• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Gospel shall be preached to all nations and then the end shall come

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
With the never ending USA election debacle dominating news headlines that simultaneously fascinates and disturbs, its time to gain solace from that old time religion.

The final sermon of Christ is known as the Olivet discourse where Jesus predicts the destruction of the Jewish Temple and events that will accompany His Return (the Parousia). The sermon is recorded in different ways in the three synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. One verse in Matthew records the command to preach the Gospel to all nations with an abrupt prediction that the end shall come:

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Matthew 24:14

Some Baha’is in the West understand the verse to refer to the end of the Christian Era and the beginning of a new era based on renewed religious principles suited to our modern age. The nineteenth century witnessed the last great expansion of Christendom where the Gospel was preached to the remaining nations as part of the great commission. This of course coincides with the dramatic birth the Babi and Baha’i religions.

Any Biblical scriptures attributable to an itinerant Jewish Preacher who was born over two thousand years ago will be subject to a wide variety of interpretations, especially those from the apocalyptic genre.

So if the Olivet discourse is reasonably attributable to the Teachings of Christ, what did He mean by preaching the Gospel to all the nations and has it happened yet? If it hasn’t, what else is required? What did Christ mean when referring to “the end”?
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
So if the Olivet discourse is reasonably attributable to the Teachings of Christ, what did He mean by preaching the Gospel to all the nations and has it happened yet?

It pretty much means what it says on the tin. All human nations and culture must be converted to Christianism or at the very least hear the message of the Gospels, that they accept it or not. Has this happened yet, we can probably say yes with perhapse a few people living in deep in the Amazon or similar region without any outside contact. I think it's fai to say job done though.

What did Christ mean when referring to “the end”?

The end of the terrestrial existence of humans and their return in God's Garden which of course didn't happen since Jesus, like so many seers before and since. was largely delusional.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So if the Olivet discourse is reasonably attributable to the Teachings of Christ, what did He mean by preaching the Gospel to all the nations and has it happened yet? If it hasn’t, what else is required? What did Christ mean when referring to “the end”?
Of course I heard the teachings by those who look forward to the end of the world, and even try to make it happen so they can get their personal rewards from God for being believers sooner than later. All this is based upon a modern interpretation of the Bible which places such passages as predictions of modern, 20th century references, interpreting Daniel and whatnot as references to modern nations, and so forth.

In reading Mt. 24, it's clear that the "end" is refering to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem as the "end times". It has nothing to do with China, or Russia, or the United States, or anything to do with modern times, other than the natural tendencies of human societies to follow that typical cyclical pattern, which we could see then, as well as throughout history where we end up creating a great deal of destruction for ourselves because of our greed and lack of empathy to others in the world. The "end times" has occurred multiple times throughout all of history, and will continue again in the future when we get beyond this current cycle.

I do not read this passage formulaically, that somehow it means when that last Christian missionary reaches that last tribal Amazonian and says the magic words, "Jesus saves!", and then lights flash in heaven, and the signal is sent forth, "Attack!", and all hell is unleashed upon the earth. That is literally how some interpret that verse. I do not for many reason, not the least of which is that it doesn't fit anything that I understand about the nature of the divine, or just plain good biblical hermeneutics.

Even when I was a kid taking notes and trying to learn "what the bible teaches" where I was taught that modern reading of scripture, did that make sense to me. For one thing, people are being born all the time, so it's not possible to reach that magical "last person preached to" senario, because hundreds of thousands of new people are coming into the world every day. It would not be possible to get them all "hearing". But furthermore, and this always stuck with me, even back then I understood that simple "telling" someone about the Gospel, is not the thing in itself.

There is communication that has to happen. How people hear and understand what is being presented to them is dependent on far too many variables. Some preacher from the U.S. spreading his version of the Gospel message is filtered through his own culture and experiences, as well as how other form other cultures hear and understand what he is trying to teach them. How can that be considered formulaically like that? "He said the words, 'Jesus saves", and that's it. They are now responsible!", which is what I heard literally taught to us. Even then, in my naivety, I knew better than that.

Bottom line, this "preached to the ends of the earth" thing, when read literally, is a magic formula. It assumes God is like a machine, that once the correct number of registered voters are enrolled, He moves into action with his bulldozer to exact revenge on humanity. I could never quite swallow these ways of thinking about God. So of course, I eventually left. It sees God too formulaically, too magically.

