Find me one where He says GO therefore to the Gentiles.
Again, Matthew 28 is matter of interpretation. Ethnos can mean a avariety of things. Just as American Indians speak of "nations" coming together (meaning Native American), this is a common anthropological phenomenon among tribal peoples.
The reason I am saying this the fact that Jesus was a Jew and as a Jew He could not associate closely with the Gentiles. Activities such as eating together and fraternizing in a general way was strictly fobidden, never mind praying together!
Christ never advocated anything but Judaism. And Judaism He could preach only to the lost tribes of Israel (Jews do not proselitize). Christ never even hinted that His 'mission' was to convert the Gentiles.
He merely restated what the Jews believed, namely that through the messiah (meshiyah), who will establish peace and rule as a king on earth, the world will get to know (know about) the God of Abraham, not necessarily that the world will believe.
He certainly never advocated dropping the Law for anyone converting to Judais, and early Christians until +Paul considered themnsleves observant Jews. He never even hinted that such a person will appear and create a new religion, or that there was a general plan to do so.
The Gospels were written when Christianity had only a one way ticket out of Israel. +Matthew wrote his between 70 and 100 AD. By then +Paul was already dead, and so was +James, along with the Church in Jerusalem (which was shut down in 69 AD). In view of that, +Matthew's Gospel's ending makes sense, a lot of sense!
if you really believe that Christ did not want them to preach to Gentiles, then the only way you are saved is because Paul DISOBEYED Christ
I don't think he disobeyed Christ. I don't think he ever saw Christ. I think +Paul was a very zealous convert. He saw Christians dying with joy and without fear. Many were impressed by that. He could have learned a great deal about Christianity in his line of work.
Don't get me wrong: I don't believe +Paul was a dishonest person; God forbid! I believe he was truly converted and spent many days and nights learning and asking questions and meditating. He also realized that Christianity had no future in Israel, that the Jewish hearts will not warm up to Christ and, being shrewed, smart and zealous, he took the banner of the Church and lead the Church out of Israel the way Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt.
We have a lot to be thankful to +Paul. And he is a Saint if there ever was one. He put his faith to work, he opened churches and wrote epistles before any of the Apostles wrote anything. And he died a martyr for the faith. Unconventional, brave, resolute, practical, steadfast, but never disobedient.
And on that interpretation hinges whether Christ commanded Gentiles to witness to others. Let's look at it from your POV. What does the consensus patrum say about someone witnessing to you, or you witnessing to other Gentiles? Full support, right? So, must this not be the will of Christ? How could it not be?
The reason I am saying this the fact that Jesus was a Jew and as a Jew He could not associate closely with the Gentiles. Activities such as eating together and fraternizing in a general way was strictly forbidden, never mind praying together!
As a Jew, could Jesus do work on the Sabbath? We know what happened there, so I would think that Jesus had no problem in associating with the Gentile riffraff. One of the big parts of Jesus' New Covenant was to officially bring in the Gentiles. I can't believe Jesus didn't lay any groundwork. (I already think He did in some of the verses you earlier rejected as to interpretation.)
Christ never advocated anything but Judaism. And Judaism He could preach only to the lost tribes of Israel (Jews do not proselytize).
I'm still not sure what you mean by this. Did Christ NOT advocate Christianity as we know it? If He didn't then we all have a problem.
He merely restated what the Jews believed, namely that through the messiah (meshiyah), who will establish peace and rule as a king on earth, the world will get to know (know about) the God of Abraham, not necessarily that the world will believe.
If He only came to restate, then He could not have fulfilled. In fact, if all He did was restate, then there would have been no movement to kill Him.
The Gospels were written when Christianity had only a one way ticket out of Israel. +Matthew wrote his between 70 and 100 AD. By then +Paul was already dead, and so was +James, along with the Church in Jerusalem (which was shut down in 69 AD). In view of that, +Matthew's Gospel's ending makes sense, a lot of sense!
Was it God's inspired word or not? Was all of this exactly according to God's original plan or not? Sure, the ending of Matthew makes a lot of sense, but not because of unforeseen circumstances, but because it was exactly as God designed.
FK: "... if you really believe that Christ did not want them to preach to Gentiles, then the only way you are saved is because Paul DISOBEYED Christ."
I don't think he disobeyed Christ. I don't think he ever saw Christ. I think +Paul was a very zealous convert. He saw Christians dying with joy and without fear. Many were impressed by that. He could have learned a great deal about Christianity in his line of work.
Do you believe what the Bible says happened on the road to Damascus? This is critical to any opinion of Paul. If that was just a story to buck up his street cred. then Paul was a fraud. He made very bold claims about that experience, which the other Apostles seemed to fully accept. I don't see much room for a middle of the road view here.