I would like if someone could quote for me some Bible verses, allegedly spoken by Jesus, which indicate that salvation is available to Gentiles as well as God's chosen people, the Hebrews/Jews/12 Tribes of Israel, because I can recall nothing in my readings of the Bible indicating this(Jesus saying that salvation is for everybody).

Mat 15:21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.

Mat 15:22 A Canaanite wo[/b]man from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

Mat 15:23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

Mat 15:24 He answered, "[b]I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel."

Mat 15:25 The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

Mat 15:26 He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

Mat 15:27 "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

I also recall Jesus fully endorsing OT Law, saying we his followers must be "as righteous as (or was it "more righteous than"?) the Pharisees."

Mat 19:16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?"
Mat 19:17 And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."

(OT laws)

Then Paul comes along, claims to have met Jesus in a strange vision, and turns it all around.
Why take him seriously? If Jesus actually performed the miracles the gospels said he did, then those eye-witnesses to those miracles must have been mightily impressed (not that anyone hearing or reading about it much later should be convinced). But Paul did not raise the dead, walk on water, feed a multitude with two loaves and five fishes, etc. He just claimed to have had a vison on the road to Damascus. Maybe he had just been out in the sun too long and was hallucinating (or maybe he was just making it up). Why take him seriously when he reverses two fundamental principles of Jesus' teachings?
Did Jesus ever say anything nice about the Gentiles after calling them "dogs" and specifically saying that he was sent ONLY for the lost sheep of Isreal? Did he offer Gentiles salvation too (or was it just Paul who later said that?). Did Jesus ever say that salvation depended solely on faith, not on works?
It seems to me that a lot hinges on this. I think any Christian would agree that if there is a contradiction between what Jesus says and what Paul (or anyone else) says, that Jesus' word trumps Paul's.
And if God is not concerned with Gentiles because he certainly didn't care much for them throughout the Old Testament, except to order the Israelites to slaughter them from time to time, whenever the he feels like it.

In the book of acts it was written that the bibleGod spoke to speaking to Ananias in regards to the upcoming visit by the recently converted Paul. Meaning that it was the bibleGod that called Paul to take the gospel to the gentiles, not a decision by Paul himself.

Acts 9:15- "But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:"

The question then is
(1)Why should people trust this Ananias character? There is no indication that he was among Jesus' disciples while he was supposedly on earth.
(2) How do are people supposed to know that the "voice" speaking to both Paul and Ananias is not "satan"? satan is said to have spoken to so many people in the bible claiming to be the bibleGod.

I looked it up, and read that most scholars date the book of Acts between 60 and 100 years after the crucifixion and resurrection. The Epistles were also written decades after Jesus left the Earth (one way or another). If Jesus wanted to say that salvation was available to Gentiles as well as Jews, why did he not say so himself instead if describing Gentiles as "dogs" and telling his disciples he was sent ONLY to "the lost sheep of Israel"? If Jesus meant to say that people can be saved by faith alone, then why did he so emphatically state that his followers must follow the Law?
Why did it take Jesus between 50 and 100 years to deliver this revised message to Paul posthumously?

To me it seems far more likely that the Gospels, Acts and Epistles were written by different men, with different agendas, and no help from the God they espouse, they didn't do a very good job of comparing notes to keep their stories consistent with one another.

I think Acts is one reason for a lot of the confusion about early Christian history. It pretends to describe the immediate years after Christ's death but it's clearly not a good historical source, being written many decades later and including a lot of mythologizing. Paul is one of the main characters, but at times it contradicts Paul's own accounts of events in his letters. It clearly has an agenda - it wants people to believe that all the problems between Paul and the Jewish Christians were smoothed over and resolved (in Paul's favor) and Christian unity was achieved.

Paul's letters make it clear that James (who he calls the brother of Jesus) was the unquestioned leader of the early Christian movement, and that they were at odds - he criticizes both James and Peter pretty viciously. Acts practically writes James out of the picture. He's not mentioned at all in the early sections, then suddenly pops up to issue a command at the "Jerusalem council" with Paul. If he was such an important figure that he could make decisions that were binding on Peter and Paul, how is it that Acts tells nothing about him except for that one brief appearance?

Acts also contains a lot of myth-making and unbelievable magical acts by the apostles. There are stories of apostles winning duels with magicians, and Peter striking dead a Christian couple who didn't turn over all their income to the church! (I wonder why that part was included in the book)

We also find out that Peter insisted on following Jewish dietary laws, until God sent him a vision of a magic "tablecloth" covered with all kinds of food and told him they were all "clean". (i.e. Paul's position). This would seem to prove that Jesus taught nothing of the kind! If Jesus had really proclaimed all foods to be clean, wouldn't Peter have known? Why would God need to send this vision to his No. 1 apostle?  This seems to be a perfect example of fabricating scriptures, in this case to put God's stamp of approval on Paul's pro-gentile teaching.

IMO the point of Acts is to establish Paul as the successor to Jesus (to the detriment of Peter and James) and Luke as the successor to Paul (to the detriment of John Mark and Barnabas). It's pure propaganda.

IMO the point of Acts is to establish Paul as the successor to Jesus (to the detriment of Peter and James)

You've almost got it, but not quite.
Paul never tried to be the succesor of Jesus but it was probable that he was trying to overthrow the power of James as head priest of the new Christian movement.
Reading through your post, I would say you've taken Acts at face value as a "stand alone". Try taking it in conjunction with Paul's Letters and things should become a little clearer. You say "Paul's letters make it clear that James (who he calls the brother of Jesus) was the unquestioned leader of the early Christian movement, and that they were at odds". The trick with this one is to look for the consistency in Paul's work and not the contradictions (which the Bible is riddled with anyway). He is definitely an enigma - some think him a conniving self-server while others think him a great free-thinker. The truth is you have to make your own mind up about him.
I must admit, I have swayed backwards and forwards many times!!!