I'll stick with the view that the writers, and the passage of that teaching was referring to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. It does not refer to modern times.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
With the never ending USA election debacle dominating news headlines that simultaneously fascinates and disturbs, its time to gain solace from that old time religion.

The final sermon of Christ is known as the Olivet discourse where Jesus predicts the destruction of the Jewish Temple and events that will accompany His Return (the Parousia). The sermon is recorded in different ways in the three synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. One verse in Matthew records the command to preach the Gospel to all nations with an abrupt prediction that the end shall come:

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Matthew 24:14

Some Baha’is in the West understand the verse to refer to the end of the Christian Era and the beginning of a new era based on renewed religious principles suited to our modern age. The nineteenth century witnessed the last great expansion of Christendom where the Gospel was preached to the remaining nations as part of the great commission. This of course coincides with the dramatic birth the Babi and Baha’i religions.

Any Biblical scriptures attributable to an itinerant Jewish Preacher who was born over two thousand years ago will be subject to a wide variety of interpretations, especially those from the apocalyptic genre.

So if the Olivet discourse is reasonably attributable to the Teachings of Christ, what did He mean by preaching the Gospel to all the nations and has it happened yet? If it hasn’t, what else is required? What did Christ mean when referring to “the end”?
English translation is problematic when you're going from Greek and Hebrew to English and talking about millennia of language formation. Modern English is partially formed based upon bad translations of Hebrew scripture. Its a language favoring some interpretations of scripture, and this has been reinforced over previous centuries by the dictionary writers who have built (poor) scripture commentary into their dictionaries, dum-ing down the population even while educating it about other things. For example the words 'Spirit', 'Holy' and 'Sacrifice' are wholly inadequate to allow for the rich meanings in the original language. They are paper cutouts of the originals.

I strongly suggest Jesus is not talking about countries like France or Greece but Jewish tribes. A clue that may help is that he spends most of his time preaching to Jews and forbids his disciples to preach to non-Jews. Start there.

Jesus does not seek to control or to rule through the kingdoms of this world. In Christianity there is the 'World' and the new creation. The English is causing us confusion, here, but the gospel uses a Christian nadsat which delineates world and world. There is the Jewish world and its nations, and there is the corrupt world.

Jesus has no business with the nations of this planet or its governments, but his gospel he preaches only to the relevant nations which are the Jewish tribes, and that is where Paul comes in later with his letter talking about grafting gentiles onto the Jewish stock. Viewing Jewish tribes as the earth is not a Christian invention, either, but is based on Psalms singing about Israel as the creation and as the earth which is formed. That is why Jesus can tell Pontius Pilot his kingdom is not of this world (Pilot's world) and also say that gospel must be preached to every nation.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Pontius was not a pilot, he was a Pilate. ;)
Pontius Pilate Type of: procurator. (ancient Rome) someone employed by the Roman Emperor to manage finance and taxes.
So, Bible is addressed or should have been addressed only to Jews. What it says does not apply to gentiles. Paul had no authority. He was not even a disciple.
Actually, I have read that he slighted even the disciples.
I suppose the Bahais are correct when they say that Bible is corrupted.
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
With the never ending USA election debacle dominating news headlines that simultaneously fascinates and disturbs, its time to gain solace from that old time religion.

The final sermon of Christ is known as the Olivet discourse where Jesus predicts the destruction of the Jewish Temple and events that will accompany His Return (the Parousia). The sermon is recorded in different ways in the three synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. One verse in Matthew records the command to preach the Gospel to all nations with an abrupt prediction that the end shall come:

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Matthew 24:14

Some Baha’is in the West understand the verse to refer to the end of the Christian Era and the beginning of a new era based on renewed religious principles suited to our modern age. The nineteenth century witnessed the last great expansion of Christendom where the Gospel was preached to the remaining nations as part of the great commission. This of course coincides with the dramatic birth the Babi and Baha’i religions.

Any Biblical scriptures attributable to an itinerant Jewish Preacher who was born over two thousand years ago will be subject to a wide variety of interpretations, especially those from the apocalyptic genre.

