to a man who is an expert in the law. IMO the point is that by truly seeking to live according to those two commandments you will fullfill all the rest.

Once again. In the parable it is the Samaritan who shows compassion for the JEw not the other way around. If the point was to teach Jews to have compassion then it might have benn a Samamritan in the road and one good Jew who stopped to help. I think you’ve missed the point.

IN Matthew 15 Jesus is quoted as saying "“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” although it’s interesting to note that when this story is told in Mark 7 this passage is not there. Since Mark is considered to be the gospel written first and used as a guide for Matthew and Luke one might ask why this was added.
In Mark Jesus says

Jesus is teaching about faith as well as breaking down long established social barriers. Not jurisdiction. As you yourself have said. You can’t pull one passage out of the Bible and demand that it proves your point. The Bible is a bigger picture than that.

How about this. John 10. Jesus is the describing himself as the good shepard.

Who do you see as these other sheep?

Somewhat related to my other point about Jesus and the law. In Mat:15 and MArk 7. Jesus was crotisized because his desiples were breaking the law by eating with unclean hands. Jesus again takes the opportunity to expound on deeper spiritual meaning.

Obviously there was disagreement among the early Christians about whether the teachings of Jesus were simply an extension of judaism or a separate belief system. Was someone required to be Jewish in order to follow Jesus? No argument from me about that. My concern is with what Jesus himself taught.