As for his consistency with Jesus? Again, it's a personal take but I see nothing that is out of place when one remembers the circumstances in which Jesus was preaching. You've got to remember, Jesus was teaching in a time when the vast majority of his audience would have been Jewish. "Gentile" was not a word that would have taken up a lot of his time. In fact the only non-Jews he would really have interacted with would have had negative connotations as they would have been the Roman occupiers.
Paul came from a much more cosmopolitan time. Not only were "gentiles" common-place, but he himself was a Roman citizen.

Bastage:

You've almost got it, but not quite.
Paul never tried to be the succesor of Jesus but it was probable that he was trying to overthrow the power of James as head priest of the new Christian movement.
He is definitely an enigma - some think him a conniving self-server while others think him a great free-thinker. The truth is you have to make your own mind up about him.
I must admit, I have swayed backwards and forwards many times!!!

As for his consistency with Jesus? Again, it's a personal take but I see nothing that is out of place when one remembers the circumstances in which Jesus was preaching. You've got to remember, Jesus was teaching in a time when the vast majority of his audience would have been Jewish. "Gentile" was not a word that would have taken up a lot of his time. In fact the only non-Jews he would really have interacted with would have had negative connotations as they would have been the Roman occupiers.
Paul came from a much more cosmopolitan time. Not only were "gentiles" common-place, but he himself was a Roman citizen.

I think the Jerusalem community of Jewish "Christians" (they were observant Jews, and didn't call themselves by that name),led by James, were the original followers of Jesus and reflect his teachings much more accurately than the writings of Paul and his followers. Their beliefs are largely obscured or covered up in the gospels and Acts (written later by followers of Paul). Paul was an accomodationist Jew with ties to the Romans and the Herodians, and he made Jesus into a "safe" figure that didn't threaten Roman authority. Paul set up the Jews (or most Jews) as the enemies of Jesus, this theme was elaborated in the gospels, and the result was a strong streak of anti-semitism in Christianity. I don't think this evidence is worth much. The problem is that the gospels sometimes reflect the period in which they were written rather than the period which they describe. They also reflect the agenda of the authors. By the end of the first century, Christians were separating from Judaism and were being expelled from synagogues. So it's logical to assume that the gospel authors felt a hostility to Jews stemming from their own situation. (This is especially true for John). They wanted to emphasize the Jewish rejection of Jesus, and show that they were even worse than the pagan Romans.

Paul's epistles were the earliest Christian documents (at least that made it into the Bible). His mission was to bring his version of Christianity to the Gentiles (the Jews, including the Jewish Christians, weren't buying what he was selling so he found a new market). Before Paul's epiphany on the road to Damascus he was a physical extremist and after was a spiritual extremist. Paul was a policeman for the the Jewish High Priest and as such, he persecuted Christians often to their deaths. Paul did not learn his gospel from Jesus or the disciples. At first they didn't believe he was a disciple as it was so different from the "other" gospel.Events in the Christian bible imply that Paul continued to work for the Romans while acting as an apostle which creates an enormous credibilty problem for the writings of Paul since he would have a significant bias in favor of the Romans and against the Jews. Paul was the true founder of Christianity, not Jesus.

It was Paul that substituted "faith in Jesus" for the Jewish bible. It was Paul that took his new religion to the Gentiles. Paul was the one that was heretical to Jewish theology while Jesus preached a continuation of torah law. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the Jews, Christian Jews and Jewish Jews, were devastated in number allowing Paul's brand of theology to flourish. Paul's brand of Christianity succeeded because he could convince Gentiles of his interpretations of the Jewish bible. He failed miserably among the Jews because they knew what the passages really meant. The Jews didn't buy his Messiah as Jesus met none of the criteria in their own bible except being Jewish.

By the time of Constantine and the "vote" of Jesus' divinity (which Paul preached and James did not) the number of Christians following James who was the heir to Jesus' teaching were very few in number. Paul's group won by shear numbers. The two dissending votes were the from the token Essenes who preached a non-deity Jesus. If Jesus returned today (assuming he was real) he would go to a synagogue, not a church.

Paul's own writings show he was often accused of being a liar. Remember, Paul himself stated that the ends justified the means. Rom:3;5, 7-8; Cor: 12:16: Phil: 1:18 Paul uses the word "we" when referring to the Gentiles. There are significant indications that Paul was a failed convert to Judaism in The Ascension of Jamesand Panarion 30,16, 6-9 both by Epiphanius. Paul probably lied about being a student of Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisee party. This can be inferred from the fact that Gamaliel supported the law and opposed the High Priest while Paul opposed the law and worked for the High Priest. Logically, it is much more likely that Paul was a Sadducee since the High Priest was the leader of the Sadducee party

@ poster

Are you stating that Paul's preaching is different from Jesus'? And not just style but substance?
Why is it then that Jesus Himself appears to Saul and chooses him to be a vessel to the gentiles? Acts 9:4-6, 11-12, 15?
This is confirmed later in Acts, 22:21.

dalaman:

@ poster

Are you stating that Paul's preaching is different from Jesus'? And not just style but substance?
Why is it then that Jesus Himself appears to Saul and chooses him to be a vessel to the gentiles? Acts 9:4-6, 11-12, 15?
This is confirmed later in Acts, 22:21.

I am stating that there is a possibility that Paul was a Roman agent and possibly remained one. That his conversion may have never taken place.  Paul never told his own story of his epiphany in his own Epistles, Luke(or who ever) describes it in Acts (in 3 contradictory versions). If Paul truly did become a Jesus freak, he radically changed what Jesus and his disciples were preaching, that he changed and/or reinterpreted Jesus' teaching to not only accommodate Romans but to be acceptable to Romans.  Jesus preached a philosophy that was threatening to the Romans (he even seems to be an anti-Roman Zealot).  If you separate out Paul's teachings from the rest of the disciples, it presents a very different Christianity than what we have with Paul's theology included.  If I was going to change Christianity to be more acceptable to Romans, it is quite possible that I would have a "vision" and change many of the theology points to make it more palatable to my Roman countrymen.