So if the Olivet discourse is reasonably attributable to the Teachings of Christ, what did He mean by preaching the Gospel to all the nations and has it happened yet? If it hasn’t, what else is required? What did Christ mean when referring to “the end”?
Its another failed prophecy.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Of course I heard the teachings by those who look forward to the end of the world, and even try to make it happen so they can get their personal rewards from God for being believers sooner than later. All this is based upon a modern interpretation of the Bible which places such passages as predictions of modern, 20th century references, interpreting Daniel and whatnot as references to modern nations, and so forth.

In reading Mt. 24, it's clear that the "end" is refering to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem as the "end times". It has nothing to do with China, or Russia, or the United States, or anything to do with modern times, other than the natural tendencies of human societies to follow that typical cyclical pattern, which we could see then, as well as throughout history where we end up creating a great deal of destruction for ourselves because of our greed and lack of empathy to others in the world. The "end times" has occurred multiple times throughout all of history, and will continue again in the future when we get beyond this current cycle.

I do not read this passage formulaically, that somehow it means when that last Christian missionary reaches that last tribal Amazonian and says the magic words, "Jesus saves!", and then lights flash in heaven, and the signal is sent forth, "Attack!", and all hell is unleashed upon the earth. That is literally how some interpret that verse. I do not for many reason, not the least of which is that it doesn't fit anything that I understand about the nature of the divine, or just plain good biblical hermeneutics.

Even when I was a kid taking notes and trying to learn "what the bible teaches" where I was taught that modern reading of scripture, did that make sense to me. For one thing, people are being born all the time, so it's not possible to reach that magical "last person preached to" senario, because hundreds of thousands of new people are coming into the world every day. It would not be possible to get them all "hearing". But furthermore, and this always stuck with me, even back then I understood that simple "telling" someone about the Gospel, is not the thing in itself.

There is communication that has to happen. How people hear and understand what is being presented to them is dependent on far too many variables. Some preacher from the U.S. spreading his version of the Gospel message is filtered through his own culture and experiences, as well as how other form other cultures hear and understand what he is trying to teach them. How can that be considered formulaically like that? "He said the words, 'Jesus saves", and that's it. They are now responsible!", which is what I heard literally taught to us. Even then, in my naivety, I knew better than that.

Bottom line, this "preached to the ends of the earth" thing, when read literally, is a magic formula. It assumes God is like a machine, that once the correct number of registered voters are enrolled, He moves into action with his bulldozer to exact revenge on humanity. I could never quite swallow these ways of thinking about God. So of course, I eventually left. It sees God too formulaically, too magically.

I'll stick with the view that the writers, and the passage of that teaching was referring to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. It does not refer to modern times.

Thanks for your considered response.

I agree we need to focus on processes rather than specific events, but in regards Matthew 24:14 in a scriptural debate, the first step is to read the chapter has a whole for context. The very next verse Matthew 24:15 refers to:

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) KJV

It is not an easy verse to understand as it refers to Daniel 9:24-27 which in turn uses a similar style of apocalyptic language. However, I do agree it refers in part to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple that occurred 70 AD. So 'the end' isnt the end of the world but the end of an era in Judaism that relied on the Jews residing in their homeland and worship at the temple. With this came the Jewish diaspora including Jewish Christians. This in turn accelerated the process of spreading the Gospel message from locality to locality, from nation to nation.

There is a movement in Christianity I'm sure you are well acquainted with, that sees much of Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century with the destruction of Jerusalem and various beast like qualities attributed to the Roman Empire. The major event that clearly didn't happen was Christ's return. Also, if you want to be more precise around the language of the Gospel being preached to all the nations, that didn't happen either. So for these reasons and others, I agree events around the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple are clearly referenced, but would argue there are other specific events that didn't happen.

As we both know Christians of an evangelical ilk have some quite literal and far fetched interpretations of these verses. Thus far no evangelical Christians have contributed to this thread. In regards processes and specific events, I would see the rise of both Islam as being a key event in religion history that revolves in part around some of the processes outlined in Matthew 24 as well as more specific events outlined in the book of Revelation.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Pontius was not a pilot, he was a Pilate. ;)
Pontius Pilate Type of: procurator. (ancient Rome) someone employed by the Roman Emperor to manage finance and taxes.
So, Bible is addressed or should have been addressed only to Jews. What it says does not apply to gentiles. Paul had no authority. He was not even a disciple.
Actually, I have read that he slighted even the disciples.
I suppose the Bahais are correct when they say that Bible is corrupted.

