Was Jesus sent to the Jews only, or to Mankind?

[ProgressiveMuslims]

I believe that he was "sent" (if you insist on using that word) specifically to the Jews.
But it's still possible for anyone to benefit from his teachings.

It's like if I were to throw you a street party for your birthday, but still allow anyone to come, dance, take food, etc. Yeah, the party is for you, but you're not the only one who can enjoy it.

I tend to agree with this, though I am not a Christian. From what I've read, he was raised Jewish and probably wanted to reform the Jewish religion from being an organized religion to being an individual experience.

 

[Shermana]

God help you. Do you actually believe it was because she was a dog, in comparison to the Israelites?

Yes, Canaanites were actually considered dogs compared to the Israelites. Worse than even Samaritans because there was a defined religious reason for it. Slaves of slaves you know. If you don't think it's possibly true that Jesus refused to grant the Canaanite woman's wish until she acknowledged she was a dog, feel free to give an alternate opinion instead of saying "God help you". God helps me just fine, may He help you understand past all the PC fluff of racial equality in modern times which dilutes the contemporary understanding, and understand why Jesus refused to grant the Canaanite woman's request. Did you know even the "613 commandments" include killing Amalekites on sight?

So what did Jesus mean by saying that it was not right for the children's bread to be thrown to dogs when he initially refused to answer the Canaanite woman's wish? Who are the children and who are the dogs, and why is it not right to throw the bread of the children to the dogs? What is the bread of the children?



I've seen some really whacky interpretations of that issue by "Christians" scrambling to find a fluffy PC reading of that passage that completely changes the context and misses the point, let's see what yours is. Here's one of those attempts that totally avoids the plain reading of the story and tries to "Fill in" a bunch of details to make Jesus seem not so "racist". Shows how much you really have to twist and turn the heck out of the story to get it to mean something other than what I'm saying. They even go so far as to say that being a racist would make Jesus a sinner. I guess we can decide anything we want to be a sin whether the text says it or not too!


The Faith Of A Canaanite Woman (Matthew 15:21-28) | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

II. The Conversation: Jesus draws faith out of the Canaanite woman (22-28a).The way that Jesus deals with this woman has been given some very strange interpretations. One scholar suggested that Jesus had been a racist and this woman converted him from that narrow view. That is just silly. If he had been a Jewish racist, and therefore a sinner, he would not have come to Tyre and Sidon. No, what Jesus is doing is typical of the way He dealt with people--He would put stumblingblocks, as it were, in their way to see if they had faith to step over them. For example, when someone called Him “good,” He said, “Why are you calling me good, there is no one good but God.” How they responded to that would show what they thought of Him (He was not denying that He was good, or God).

You can also see them try to sneak in an out of context Trinity defense while they're at it, this issue has nothing to do with the "No one is good" thing, which isn't even Jesus saying he's god, you can see the twisting necessary to get Jesus to be saying something different than what he plainly did.. So now Jesus was just setting up Stumbling blocks. He was only ACTING racist. Funny, why would even the Disciples say "Send her away"? Was it okay for them to be racist but not Jesus? So apparently Jesus was testing her "persistence", but the disciples were still pretty "racist" against Canaanites. A plain reading of the text without any attempt to give it a PC spin says exactly what I'm saying it says: He gave her a concession because she acknowledged her place compared to an Israelite. Why would she agree that dogs eat crumbs? Who are the dogs and who are the crumbs in her view?

Now here they go a usual route many take where they grudgingly acknowledge the "Racial issue" but try to change the context completely. She is "taking what the Jews did not want", even though all of Jesus's initial Church was made up of Jews. This attitude was NOT the same as when Paul went around but a wholly different story where the racial issue was entirely smoothed out by Paul, it is funny how much they have to lie about the story to get it meet their palatability. As to say the "Jews did not want their Messiah", if that was the case, the Pharisees wouldn't have sent Paul to crack down on them in the first place and stop the widespread conversions.

