Hi Graham, you have raised some interesting issues here which touch on very important topics. I will try to address them, but once again I would not claim my views to be definitive. However, like a plant blown to and fro by the wind whose roots become stronger, so my convictions about the Bible being the word of God have become stronger as I have had to consider and articulate my answers, so thank you for your questions.

First of all, I feel some big picture background and definitions are required. Some of your thinking seems to suggest that you are expecting the gospels to be like western history books. In a way this surprises me, given your knowledge of eastern thinking. Although the gospels recount historical events, they are episodic in nature, and not necessarily chronological. The gospels are similar to a genre in the ancient world called "bios". This was an ancient form of biography, which highlighted key events in a person's life and his teachings.

Kingdom of God: Jesus talked a lot about this (or kingdom of heaven), and it is important to understand the ambiguities in Jesus' teaching on this topic. Sometimes he talks about the kingdom being near, or even come, and sometimes about future events in the kingdom, like a future banquet. This ambiguity about the kingdom can be summed up as "the kingdom of God has come and is not yet".

When he was on earth, Jesus embodied the kingdom of God, because Jesus IS the King of the cosmos. Where Christ is, so therefore is the kingdom of God. Jesus said the kingdom of God was near to those who heard him, because he was near to them.

Jesus initiated the kingdom of God on earth, and his kingdom has come in part because Jesus the King lives within each believer by the Holy Spirit. However much of the world is still not under the rule of King Jesus, even though the ruler of this world, Satan, now stands condemned (John 16:11). In this way the kingdom has both come and is not yet.

Not only is Jesus the King of the kingdom of God, but he is also the way into the kingdom:

"Therefore Jesus said again, ‘Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." (John 10:7-10 NIV)

You asked what Jesus' mission was, and suggested "based upon the gospels, that it was to die on the cross for our sins. This might be true, but it would be an interpretation based on later theology." I agree with the first part, but not the second part of your statement. As you can see above, Jesus himself taught about him being the means of salvation, and on the cross we read this:

"Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, ‘I am thirsty.’ A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, ‘It is finished.’ With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." (John 19:28-30 NIV)

Jesus therefore talked as if his mission would be completed soon, because he knew he would soon be crucified, his last words on the cross being, "It is finished".

The Son of Man: This is a term that I've been uncertain about for a long time, but I am very grateful to Nick Meader for his scholarly article on this. I would recommend reading it: https://link.medium.com/CICmC11fAkb

In summary he says, "when Jesus defines himself as the Son of Man he is claiming to be the Messiah, both fully human and fully divine, who will rule alongside the Ancient Days for all eternity."

The way the title "Son of Man" weaves its way through scripture is a nice example of what I meant by the astonishing coherence of the Bible, and Nick's article clearly expresses this.

Now moving on to Matthew 10:23 - this is a difficult verse to interpret, and there are a number of possible meanings. First of all, chapter 10 starts talking about a specific event when Jesus sent out the 12, but then around verse 16, Jesus seems to start talking about what will happen in the future. For example Matthew 10:17,18 says:

"Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles."

As you pointed out Jesus instructed the 12 to not go to the Gentiles, and yet here he says that they would witness to the Gentile too. This prediction came true quite quickly through the apostle Paul (and others), after he was commissioned by the risen and ascended Christ. By the way, Jesus' focus on the gospel going to the gentiles first was simply a timing issue, and not due to any anti-gentile sentiment. Why would God not want his chosen people to hear the good news about Jesus first, so that they might be the first to rejoice and help to spread the good news to the whole world. This was clearly Jesus' intent in the Great Commission.

Therefore the context for verse 23 is clearly within the verses that are looking forward to the time after Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension, when the apostles, and others, would be bearing witness to the risen Christ. We see some of Jesus' predictions clearly start to come to pass in the book of Acts.

Consequently one possible interpretation is that Jesus was referring to his coming in judgement on Jerusalem, and the destruction of the temple, in AD 70, Jesus predicted that not one stone would be left on another (Matthew 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6). This prophecy about the temple was literally fulfilled by the Romans in AD 70. Therefore it is quite possible that Jesus had this in mind. This judgement of Israel can be seen as a foreshadowing of the final judgement on all those who reject Christ as their saviour.

However given the context Jesus could have equally been referring to his second coming. In this interpretation verse 23 helps make sense of the need for the continued witness to Israel, alongside the mission to the Gentiles, until the end of the age.

As God incarnate, I do believe Jesus to be infallible, but that does not mean that he knew everything. As he said himself about the end of times:

"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matthew 24:36 NIV)

You refer to Paul's sense of Jesus' imminent return, however I do not see that this means that Paul thought that Jesus' return was literally going to be during his life-time. I think Paul understood, what to me is logically obvious, that for each individual, Jesus' second coming effectively occurs at the end of each person's life. As Hebrews 9:27,28 says:

"Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him."

Your puzzling over why Matthew, or other gospel writers for that matter, doesn't include certain information is I think misplaced. As I indicated above the gospels are not western history books. They included and excluded episodes as seemed right to them, they were not trying to satisfy modern western thinking. However as you pointed out yourself, I do think that these differences in what is included and omitted in the different gospels does support the view that they are authentic. If anyone did try to edit them later, they did not do a very good job.

Therefore with a proper recognition for the type of literature we are dealing with here and respect for context, I see no reason to question the coherence of the Bible or the accuracy of Jesus' predictions. On the contrary, as I have indicated, many of Jesus' predictions have demonstrably already been fulfilled.

So Graham, I look forward to your response to my various replies.