It is true that Muslims see the Bible as corrupted. Baha'is don't take this hard line, scorched earth approach. So most Baha'is familiar with this topic would agree with Christians that Paul was both a disciple and had authority. This reality is affirmed by the apostle Peter (2 Peter 3:14-16). Its also the official Baha'i view.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
The end of the terrestrial existence of humans and their return in God's Garden which of course didn't happen since Jesus, like so many seers before and since. was largely delusional.

Spoken like a true cynic. Of course in a scripture debate reference to other biblical verses and history is mandatory, rather than taking a single verse out of context.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Spoken like a true cynic. Of course in a scripture debate reference to other biblical verses and history is mandatory, rather than taking a single verse out of context.

On the other hand I really hope these days are shortened, I feel for all the other life on this planet, that suffers from us humans.

Watching documentaries of all our water based companions drowning in a sea of plastic, or finding no breath in toxic river, or our land based companions losing their food and habitat and each day we destroy more habitat and more life.

When it is all said and done, all scriptures in one way or another talk about an end time event that is required to correct our rejection of God's Mesengers.

In an age of Global realisation, the correction will no doubt be global. If only, we as a human race, could have had the maturity to embrace the Most Great Peace. Unfortunately we did not, and a Lesser Peace, I see, will be built after still more convulsions and eventually an event that shows us we must all act as global citizens and offer help to each other.

It really is very sad, but very promising and hopeful times.

Regards Tony
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Thanks for your considered response.

I agree we need to focus on processes rather than specific events, but in regards Matthew 24:14 in a scriptural debate, the first step is to read the chapter has a whole for context. The very next verse Matthew 24:15 refers to:

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) KJV

It is not an easy verse to understand as it refers to Daniel 9:24-27 which in turn uses a similar style of apocalyptic language. However, I do agree it refers in part to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple that occurred 70 AD. So 'the end' isnt the end of the world but the end of an era in Judaism that relied on the Jews residing in their homeland and worship at the temple. With this came the Jewish diaspora including Jewish Christians. This in turn accelerated the process of spreading the Gospel message from locality to locality, from nation to nation.
I think we read scripture and passages like this with a different set of eyes. The sensibilities of the 1st century Christians was that the coming of Christ would be within their lifetimes. All of Daniel's prophecies and Jesus' 'prediction' of the destruction of the temple are all bound together, not separate expectations by them. That act would signal the beginning of the return of Christ. Paul's writings clearly express that very thing.

I don't read it "theologically" in this instance, trying to make it fit with what transpired historically. Because it did not happen as "predicted", people try to read these as referring to different things, whereas the whole passage is saying the same thing. It's not a break in the series of events, or that it should be meant to be interpreted in modern times by reading history back into it, and making these prophecies fit modern expectations. It starts with a theological premise, that scripture is supernatural, that if it didn't happen as it said, it must be pointing to something else.

I believe, but I need to bone up a bit more on this, that a lot of this modern interpretation of the "end times" began with the theology of Dispensationalism and Progressive Revelation in the 1800s. This became a theological overlay through which scripture would be interpreted. Naturally, anything like this will influence how something is read, and understood. It's a filter though which they would understand God in the world. As with any of these modern overlays, the original Christians would not recognize or have any ideas about thinking that way, even though modern readers can find verses which seem to "fit" with their theology.

As an aside, the Jewish Diaspora did not begin with the destruction of the Temple. It was spread all throughout the Roman empire long before 70 AD, and long before the Roman empire itself. The recognized date of it beginning was around 597 BCE. The Apostle Paul was a Diaspora Jew, living in Asia Minor, during the the first half of the first century. The Diaspora

There is a movement in Christianity I'm sure you are well acquainted with, that sees much of Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century with the destruction of Jerusalem and various beast like qualities attributed to the Roman Empire. The major event that clearly didn't happen was Christ's return.
I'm not familiar with any movement in Christianity that specifically teaches this. But I do know that modern scholars see it as such, which seems to echo what the Preterists from the 1600s were saying. I generally accept that as a good understanding of the texts. The book of Revelation is particularly laced "code" words to speak out against Rome, just as name Nero, without saying his name. He is the beast, and the number of his name is 666. the equivalent of Nero. Number of the beast - Wikipedia.