It seems funny to me that when ever Jews mention contradictions in the bible and Jesus, most Christians start to explain the parts about 7,000 vs 70,000 men in some chapter.  When the Jews then explain "no, the contradictions of theology between Jesus and Paul or the failure to fulfill the Jewish prophecies of the OT, most are truly stumped. When I was a Christian I like most Christians think Jews rejected Jesus because they are too blind to see that he was the savior (or some comment along those lines). Until I meet my Jewish friend in Malmo(Sweden) who gave me the JP translation of the Jewish bible(Which most of the Christain OT text were copied) to read. I found out that most Jews rejected Jesus because he wasn't the messiah as their God promised.Jews, from their reading of the Torah, expected the Messiah to be a mortal man (not divine) and a great earthly leader who would lead the Jews back to the Holy Land, establish a powerful kingdom, rebuild the temple, and fulfill many other specific qualities that Jesus did not fulfill.  He didn't do what the messiah was supposed to do as stated by their God himself and he sure as heck wasn't prophesied in the OT without mistranslating/misinterpreting the OT by Christains founders (Romans). Judaism is alive and breathing to the embarrassment of Christians everywhere even though some early European Christians advocated their extermination in secret.  Most Jews know full well what the messiah is and what the requirements are, few Christians are aware of them, nor how Jesus didn't live up to them.  If Jesus was an actual person (debatable at best), I really think he was just trying to make changes to Judaism's practice and trying to drive out the Romans. I am not sure he was really trying to start a new faith with himself as deity. My Jewish friend told that Jesus might be more of a Chassidic Jew than a Christian God.

bindex:

I am stating that there is a possibility that Paul was a Roman agent and possibly remained one. That his conversion may have never taken place. Paul never told his own story of his epiphany in his own Epistles, Luke(or who ever) describes it in Acts (in 3 contradictory versions). If Paul truly did become a Jesus freak, he radically changed what Jesus and his disciples were preaching, that he changed and/or reinterpreted Jesus' teaching to not only accommodate Romans but to be acceptable to Romans. Jesus preached a philosophy that was threatening to the Romans (he even seems to be an anti-Roman Zealot). If you separate out Paul's teachings from the rest of the disciples, it presents a very different Christianity than what we have with Paul's theology included. If I was going to change Christianity to be more acceptable to Romans, it is quite possible that I would have a "vision" and change many of the theology points to make it more palatable to my Roman countrymen.

Galatians 1:11-12
"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."
Paul was received at the early church in Damascus immediately after his conversion, albeit hesitantly. Also later in Jerusalem. These were the apostles for the most part, who should have known the teachings of Jesus, and after hearing Paul preach, they did not cast him away.

You have some interesting points i will go and look them up and be back.

It seems funny to me that when ever Jews mention contradictions in the bible and Jesus, most Christians start to explain the parts about 7,000 vs 70,000 men in some chapter. When the Jews then explain "no, the contradictions of theology between Jesus and Paul or the failure to fulfill the Jewish prophecies of the OT, most are truly stumped. When I was a Christian I like most Christians think Jews rejected Jesus because they are too blind to see that he was the savior (or some comment along those lines). Until I meet my Jewish friend in Malmo(Sweden) who gave me the JP translation of the Jewish bible(Which most of the Christain OT text were copied) to read. I found out that most Jews rejected Jesus because he wasn't the messiah as their God promised.Jews, from their reading of the Torah, expected the Messiah to be a mortal man (not divine) and a great earthly leader who would lead the Jews back to the Holy Land, establish a powerful kingdom, rebuild the temple, and fulfill many other specific qualities that Jesus did not fulfill. He didn't do what the messiah was supposed to do as stated by their God himself and he sure as heck wasn't prophesied in the OT without mistranslating/misinterpreting the OT by Christains founders (Romans).

Please provide scripture to back up those statements in bold.

dalaman:



Please provide scripture to back up those statements in bold.

As I aforementioned Jews from their reading of the Torah, expected the Messiah to be a mortal man (not divine) and a great earthly leader who would lead the Jews back to the Holy Land, establish a powerful kingdom, rebuild the temple, and fulfill many other specific qualities that Jesus did not fulfill. Many of the supposed prophecies that Christian writers claimed to be predicting Jesus (i.e. being born of a virgin, etc.) are not and were never read by Jews as Messianic prophecies, they were referring to events in their own time. Early Christians cherry-picked through the Jewish scriptures to find details that allegedly fit Jesus, AND/OR invented or added details to Jesus' biography to fit passages in those scriptures.

Here are two pages that examine this in more detail, with many scriptural citations:

http://www.angelfire.com/ri2/gideonbernstein/

http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html

And even if it was there are a few problems:
1. Luke and Matthew do not agree in genealogies
2.The bloodline passes through a cursed king (Jeconiah). That is, no offspring of that king is to ever sit on the throne.
3.If Luke's genealogy is through Mary (many apologists use this one), it is not valid for kingship
4. Luke's bloodline does not pass through Solomon which is a requirement

Paul quickly took care of this knowing very well that Jesus was not the Messiah that was talked about in the Jewish scriptures.

1Ti 1:3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,
1Ti 1:4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God[b] which is by faith[/b].

