=Something Bad Jesus Did=

[sojourner]

If to torture a desperate mother down to the depth of a dog condition when there was no need for that is not a sigh of human weakness, I don't know what weakness is.

To the Jews (God love 'em), foreign women were lower than low. The woman had no social right to approach Jesus, let alone talk to him.
Seems like that's more a weakness based on his culture than his species.

Yet, he chose, in the end, to not listen to the cultural "norms" of his religion and acknowledge the woman anyway (putting his own social standing in jeopardy, in the eyes of the authorities).

But I can't help noticing that we're focusing on the wrong character here. The important character in the pericope is the woman -- not Jesus. It was the woman's faith -- not Jesus' power -- in the face of adversity, that healed her daughter.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...
Maybe now you guys are ready to take another look at post#143?

 

[Breathe]

I like it Thief.
I do believe myself that it's being portrayed in a completely negative light, when as soon as she answered him back with a good answer, he was impressed and healed her daughter.

I don't know if the Jewish people at the time would have liked to think "we are all equal", when the idea at the time was usually "we are God's chosen people", thus meaning everyone else was inferior to them.

 

[sojourner]

I like it Thief.
I do believe myself that it's being portrayed in a completely negative light, when as soon as she answered him back with a good answer, he was impressed and healed her daughter.

I don't know if the Jewish people at the time would have liked to think "we are all equal", when the idea at the time was usually "we are God's chosen people", thus meaning everyone else was inferior to them.

I think Thief is off-base. The story is more about the woman and her faith, in the face of overwhelming odds, than it is about Jesus and his power. In the story, we are to identify, not with Jesus (which is an odd mistake we often make) but with the woman, who was outcast and dirty, yet was shown grace, because of her faith. Here, it's faith, not privilege, that pleases God, showing us that the religious authorities are patently wrong in their claim to be "God's chosen."

 

[Thief]

Thief here...point for Sojourner...
Yes of course...as a reader's first encounter with Scripture...the point you make is correct.
However, this thread is response to Masada's complaint in post#1, concerning the Carpenter's demeanor and attitude.

The intention here is to resolve his complaint.
There would be only two options.
Allow Masada to say of Jesus.... a bad attitude...or
demonstrate cause for the action.

If your followers have bad cultural habits and tendencies...all you can do is wait for the opportunity to present itself...display that poor disposition as if you share it....and then turn about completely and demonstrate 'something good'.

 

[sojourner]

Thief here...point for Sojourner...
Yes of course...as a reader's first encounter with Scripture...the point you make is correct.
However, this thread is response to Masada's complaint in post#1, concerning the Carpenter's demeanor and attitude.

The intention here is to resolve his complaint.
There would only two options.
Allow Masada to say of Jesus.... a bad attitude...or
demonstrate cause for the action.

If your followers have bad cultural habits and tendencies...all you can do is wait for the opportunity to present itself...display that poor disposition as if you share it....and then turn about completely and demonstrate 'something good'.

I think if we do that, though that we're reading into scripture something that isn't there. The literary device Matthew uses is the cultural oppression of women, in order to put the woman under undue duress, so that he can show two things: First of all that faith is stronger and more pleasing to God than "being clean. Second, that it is precisely those who are seen as "dirty" that God is most favorable toward.

If there had been no conflict between the woman and Jesus, Matthew could not have made his point.

 

[Thief]

Thief here....
Focusing on the Matthew's report...both your idea and mine are true.
Matthew indeed is presenting the incident with display of humility and quick response up front.
But my perspective is also there.
His disciples had a lesson to learn.
How convenient everyone got what they needed.
(except Masada)

 

[free spirit]

Thief here....
Focusing on the Matthew's report...both your idea and mine are true.
Matthew indeed is presenting the incident with display of humility and quick response up front.
But my perspective is also there.
His disciples had a lesson to learn.
How convenient everyone got what they needed.
(except Masada)

Well Ben Masada has an invested interest in presenting Jesus in a bad light because he believes that the Messiah has not come yet. It is hard for him to look back and say Jews believe a lie.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I don't know if the Jewish people at the time would have liked to think "we are all equal", when the idea at the time was usually "we are God's chosen people", thus meaning everyone else was inferior to them.

That is not at all what that means.


I get the fact that most people here believe Jews are (or at least were) ethnocentric bigots.... but the truth is, they are not, and they were not. I wish I knew a way to get people to see this.