Regarding Christ not returning, Christians have had to deal with that since the 1st century. This is where a "theological view" of scripture comes in, as opposed to a critical view of scripture though the tools of disimpassioned rationality. While I could probably suggest ways that one can understand that theologically, such as that Christ did return in the hearts of believers. Or that there will be a return to the Truth of God that sweeps the world. These are metaphysical in nature, and the 2nd coming of Christ can be understood metaphorically to mean rebirth. Or any of number of ways to read it.

I don't however start with the premise that scripture must fit our expectations of theology, and try to make the parts fit together to support that premise. That approach does not work for me, rationally or spiritually. I have to hold it will less expectations in that way, as these theological lenses should be approached metaphorically, rather than literally. Literalism creates contradictions which my rational mind cannot just dismiss. Relaxing such expectations, actually makes scripture far more meaningful and alive. It doesn't need to be a flawless 'revelation' from God for me, in order to speak spiritual truth from true, but imperfect human heart.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
This reality is affirmed by the apostle Peter (2 Peter 3:14-16). Its also the official Baha'i view.
Paul was a post-mortem disciple of Jesus as I am of Buddha and Sankara and you are of the Iranian preacher Bahaollah.
"In 1 Corinthians 15:8, as he lists the order in which Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection, Paul writes, "last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also." - Paul - Wikipedia
That is reality in his own words.
Science shows us that from death and decay new life comes forth.
Yeah, new life, but the old one is permanently erased. Not that the old one gets a new one.
When it is all said and done, all scriptures in one way or another talk about an end time event that is required to correct our rejection of God's Mesengers.
All religions do not talk about End Times. It is a ruse by religions to frighten people. God's messengers are only in Abrahamic religions. Hinduism does not have messengers.
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Paul was a post-mortem disciple of Jesus as I am of Buddha and Sankara and you are of the Iranian preacher Bahaollah.
"In 1 Corinthians 15:8, as he lists the order in which Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection, Paul writes, "last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also." - Paul - Wikipedia

Paul converted on the road to Damascus several years after Christ's crucifixion. He had previously persecuted Christians. However, while these differences with the other disciples is openly acknowledged, he was fully accepted by the other disciples and early Church culminating in acceptance of his letters as part of New Testament canon during the fourth century. The idea that Paul is some kind of apostate is universally rejected by Christians and the Baha'i writings.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I think we read scripture and passages like this with a different set of eyes. The sensibilities of the 1st century Christians was that the coming of Christ would be within their lifetimes. All of Daniel's prophecies and Jesus' 'prediction' of the destruction of the temple are all bound together, not separate expectations by them. That act would signal the beginning of the return of Christ. Paul's writings clearly express that very thing.

I don't read it "theologically" in this instance, trying to make it fit with what transpired historically. Because it did not happen as "predicted", people try to read these as referring to different things, whereas the whole passage is saying the same thing. It's not a break in the series of events, or that it should be meant to be interpreted in modern times by reading history back into it, and making these prophecies fit modern expectations. It starts with a theological premise, that scripture is supernatural, that if it didn't happen as it said, it must be pointing to something else.

I believe, but I need to bone up a bit more on this, that a lot of this modern interpretation of the "end times" began with the theology of Dispensationalism and Progressive Revelation in the 1800s. This became a theological overlay through which scripture would be interpreted. Naturally, anything like this will influence how something is read, and understood. It's a filter though which they would understand God in the world. As with any of these modern overlays, the original Christians would not recognize or have any ideas about thinking that way, even though modern readers can find verses which seem to "fit" with their theology.

As an aside, the Jewish Diaspora did not begin with the destruction of the Temple. It was spread all throughout the Roman empire long before 70 AD, and long before the Roman empire itself. The recognized date of it beginning was around 597 BCE. The Apostle Paul was a Diaspora Jew, living in Asia Minor, during the the first half of the first century. The Diaspora


I'm not familiar with any movement in Christianity that specifically teaches this. But I do know that modern scholars see it as such, which seems to echo what the Preterists from the 1600s were saying. I generally accept that as a good understanding of the texts. The book of Revelation is particularly laced "code" words to speak out against Rome, just as name Nero, without saying his name. He is the beast, and the number of his name is 666. the equivalent of Nero. Number of the beast - Wikipedia.