Jews have been debating the meaning of passages for over 3000 years.  If it was possible that passages meant something else, I am sure it would be discussed.  Jesus was doing just that, but we don't have him stating that Zechariah or Isaiah meant himself. Jesus implied that he was the messiah, but remember, in Judaism that is not a deity, just an anointed king.  It seems he wanted to be a ruler of Israel, not its God.  Paul, on the other hand, wanted Jesus to be God.

bindex:

As I aforementioned Jews from their reading of the Torah, expected the Messiah to be a mortal man (not divine) and a great earthly leader who would lead the Jews back to the Holy Land, establish a powerful kingdom, rebuild the temple, and fulfill many other specific qualities that Jesus did not fulfill. Many of the supposed prophecies that Christian writers claimed to be predicting Jesus (i.e. being born of a virgin, etc.) are not and were never read by Jews as Messianic prophecies, they were referring to events in their own time. Early Christians cherry-picked through the Jewish scriptures to find details that allegedly fit Jesus, AND/OR invented or added details to Jesus' biography to fit passages in those scriptures.

Is it possible that they misunderstood the deeper spiritual intentions that God inspired the writers to write? Clearly some writers envisioned something far greater than simply an eternal earthly kingdom.

dalaman:

Is it possible that they misunderstood the deeper spiritual intentions that God inspired the writers to write? Clearly some writers envisioned something far greater than simply an eternal earthly kingdom.

Its a well known fact that Christians always read the OT differently than the way the Jews read their Tanakh. Christains see only what they want to see.  I also think that the interpretation of many texts were clearly not messianic in nature, had never been interpreted that way, until the new testament writers came along and were trying to "fit" Jesus into the old testament.  So they took texts, decided that they could twist them a bit to make it look like a Jesus prophecy and ohh viola, they now came up with a story and a a new prophecy. The problem is, they didn't use the original Hebrew bible, they used a Greek one that had some interpretation problems of its own or they only quoted part of the text and left off the rest that would have contradicted their creation of a God.

Another interesting issue related to "Jesus VS Paul" is that the Jesus of the canonical gospels appears not to have known that Paul was coming (that is if we are to go by his sayings):

  And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

--Matthew 19:28

  That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

--Luke 22:30

Here we have Jesus still admitting that he was sent ONLY to the Jews(or lost tribe of Isreal) he makes no mention of the gentiles when he was talking about Judgement in his heavenly kingdom, he only referred to the 12 tribes of Israel not the gentiles or what the other bible writers like John said in 3:16 says of him or God. It's clear that the gospels were written by different men, with different agendas, they didn't do a very good job of comparing notes to keep their stories consistent with one another at all. Even the catholic bishops at the council at Nicea didn't do a good job either. It wasn't there fault any way because the bible was not meant for everybody to have a copy. Initailly it was only the priest and the religious leaders that hads copies before Martin Luther came and ruined the whole plan.

If you look at the above verses you will see Jesus was predicting, that even in his future Kingdom, his Twelve Disciples (not to mention the Twelve Tribes of Israel) will remain central to his movement.  There is no indication here, or anywhere else in the canonical gospels, that Jesus would appoint some other guy to completely overshadow all 12 Disciples put together, and himself as well, in terms of amount of teachings preserved.  Apart from James and Peter, the Twelve vanish entirely from Christian scriptures at the end of the canonical gospels and the first bit of Acts.  There are various apocrpyical and pseudoepigraphal tales about them that emerged later, but even the RCC did not see them as worthy of canonization.

If you were to read the canonical gospels without being aware of Paul's epistles, you would have no indication that Jesus intended to give up on his own organization within a couple decades or so, and appoint another guy to come along and replace it wholesale.  The silence goes both ways: Paul appears to know close to nothing about an earthly Jesus.  His writings know nothing of Joseph or Mary or Doubting Thomas or Jesus' healing ministry on Earth or his teaching to the Jews.  In the Book of Romans, Paul asserts that the Jews will hear of Jesus through preachers like himself and those he sends.  Apparently, he knows nothing of the huge crowds of Jews that the gospels says followed Jesus wherever he went, witnessed his miracles, and heard his teachings from his own mouth.

Even when condemning the Jews for rejecting his gospel, Paul neglects to condemn them for having rejected Jesus in person.  When arguing for the resurrection of the dead, he neglects to mention that Jesus performed resurrections.  Paul frequently speaks of Jesus as being revealed "in the Scriptures" and by "appearing" to people such as himself (i.e. in visions), as opposed to being revealed historically in a physical life walking around on Earth.  Paul and the Epistle writers know nothing of any holy sites, such as the Manger, or the places Jesus stayed or taught, or Calvary, or the Empty Tomb.1 

Aside from heroic Christian efforts to retcon the whole thing, it is clear that the "Jesus movement" portrayed in the canonical gospels (not to mention the Christianities of the gospels the RCC stamped out) is for all practical intents and purposes a separate religion from Pauline Christianity.

I am stating that there is a possibility that Paul was a Roman agent and possibly remained one. That his conversion may have never taken place. Paul never told his own story of his epiphany in his own Epistles, Luke(or who ever) describes it in Acts (in 3 contradictory versions). If Paul truly did become a Jesus freak, he radically changed what Jesus and his disciples were preaching, that he changed and/or reinterpreted Jesus' teaching to not only accommodate Romans but to be acceptable to Romans. Jesus preached a philosophy that was threatening to the Romans (he even seems to be an anti-Roman Zealot). If you separate out Paul's teachings from the rest of the disciples, it presents a very different Christianity than what we have with Paul's theology included. If I was going to change Christianity to be more acceptable to Romans, it is quite possible that I would have a "vision" and change many of the theology points to make it more palatable to my Roman countrymen.

Matt: 16:19 "What you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven"

this suggests that the Church which Jesus established can make rules(?) / pronouncements(?) and God will accept them (or at least the Church will be protected from making errors in those pronouncements).