Having been chosen only means that we're obligated to adhere to the law given at Sinai. Gentiles are not obligated to the Torah... but that doesn't mean they are inferior. In fact, there is a constant theme running throughout the Torah... and it basically says "DO NOT MISTREAT/OPPRESS/HARASS A STRANGER, FOR YOU WERE ONCE STRANGERS IN A STRANGE LAND".


The repeated assertion that 1st century Jews were ethnocentric bigots is false and slanderous.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...Hey Poison...
I can see why this thread irritates you.
But like Masada pointed out...we don't get to rewrite Scripture.
Post #1 is aimed at the face of Jesus of Nazareth.

So...the Carpenter said something that Masada frowns on.
I've been trying to ease the disapproval, but few people seem interested.

There really are two options here.
Take Masada's side of it, and frown on the Carpenter.
Or....allow the idea, the Carpenter was demonstrating how ugly such behavior is...no matter who does it.

 

[free spirit]

That is not at all what that means.


I get the fact that most people here believe Jews are (or at least were) ethnocentric bigots.... but the truth is, they are not, and they were not. I wish I knew a way to get people to see this.

Having been chosen only means that we're obligated to adhere to the law given at Sinai. Gentiles are not obligated to the Torah... but that doesn't mean they are inferior. In fact, there is a constant theme running throughout the Torah... and it basically says "DO NOT MISTREAT/OPPRESS/HARASS A STRANGER, FOR YOU WERE ONCE STRANGERS IN A STRANGE LAND".

The repeated assertion that 1st century Jews were ethnocentric bigots is false and slanderous.

I can see that you want to be simpatetic to the jews, we also are simpatetic to them but to deny the truth doesn't help anyone, Peter was a Jew so read what he says in ACTS 10 - 28; "And he said to them, you yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him, and yet God has shown me that i should not call any man unholy or unclean."
So it was even unlawful to associate with the non Jew, so the Jews were required by law to behave superior, Jesus was just obeying the law.
Your argument has no leg to stand on. That is also the main reason that the Jews were not very well regarded in the last millennium, for they considered themselves a cut above the rest. The sin of hypocrisy is like this; they claim to be the chosen of God, but behave like devils. Do you need evidences of that fact? And why do you call him carpenter when you know that he is my Lord and My God, you belittle him by calling him that.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I can see that you want to be simpatetic to the jews, we also are simpatetic to them but to deny the truth doesn't help anyone, Peter was a Jew so read what he says in ACTS 10 - 28; "And he said to them, you yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him, and yet God has shown me that i should not call any man unholy or unclean."
So it was even unlawful to associate with the non Jew, so the Jews were required by law to behave superior, Jesus was just obeying the law.

Either Peter was an ignoramous, a liar, or the author of Acts was a fraud. You are the only one denying truth here.

Your argument has no leg to stand on.

Sure it does... you just don't buy it because the foundation of your understanding of scripture is based on the demonization of the Jews that occurs in christian scriptures. It's fraudulent and slanderous, making either the characters or the authors of the "new testament" liars or frauds. I don't blame you. I pity you.

And why do you call him carpenter when you know that he is my Lord and My God, you belittle him by calling him that.

He was a carpenter. Nothing more.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Thief here...Hey Poison...
I can see why this thread irritates you.
But like Masada pointed out...we don't get to rewrite Scripture.
Post #1 is aimed at the face of Jesus of Nazareth.

So...the Carpenter said something that Masada frowns on.
I've been trying to ease the disapproval, but few people seem interested.

There really are two options here.
Take Masada's side of it, and frown on the Carpenter.
Or....allow the idea, the Carpenter was demonstrating how ugly such behavior is...no matter who does it.

A big problem with that is, in order to allow the idea, the carpenter has to engage in behavior that is forbidden by God.

You could put the most positive spin on the lesson he intended, the values of humility, generosity, etc... he extolled... but even then, he still carried it out in a way that can only be described in the least flattering of terms.

To frown on the carpenter seems the only reasonable side. Unless you want to believe that it's ok to humiliate a person in need in order to teach a lesson that was unnecessary to teach.

 

[Breathe]

That is not at all what that means.


I get the fact that most people here believe Jews are (or at least were) ethnocentric bigots.... but the truth is, they are not, and they were not. I wish I knew a way to get people to see this.

I don't believe that, at all. Especially since my cousin is Jewish. However, I do believe people have used the Tanakh for bigotry.