Regarding Christ not returning, Christians have had to deal with that since the 1st century. This is where a "theological view" of scripture comes in, as opposed to a critical view of scripture though the tools of disimpassioned rationality. While I could probably suggest ways that one can understand that theologically, such as that Christ did return in the hearts of believers. Or that there will be a return to the Truth of God that sweeps the world. These are metaphysical in nature, and the 2nd coming of Christ can be understood metaphorically to mean rebirth. Or any of number of ways to read it.

I don't however start with the premise that scripture must fit our expectations of theology, and try to make the parts fit together to support that premise. That approach does not work for me, rationally or spiritually. I have to hold it will less expectations in that way, as these theological lenses should be approached metaphorically, rather than literally. Literalism creates contradictions which my rational mind cannot just dismiss. Relaxing such expectations, actually makes scripture far more meaningful and alive. It doesn't need to be a flawless 'revelation' from God for me, in order to speak spiritual truth from true, but imperfect human heart.

I hear you and appreciate we simply have a different understanding and narrative around the NT. In regards Matthew 24, I'm closer to the evangelical Christian view in that the Return of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem are seen as being different events foretold by Christ. A Preterist view waters down scripture IMHO. Like many things the disciples struggled to understand what Jesus meant and genuinely believed He would Return within their lifetimes. He clearly did not.

Seeing the Gospels as being Divinely Inspired and protected by the Holy Spirit doesn't detract from at all from its metaphor and allegory. So if in doubt, I do not assume the Gospel writers got it wrong, rather what what did Jesus intend when He spoke during this critical time leading up to His crucifixion.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
English translation is problematic when you're going from Greek and Hebrew to English and talking about millennia of language formation. Modern English is partially formed based upon bad translations of Hebrew scripture. Its a language favoring some interpretations of scripture, and this has been reinforced over previous centuries by the dictionary writers who have built (poor) scripture commentary into their dictionaries, dum-ing down the population even while educating it about other things. For example the words 'Spirit', 'Holy' and 'Sacrifice' are wholly inadequate to allow for the rich meanings in the original language. They are paper cutouts of the originals.

I strongly suggest Jesus is not talking about countries like France or Greece but Jewish tribes. A clue that may help is that he spends most of his time preaching to Jews and forbids his disciples to preach to non-Jews. Start there.

Jesus does not seek to control or to rule through the kingdoms of this world. In Christianity there is the 'World' and the new creation. The English is causing us confusion, here, but the gospel uses a Christian nadsat which delineates world and world. There is the Jewish world and its nations, and there is the corrupt world.

Jesus has no business with the nations of this planet or its governments, but his gospel he preaches only to the relevant nations which are the Jewish tribes, and that is where Paul comes in later with his letter talking about grafting gentiles onto the Jewish stock. Viewing Jewish tribes as the earth is not a Christian invention, either, but is based on Psalms singing about Israel as the creation and as the earth which is formed. That is why Jesus can tell Pontius Pilot his kingdom is not of this world (Pilot's world) and also say that gospel must be preached to every nation.

Do you think Jesus intended a solely Jewish audience or had a wider audience in mind?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Paul converted on the road to Damascus several years after Christ's crucifixion. He had previously persecuted Christians. However, while these differences with the other disciples is openly acknowledged, he was fully accepted by the other disciples and early Church culminating in acceptance of his letters as part of New Testament canon during the fourth century. The idea that Paul is some kind of apostate is universally rejected by Christians and the Baha'i writings.
Well, the later people can do whatever they want. I do not know how far the explanations of Abdul Baha, Shoghi or HoJ match with what your Iranian preacher wrote, or whether his writings were not changed at any time. That would depend on the date of the first printed book on his writings. What books appeared in his life-time and what appeared later. I have heard the Bahai members of the forum say that his many of his writings are yet not published. Now, who can vouch for those writings? Whether they are his or any of his followers of a later time? Do not you use the same criterea to assess the scriptures of other religions?
 
Top