John: 16:12 "I've got lots more to say, too much for you to bear now now, but when the spirit of truth comes he will guide you into all truth"

- indicates that there's more information and learning to come after Jesus (discernible from the Holy Spirit)

So these two passages would allow Paul and Peter or others of the Church leaders to introduce new rules (if accepted by the Church).

Jesus himself changed, updated or clarified some of the old rules eg a writ of divorce had been allowed by Moses but Jesus said 'what God has joined together let no man put asunder'. So we know that rules can change or be more clearly defined over time.

Regarding Jesus excluding non Jews, his mission was with Jews only. The Christians (converted Jews) mission then became with/for the whole world. No contradiction there. Jesus was 'training the trainers'.

dalaman:

Matt: 16:19 "What you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven"

this suggests that the Church which Jesus established can make rules(?) / pronouncements(?) and God will accept them (or at least the Church will be protected from making errors in those pronouncements).


John: 16:12 "I've got lots more to say, too much for you to bear now now, but when the spirit of truth comes he will guide you into all truth"

- indicates that there's more information and learning to come after Jesus (discernible from the Holy Spirit)

So these two passages would allow Paul and Peter or others of the Church leaders to introduce new rules (if accepted by the Church).

This clearly isn't very helpful, it sounds like a recipe for trouble. There wouldn't be thousands of opposing, mutually exclusive sects of Christianity if it were a simple matter to discern the Holy Spirit. (or if it actually existed to be discerned). One person may "discern the Holy Spirit" working through the Pope, and another through prophet TB Joshua, or Pastor Chris Oyahkilome, or Pastor Adeboye. This is not a modern development, the problem of competing claims of authority goes right back to the earliest days of Christianity. In the New Testament, we sometimes see the gospels changing little details to elevate one apostle above another. For example, John makes a point of telling people that on Easter morning John "ran faster than Peter" and beat him to the tomb, and was the first to comprehend that Jesus was risen [John 20:3-8], while Peter was apparently standing there in confusion. John attacks Thomas more directly, with the "doubting Thomas" story that has Thomas being rebuked by Jesus. The gospel of Thomas, on the other hand, elevates Thomas as the special chosen one, whom Jesus shares secret knowledge with. We can imagine that at the time they were written there were groups of "Thomas Christians" and "John Christians," and each developed their own favorite gospel that made their leader the hero of the story.

Jesus himself changed, updated or clarified some of the old rules eg a writ of divorce had been allowed by Moses but Jesus said 'what God has joined together let no man put asunder'. So we know that rules can change or be more clearly defined over time

.

You cite a case where Jesus seems to be favoring if anything a stricter interpretation of the Mosaic Law. And there's another famous passage where he says he has not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it, and not "one jot or tittle" of the Law shall be changed.

Yet it's one of Paul's major themes that the Law is inadequate and temporary, it has been superseded, it is not binding upon Christians. At times he's quite hostile to the Law and those who follow it. From his own letters, we know these "Judaizers" included Peter and James. We still have the Letter of James (probably written by a later follower of James) which takes a very different view of the Law, and disagrees with Paul's theology on many points (i.e. faith alone vs. faith and works)

Regarding Jesus excluding non Jews, his mission was with Jews only. The Christians (converted Jews) mission then became with/for the whole world. No contradiction there. Jesus was 'training the trainers'.

The problem is that "the trainers" immediately fell out with each other. Those who took Christianity "to the world" developed a different set of rules from the original followers of Jesus who remained Jews. Christianity today is the product of the "trainers" who won the battle, and retrospectively projected their own views onto Jesus Christ. There's really a good case for just calling it "Paulianity."

Here are two pages that examine this in more detail, with many scriptural citations:

http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html

Personally, I find the following from the above mentioned website quite difficult to believe:

Amongst the most basic missions that the Messiah will accomplish during his lifetime: 
(1)Oversee the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the Third Temple, in the event that it has not yet been rebuilt.
(2)Gather the Jewish people from all over the world and bring them home to the Land of Israel.
(3)Influence every individual of every nation to abandon and be ashamed of their former beliefs (or non-beliefs) and acknowledge and serve only the One True God of Israel.
(3)Bring about global peace throughout the world.

These criteria are not mentioned in the old testament?

dalaman:

Personally, I find the following from the above mentioned website quite difficult to believe:

Amongst the most basic missions that the Messiah will accomplish during his lifetime: 
(1)Oversee the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the Third Temple, in the event that it has not yet been rebuilt.
(2)Gather the Jewish people from all over the world and bring them home to the Land of Israel.
(3)Influence every individual of every nation to abandon and be ashamed of their former beliefs (or non-beliefs) and acknowledge and serve only the One True God of Israel.
(3)Bring about global peace throughout the world.

These criteria are not mentioned in the old testament?

Are you really doubting the Jewish description of their messiah? you should dig deeper because these beliefs are backed up by the Hebrew bible (Tanakh) and later further explored and explained in the Talmud and other texts. The Christian founders copied all of their stories(OT) from the Tanakh. So which is telling the truth? The original Hebrew bible (Tanakh) or the highly edited book that was copied from the Tanakh to make a different story and a different God (Christain bible)?

The point I am trying to make in my original post is that all these gentile Christians around the world have got it seriously wrong by thinking Jesus was preaching to them. He wasn't. He was preaching to his own people, the Jews whom he directed to continue following OT Mosaic Law in every detail (works, not faith).
Then along comes Paul, who never met Jesus, except in a miraculous vision (he claims), and turns Jesus teachings around, preaching to the Gentiles and telling them they can disregard OT Law.
It's almost funny. The vast majority of Jews rejected Jesus' claims to be the Messiah, and still reject him to this day, (Judaisms is still around to the embarrassment of so many Christians they still have their religious books to support their claims) while the Gentiles whom Jesus regarded as "dogs" and "pigs" fill Christian church pews numbering almost about 2 billion

LAck of understanding bindex,lack

Image123:

LAck of understanding bindex,lack

Show me one place in the bible where Jesus said that he was sent to save the whole world(Jews and Gentiles).

bindex:

Show me one place in the bible where Jesus said that he was sent to save the whole world(Jews and Gentiles).