Having been chosen only means that we're obligated to adhere to the law given at Sinai. Gentiles are not obligated to the Torah... but that doesn't mean they are inferior. In fact, there is a constant theme running throughout the Torah... and it basically says "DO NOT MISTREAT/OPPRESS/HARASS A STRANGER, FOR YOU WERE ONCE STRANGERS IN A STRANGE LAND".

Ah, but how many people will pay attention to that, when they have being "God's chosen people" on their side? Especially when one can use verses such as Deuteronomy 23:3, 20 Exodus 12:43-45 further one's wickedness.

The repeated assertion that 1st century Jews were ethnocentric bigots is false and slanderous.

Don't be so dramatic.

Using what I showed above, it's easy to see that ethnocentric bigotry would be easy to use.

 

[free spirit]

Either Peter was an ignoramous, a liar, or the author of Acts was a fraud. You are the only one denying truth here.

You are ignoring that it was written a long time ago, people do change.
In any case Jesus was a Jew and I love him, so why should I demonize the Jews I am only pointing to what is written and it must be true. Because different people, in different times, in different nations, have come to the same conclusion that the Jews were no worth having, for they would not mix with the population so they remained separated, and create a nation within a nation. which King would trust such a people?
You do not like Jesus because he was rejected by the senate of the Jews, but remenber at that time a lot of Jews became Christians,
and were persecuted because of that.

[/color] Sure it does... you just don't buy it because the foundation of your understanding of scripture is based on the demonization of the Jews that occurs in christian scriptures. It's fraudulent and slanderous, making either the characters or the authors of the "new testament" liars or frauds. I don't blame you. I pity you.

I do not blame you nor pity you, because you have a choice stay as you are or accept Jesus as Lord, which ever way you go I will not judge you for Judgement belongs to God.

He was a carpenter. Nothing more.

To me he is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, You should be proud of this Jew as I am.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...Hey Poison...
Of course it was necessary to demonstrate as He did.
His disciples were willing to repeat everything He said.
So He had to be careful what...and how... He said it.

Calling the woman a dog surprises the reader, when that verse is read for the first time.
So...yes it is needful to seek the motivation.
But you should be using that effort whenever reading Scripture, anyway.

If you take another run through the Gospels you will find He was willing to make gesture...when and where...most of His people would never consider.
And He showed His disapproval of their habits and culture...in more ways than one.

 

[Ben Masada]

So...
Is this part of the "20% of Matthew that is reliable," or the part of the "80% of Matthew that is bull****?"

And what criteria are you using to determine the difference?

Or are you just playing us?

The criteria that the Jewish Jesus was only human and very natural for him to commit that kind of blunder. And not so perfect as your Hellenistic Jesus.

 

[Ben Masada]

To the Jews (God love 'em), foreign women were lower than low. The woman had no social right to approach Jesus, let alone talk to him.
Seems like that's more a weakness based on his culture than his species.

Yet, he chose, in the end, to not listen to the cultural "norms" of his religion and acknowledge the woman anyway (putting his own social standing in jeopardy, in the eyes of the authorities).

But I can't help noticing that we're focusing on the wrong character here. The important character in the pericope is the woman -- not Jesus. It was the woman's faith -- not Jesus' power -- in the face of adversity, that healed her daughter.

That's where you err. The one under the spotlight here is not the woman, unless the issue was meant to be an item in the conspiracy of the Church to put Israel down as a nation without faith. Then, this is Replacement Theology. But I want to look at this issue through Jesus' attitude since we have precedence to it by reading Matthew 7:6 and 10:6. My point to prove here is that Jesus was not so perfect as not to break the Golden Rule like anyone else.

 

[Ben Masada]

Well Ben Masada has an invested interest in presenting Jesus in a bad light because he believes that the Messiah has not come yet. It is hard for him to look back and say Jews believe a lie.

You are mistaken about my intentions. My interest is to present Jesus as who he really was, and not the Hellenistic picture you paint of him. Who told you that I believe that the Messiah hasn't come yet? As I can see, you are either not reading my threads when you write your posts or you just do not understand them.

Talking for myself, if I believe in a lie, Isaiah the Prophet is the liar. If the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, and Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name, it's only obvious that Israel, the Jewish People is the Messiah. Read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21; 45:4.

 

[sojourner]

He was a carpenter. Nothing more.

Yeah. And Moses was just a murderer...