Nothing could be farther form the truth, FK. Your interpretation neglects the Nohaides. Chances are you never even heard of them, and how they fit into Judaism.
I don't see what relevance your term "Nohaides" has to anything we're talking about. Did "righteous Gentiles" get into Heaven without being saved? If not then Jesus came to save them too, just as Jesus and Paul both say. What does it matter how Nohaides fit into Judaism? The Jews were wrong about many things at that time.
I don't mean it as a cheap shot, but it seems to me that, when the Bible doesn't agree with Protestant theology, it is ignored (cherry-picking). Not only is there nowhere in the Gospels a verse that says Israel includes Gentiles.
Of course I would say it is the reverse. :) Take for example your above in which you admit to cherry-picking your interpretation of the Gospels while throwing out other NT scripture when you can't reconcile them. The Gospels are true AND Paul's writings are true.
St. Paul actually says that Jews are by nature somehow different from Gentiles: "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles" (Gal 2:15)
He means by birth. He doesn't mean that Gentiles have a sinful nature and Jews do not. That would be ridiculous. Here is the word used:
NT:5449 phusis (foo'-sis); from NT:5453; growth (by germination or expansion), i.e. (by implication) natural production (lineal descent); by extension, a genus or sort; figuratively, native disposition, constitution or usuage: KJV - ([man-]) kind, nature ([-al]).
Talk about cherry-picking! :) If Paul taught anything he taught that all men are equally guilty before God, and that all need a Savior, including Jews.
FK: "God intended what happened with the Jews all along."
Nope. He foreknew what choices everyone would make. What we do affects us, not God. God helps those who help themselves.
I know that many people think that God helps those who help themselves, but the truth is that it is the opposite. Again from that Got Questions? website I quoted earlier:
Question: "God helps those who help themselves - is it in the Bible?"
Answer: "God helps those who help themselves" is probably the most often quoted phrase that is not found in the Bible. This is actually a quote from Ben Franklin and it appeared in Poor Richard's Almanac in 1757. In fact the Bible teaches the opposite. God helps the helpless! Isaiah 25:4 declares, "For You have been a defense for the helpless, a defense for the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shade from the heat..." Romans 5:6 tells us, "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly."
In terms of salvation, we are all utterly helpless. We are all infected by sin (Romans 3:23), and condemned as a result of that sin (Romans 6:23). Nothing we can do on our own can remedy this situation (Isaiah 64:6). Thankfully, God is the helper of the helpless. While we were still sinners, Jesus died for us (Romans 5:8). Jesus paid the penalty that we were incapable of paying (2 Corinthians 5:21). God provided the "help" that we need precisely because we could not help ourselves.
Apart from salvation, there is perhaps a way that the concept "God helps those who help themselves" is correct. As an example, if you asked me to help you move a piece of furniture, but then just watched me as I moved the furniture for you, I was not actually helping you. I would be doing the work for you. Many Christians fall into the trap of inactivity. Many Christians ask God for help, but then expect God to do everything Himself. They excuse this by pointing to the fact that God will provide according to His will and in His timing. However, this is not a reason for inactivity. As a specific example, if you are in need of a job, ask the Lord to help you find a job - but then be active in actually looking for a job. While it is in His power to do so, it is highly unlikely that God will cause employers to come looking for you!
The last paragraph is like the joke about the guy stranded on his roof in a flood. So, that part is true because it is not salvational. But we WERE talking about salvational issues with the Jews and Gentiles. "God helps those who help themselves" may be the most common form of stating a works-based salvation theology.
It has everything to do with the mindset of the authors of the NT. They were seeing the world through the eyes of Judaism, not Christianity or, for that matter 21st century Protestant Christians. The Noahides were considered saved through Judaism. There is nothing in the synoptic Gospels to indicate that Christ came to save specifically the Gentiles. To the contrary, taking the Gospel to the Gentiles came as a result of Jewish refusal of the Gospels.
The Jews were wrong about many things at that time.
So were the Christians who expected the second coming within one generation. So were the Apostles who expected Christ to restore the kingdom of Israel after the Resurrection.
Take for example your above in which you admit to cherry-picking your interpretation of the Gospels while throwing out other NT scripture when you can't reconcile them
There is nowhere in the NT that says that Christ came to save the Gentiles. It was a reaction to the Jewish refusal of His ministry. He is quoted as saying that the only reason he was sent was for the lost sheep of Israel, And he specifically forbade the Apostles to minister to the Gentiles. He calls Gentiles "dogs."
What you call "reconciling" is nothing but rationalization. It doesn't matter if the glass is half full or half empty—it's not full! There is nothing to reconcile and no amount of rationalization will make it full.
The Gospels are true AND Paul's writings are true
And there are unicorns on Jupiter. Trust me.
[Re Gal 2:15 "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles"] He means by birth. He doesn't mean that Gentiles have a sinful nature and Jews do not. That would be ridiculous. Here is the word used: NT:5449 phusis (foo'-sis); from NT:5453; growth (by germination or expansion), i.e. (by implication) natural production (lineal descent); by extension, a genus or sort; figuratively, native disposition, constitution or usage: KJV - ([man-]) kind, nature ([-al]).
The NT Greek lexicon states:
physis: nature
He is stating that the Jews are somehow different form the Gentiles, by nature/essence, when it comes to being sinful. But, since not all Jews are born Jewish, your suggestion that he meant by "birth" is simply wrong as a matter of fact. He is saying that Jewishness somehow separates people by nature (essence), that the Gentiles can never be like the Jews. He makes that very clear.
That is entirely in harmony with the Jewish attitude towards the Noahaides (the "righteous Gentiles") who, although saved because they followed the law, could never be the same as the Jews.
Talk about cherry-picking! :) If Paul taught anything he taught that all men are equally guilty before God, and that all need a Savior, including Jews.
No, not cherry-picking. That verse represents St. Paul's attitude across the board. Sure, the Gentiles are included, (in Judaism also the Noahides), but they are not the same as the Jews, and because by nature/essence they differ, they can never be the same. We tend to believe that all humans are human by nature, that this is everyone's world, and all humans are entitled to the same rights as any other human, regardless of religion, race, origin, etc. If we start justifying our differences "by nature" we are on thin ice!
I know that many people think that God helps those who help themselves, but the truth is that it is the opposite...But we WERE talking about salvational issues with the Jews and Gentiles. "God helps those who help themselves" may be the most common form of stating a works-based salvation theology.
The Bible also says women are "saved" by having babies. Just because one says he or she believes, does not mean they are Christ-like? Faith without works is a dead faith.