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, [fn] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Here it is for you. Jesus also said that he is the way the truth and the life and that no Man can come to the Father except through him.

dalaman:

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, [fn] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Here it is for you. Jesus also said that he is the way the truth and the life and that no Man can come to the Father except through him.

What is this? I said show me a place where Jesus himself said he came to save the whole world(Jews and gentiles) and you are showing me what unknown writers wrote or are saying about him. The passage you reffered to are not the words of Jesus but the words of the writer John who wrote about Jesus 70 or more years after Jesus was said to have died.
Here is Jesus in his own words for those of you that believe in the bible.

Mat 15:24 He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel."
Mat 15:26 He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

As for Jesus saying that he was the way the truth and the life, That message still remains for the Jews only. The Christain founders(Gentiles) said that Jesus was sent to the whole world when there is no where in the bible where Jesus said it himself if there is then go ahead and show me.

--Matthew 19:28

@bindex
you're very funny and confused.You don't believe the Bible,then you believe the writings in Matthew are the words of Jesus then the words in John are not the words of Jesus.Get a life

Image123:

@bindex
you're very funny and confused.You don't believe the Bible,then you believe the writings in Matthew are the words of Jesus then the words in John are not the words of Jesus.Get a life

Its very true that I don't believe in the bible, all I am doing here is showing you how contradictory the bible is. Christains keep saying that Jesus was sent to the whole world to "save" every body when there is no place where he said any such thing himself in the bible if there is then go ahead and show me. Christains quote from the koran when trying to show moslems that their religion is false don't they? I am just showing you what Jesus said about his mission before the Romans decided to change everything about him and his message(that's if he ever existed anyway). Here is Jesus in his own words for those of you that believe in the bible

Mat 15:24 He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel."
Mat 15:26 He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ,ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

--Matthew 19:28

It didn't say Judging the whole tribes of the world but the 12 tribes of Israel. You are not a member of the 12 tribes of Isreal are you? Here are the 12 tribes of Isreal during the time of Jesus(I don't see any african or Nigeria tribe amongst them)

EPHRAIM (Son of Joseph)                     
MANNASAH (Son of Joseph)                   
REUBEN
SIMEON
ZEBULON
ISAACHAR
DAN
GAD
ASHER
NAPHTALI
BENJAMIN
JUDAH

I've told you times before,you do not understand simple simple bible.
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Thats just one from Matthew which you quoted since you seem to be in love with Matthew.i wonder the premise for which you hold Matthew to be more authentic than tne others.First it was Mark,now Matthew.May God help you.Jesus came revealing his will first to the Jews then to the others(Gentiles).The Jews had priority because they had an established covenant with God

Image123:

I've told you times before,you do not understand simple simple bible.
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

The problems is that you really don't know what you are talking about. The 12 tribes of Israel are also regarded as the 12 nations of Israel so many times in the bible. The word "nations" in greek(Which the original new testament was translated from) is the word ethnos, which also translates as ONE Race / ONE Ethniciy, or ONE Tribe, or ONE People. You dont have to use a hebrew or greek dictionary in order to find the definition of the word. You can simply let the bible be it's own lexicon and give you the definition of the word.

The word "nations" is the Greek word Ethnos, which occurs 164 times in the New Testament. Throughout the entire text of scripture this word refers to the people / ethnos of the covenant seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jaccob. Notice the bible speaks specifically that the literal flesh of Abraham is called the (NATIONS) "ethnos" or "goyim" in Hebrew. (Gen. 12:2; Gen. 17:4-6; Gen 17:16; Gen 18:18; Gen 22:18; Gen 25:23; Gen 35:11; Gen 48:19; Jer. 31:36). keep in mind the other commandments, and that Jesus Christ would not contradict his other commands. In Matt 10:5-6 He commanded the disciples to not enter cities that weren't of the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In Mat 15:24 He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel."

The commandment to teach ALL 12 nations / tribes of Israel was given to the disciples to move beyond the house of Judah to the other 12 tribes of Israel. All the nations were to be ministered to and not only the pureblooded house of Judah.

Jesus came revealing his will first to the Jews then to the others(Gentiles).The Jews had priority because they had an established covenant with God

Do you know what you are talking about? The Jews do not believe in Jesus because he was not the messiah that was promised to them and they have their hebrewbible to prove it. The requirements for the messiah are as follows ( as per the Jewish bible.) Not your own bible( Septuagint which is the the oldest Greek version of the Old Testament) that was edited so many times and is filled with mistranslations but the original hebrew bible(Tanakh) either the Stone edition or JPS (they are pretty identical and most Jews accept either edition as accurate).

1. He must be from the seed of David through Solomon
2. He will be anointed King of Israel (the word messiah means anointed, nothing more and nothing less)
3. He will return the Jewish people to Israel
4. He will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem
5. He will bring peace to the world and end all war
6. He will bring knowledge of god to the world

All of the authentic Jewish messianic prophecies are empirically verifiable. The entire world will be able to see and verify the above.

Some things he will not be:
He will not be a deity
He will not need 2 visits to accomplish his mission
He will not die for our sins
He will not be pierced ( in reference to the mistranslation of Psalm 17 explained below)

Sources for the messianic criteria are from Isaiah 11:6, Talmud Yad, Melachim 11:4, Num 24:17, Deut 17:15 Lev 24:10 Ezra 10:2,3 Gen 49;10 Num 1:18-44 24:14 and Lev 24:10

About Jewish tribal law:
If your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish
If your father was a Kohen (Priest), you are a priest (birth only, no adoption allowed)
If your father was from the tribe of Judah, you are from the tribe of Judah (birth only, no adoption allowed).

For my reference to the messiah not needing to be pierced, I refer to Psalm 22:16 (17 in Jewish bible)
Dogs have compassed me; the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me; they pierced my hands and my feet. KJV
Dogs have encompassed me. A company of evildoers has enclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet. JPS

Notice that when the original words of the Psalmist are read, any allusion to a crucifixion disappears. The insertion of the word "pierced" into the last clause of this verse was created by deliberately mistranslating the Hebrew word kaari as "pierced." The word kaari, however, does not mean "pierced," it means "like a lion." The end of Psalm 22:17, therefore, properly reads "like a lion they are at my hands and my feet." Had King David(the alleged writer of the palm) wished to write the word "pierced," he would never use the Hebrew word kaari. Instead, he would have written either daqar or ratza, which are common Hebrew words in the Jewish scriptures. Needless to say, the phrase "they pierced my hands and my feet" is a Christian contrivance that appears nowhere in the Jewish scriptures.

Bear in mind, this stunning mistranslation in the 22nd Psalm did not occur because Christian translators were unaware of the correct meaning of this Hebrew word. Clearly, this was not the case. The word kaari can be found in a number of other places in the Jewish scriptures. Yet predictably, the same Christian translators who rendered kaari as "pierced" in Psalm 22 correctly translated it "like a lion" in all other places in the Hebrew Bible where this word appears.

Now on to another mistranslated messianic passage from the OT.

Isaiah 7:14 does not support Matthew's claim that Isaiah is referring to Jesus' virgin birth. It should be said at the outset that the word "virgin" does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word ha'almah as "a virgin." This Hebrew word ha'almah does not mean "a virgin." It means "the young woman," with no implication of virginity. Most modern Christian Bibles have corrected this erroneous translation, and their Bibles now correctly translate this Hebrew word as "the young woman." If Isaiah had wanted to spefically say virgin, he would have used betulah, a common word used in other areas of the OT that only means virgin.
Isaiah 7:14.

The seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the military crisis that was confronting King Ahaz of the Kingdom of Judah. In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Syria. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Chapter seven relates how God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand. The Almighty would protect him, their deliverance was assured, and these two hostile armies would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem. In Isaiah 7 , : "Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us." So said the Lord God, "Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass . . . ." ' " The Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, "Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above." Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord." Then he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign: Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah's declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than 700 years later. If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus' birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense.

We see, in II Kings 15-16, that this prophecy was fulfilled when these two kings were suddenly assassinated. With an understanding of the context of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not referring to Jesus or to any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their impending destruction at the hands of these two enemies, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria.

Some Christians argue that this is a double prophecy. That it was fulfillied twice, once as I stated but again 700 years later with Jesus. If Christians argue that the word ha'almah means a "virgin," and, as they insist, Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who was the first virgin to conceive in Ahaz's time? Were there two virgin births? That is to say, if these Christians claim that the virgin birth of Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who then was the first virgin having a baby boy in 732 B.C.E.? Bear in mind that Christians insist that the word ha'almah can only mean virgin. Are they claiming that Mary was not the first and only virgin to conceive and give birth to a child?

Finally, if Isaiah's words are the substance of a dual prophecy, at what age did the baby Jesus mature? Which were the two kingdoms during Jesus' lifetime that were abandoned? Who dreaded the Kingdom of Israel during the first century when there had not been a Kingdom of Israel in existence since the seventh century B.C.E.? When did Jesus eat cream and honey? Why wasn't Jesus named Immanuel?

Another mistranslated passage in the Christain bible that is completely different from the Jewish bible is Isaiah 42:1-7.

In the Septuagint it reads

"…I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. … and the isles shall wait for his law. … for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles…"
Isaiah 42:1-7

while in the original Hebrew bible Isaiah 42: 1-7 is translated as:

1. Behold My servant, I will support him, My chosen one, whom My soul desires; I have placed My spirit upon him, he shall promulgate justice to the nations.
2. He shall neither cry nor shall he raise [his voice]; and he shall not make his voice heard outside.
3. A breaking reed he shall not break; and a flickering flaxen wick he shall not quench; with truth shall he execute justice.
4. Neither shall he weaken nor shall he be broken, until he establishes justice in the land, and for his instruction, islands shall long.
5. So said God the Lord, the Creator of the heavens and the One Who stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and what springs forth from it, Who gave a soul to the people upon it and a spirit to those who walk thereon.
6. I am the Lord; I called you with righteousness and I will strengthen your hand; and I formed you, and I made you for a people's covenant, for a light to nations.
7. To open blind eyes, to bring prisoners out of a dungeon, those who sit in darkness out of a prison.

This is god speaking about Israel (Jacob) and is part of the "Songs of Isaiah" which in original Hebrew are neither numbered nor does Hebrew have any capital letters.

Rabbi Tovia Singer states: These four "Servant Songs," which are found in Isaiah 41-53, are so called because throughout these soothing chapters, the prophet foretells the glorious redemption of the righteous remnant of Israel who is repeatedly identified as God's servant. Isaiah 53 is the culmination of Isaiah's narrative which describes the Almighty's servant-nation who, after a brutal and seemingly endless exile, is elevated and redeemed in the eyes of her former oppressors -- the gentile nations.

So the bottom line is that the Romans took the Jewish text edited it and created a new God out of the already existing Jewish God. They changed this new God completely and made him acceptable to every body. They then decided to call him Jesus.

bindex i thought you are an atheist.What are you trying to achieve?Do you now agree that God exists?

bindex, the passage about the canaanite woman is wrongly interpreted by you, you failed to go to the end of the conversation with her. that was a test of the woman's faith, when she passed the test, Jesus granted her request. If he wasn't including gentiles in his ministry then he wouldn't have healed her, but not just that he also wouldn't have accepted the samaritan woman.

also in John 10:16 Jesus said "I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice and there will be one flock, one shepherd.

The other sheep that do not belong to that fold (israel) are the gentiles. the fold he talks about is israel, the other sheep are gentiles. so he did say that he came for them too.

I think Acts is one reason for a lot of the confusion about early Christian history. It pretends to describe the immediate years after Christ's death but it's clearly not a good historical source, being written many decades later and including a lot of mythologizing. Paul is one of the main characters, but at times it contradicts Paul's own accounts of events in his letters. It clearly has an agenda - it wants people to believe that all the problems between Paul and the Jewish Christians were smoothed over and resolved (in Paul's favor) and Christian unity was achieved.

there is no confusion about the early christian history and if there is it isn't from acts. Acts was written by Luke, the same one who wrote the gospel. so it isn't a far off book for the bible. it is the second writing by luke. In that book, before the conversion of Paul, Peter spoke about the gentiles, and their receiving the gospel. actually the gentiles were already receiving the gospel before the conversion of Paul, it wasn't at the rate that paul spread the gospel. Paul also didn't formulate his own gospel to preach, he received it from Peter. Paul spent at least two weeks with Peter learning from him after his conversion.

Peter preached the same thing that Paul preached, he was wrong when later he wasn't living by his preaching and Paul rebuked him for that.

So no Paul didn't try to change Jesus' teaching, he learned his teaching from the apostles and mostly from the Chief apostle, Peter. Paul was commissioned by them to spread the gospel far and wide.

Paul never changed anything around, you're interpreting it wrongly.

chukwudi44:

bindex i thought you are an atheist.What are you trying to achieve?Do you now agree that God exists?

I am an ATHEIST, all I am doing here is showing you blind people what is really in your bible and how some of the stories or words were delibrately mistranslated to create the new God (Jesus) by Paul, the Romans, Greeks and some of the early Christian founders. The Prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 does not support Matthew's claim that Isaiah is referring to Jesus' virgin birth. It should be said at the outset that the word "virgin" does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah.  The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word ha'almah as "a virgin."  This Hebrew word ha'almah does not mean "a virgin."  It means "the young woman," with no implication of virginity.

"…I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. … and the isles shall wait for his law. … for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles…"
Isaiah 42:1-7.

This verse is completely mistranslated from the original hebrew bible go and read the JPS or Stone edition of the hebrew bible and you will see what I am talking about. The early Christian founders took the Hebrew text and created a new God(Jesus) out of it, but unfortunatly for Christains Judaism is still around to show all the lies and delibrate mistranslation of the original hebrew bible (tanakah) by the Christains. Jesus is a new God that was created by Paul and the rest of the gentiles out of the original hebrew text.

~Lady~:

bindex, the passage about the canaanite woman is wrongly interpreted by you, you failed to go to the end of the conversation with her. that was a test of the woman's faith, when she passed the test, Jesus granted her request. If he wasn't including gentiles in his ministry then he wouldn't have healed her, but not just that he also wouldn't have accepted the samaritan woman.

I agree that the story was portraying how the woman had faith in Jesus, but to say anything other wise is to lie about what Jesus has said so many times. Again here is your Jesus in his own words.

  Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.

Mat 10:6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

Mat 10:7 As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.'

Mat 10:8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, [fn]drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.

Mat 10:9 Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts;

Mat 10:10 take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.

Mat 10:11 "Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave.

Here you have Jesus in the bible telling his disciples not to go any where near the gentiles when preaching about the kingdom of God that is at hand. There you have it. More from Jesus in the bible.

 Mat 15:24 He answered, "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel."
Mat 15:26 He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matthew 19:28

Even when he was talking about Judgement he only mentioned Israel, he never said he was going to judge the gentiles.

also in John 10:16 Jesus said "I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice and there will be one flock, one shepherd.

The other sheep that do not belong to that fold (israel) are the gentiles. the fold he talks about is israel, the other sheep are gentiles. so he did say that he came for them too.

You just took an ambiguous statement from Jesus and interpreted it to mean what it never meant. I have other sheep does not mean gentiles in any way. He might have been talking about the other lost tribes of Israel. Jesus told his disciples in clear terms not to go to the cities of the gentiles to share the message about the kingdom of heaven because as it is written in the bible he came only for the lost tribe of Israel. If there is anywhere in the bible where Jesus himself said he came to save the world(Jews and Gentiles) in the bible pls go ahead and show me.

~Lady~:

there is no confusion about the early christian history and if there is it isn't from acts. Acts was written by Luke, the same one who wrote the gospel. so it isn't a far off book for the bible. it is the second writing by luke. In that book, before the conversion of Paul, Peter spoke about the gentiles, and their receiving the gospel. actually the gentiles were already receiving the gospel before the conversion of Paul, it wasn't at the rate that paul spread the gospel. Paul also didn't formulate his own gospel to preach, he received it from Peter. Paul spent at least two weeks with Peter learning from him after his conversion.

Peter preached the same thing that Paul preached, he was wrong when later he wasn't living by his preaching and Paul rebuked him for that.

So no Paul didn't try to change Jesus' teaching, he learned his teaching from the apostles and mostly from the Chief apostle, Peter. Paul was commissioned by them to spread the gospel far and wide.

You need to read paul's letters once again. Paul commissioned himself to use Jesus' messages and Ideas to make a name for himself.

~Lady~:

Paul never changed anything around, you're interpreting it wrongly.

Paul who was never with Jesus when he was alive according to the bible changed every thing Jesus said. Jesus warned his disciples never to preach to the gentiles but paul changed everything.