(Many students of the Bible for one reason or another are afraid of this race issue; but the people of the times were very much aware of it. And Jesus came as a Jew, as the promised king of the Jews, whose kingdom would eventually extend to all the world, as it had in bits and pieces in the Old Testament. But it began with Israel).
Well, this woman would not be put off, and so knelt before Him and begged, “Lord, help me.” Jesus pushed her a little further, reminding her of the historic distinction between the cursed Canaanites and the blessed Israelites. In the short saying the Jews are the “children” and the Gentiles are the “dogs.” The children get fed first.
But the woman’s answer is marvelous: even the “dogs” eat the crumbs that the children drop. She acquiesces to the role of a “dog” in relation to Israel (she knows the Messiah came to Israel first); she may not be able to sit down at the Messiah’s table and eat with the “children,” but she should be allowed to pick up some of the crumbs they drop. She wants some of the uncovenanted mercy of God, His general saving grace to all people.

The word for dogs here refers to small dogs, perhaps children’s pets who are harmless and somewhat helpless. She accepts Israel’s historical privilege over the Gentiles, especially the powerful ancient Canaanites; but she is no threat to that in her request for grace that is freely given to the Gentiles. Besides, she will take what the Jews do not want. And that attitude played out again and again in Paul’s missionary journey when he turned to Gentiles because the Jews did not want their Messiah, but the Gentiles did.

 

[Twig pentagram]

What does Jesus say in this matter?

I dont know.

 

[Sleeppy]

Yes, Canaanites were actually considered dogs compared to the Israelites. Worse than even Samaritans because there was a defined religious reason for it. Slaves of slaves you know. If you don't think it's possibly true that Jesus refused to grant the Canaanite woman's wish until she acknowledged she was a dog, feel free to give an alternate opinion instead of saying "God help you". God helps me just fine, may He help you understand past all the PC fluff of racial equality in modern times which dilutes the contemporary understanding, and understand why Jesus refused to grant the Canaanite woman's request. Did you know even the "613 commandments" include killing Amalekites on sight?

So what did Jesus mean by saying that it was not right for the children's bread to be thrown to dogs when he initially refused to answer the Canaanite woman's wish? Who are the children and who are the dogs, and why is it not right to throw the bread of the children to the dogs? What is the bread of the children?



I've seen some really whacky interpretations of that issue by "Christians" scrambling to find a fluffy PC reading of that passage that completely changes the context and misses the point, let's see what yours is. Here's one of those attempts that totally avoids the plain reading of the story and tries to "Fill in" a bunch of details to make Jesus seem not so "racist". Shows how much you really have to twist and turn the heck out of the story to get it to mean something other than what I'm saying. They even go so far as to say that being a racist would make Jesus a sinner. I guess we can decide anything we want to be a sin whether the text says it or not too!


The Faith Of A Canaanite Woman (Matthew 15:21-28) | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site
You can also see them try to sneak in an out of context Trinity defense while they're at it, this issue has nothing to do with the "No one is good" thing, which isn't even Jesus saying he's god, you can see the twisting necessary to get Jesus to be saying something different than what he plainly did.. So now Jesus was just setting up Stumbling blocks. He was only ACTING racist. Funny, why would even the Disciples say "Send her away"? Was it okay for them to be racist but not Jesus? So apparently Jesus was testing her "persistence", but the disciples were still pretty "racist" against Canaanites. A plain reading of the text without any attempt to give it a PC spin says exactly what I'm saying it says: He gave her a concession because she acknowledged her place compared to an Israelite. Why would she agree that dogs eat crumbs? Who are the dogs and who are the crumbs in her view?

Now here they go a usual route many take where they grudgingly acknowledge the "Racial issue" but try to change the context completely. She is "taking what the Jews did not want", even though all of Jesus's initial Church was made up of Jews. This attitude was NOT the same as when Paul went around but a wholly different story where the racial issue was entirely smoothed out by Paul, it is funny how much they have to lie about the story to get it meet their palatability. As to say the "Jews did not want their Messiah", if that was the case, the Pharisees wouldn't have sent Paul to crack down on them in the first place and stop the widespread conversions.

God help us all. I didn't mean to offend you; I was just very thoroughly surprised. I disagree completely, but I also do not think it really matters. If God wants either of us to know something, we'll know.

But just to give my input, for the sake of the effort you've put for me in yours.. I don't believe Jesus was calling the woman a dog, or acting racist at all. He was allowing her faith to be shown by her humility.. which is something we all require. That woman was not of the dogs, but of the children.

 

[Shermana]

which is something we all require. That woman was not of the dogs, but of the children.

First off you didn't offend me, but your interpretation basically ignores the immediate context. He didn't make the Roman soldier compare himself to a dog. Your reasoning is similar to other commentaries that are afraid to address the truth of the racial issues of the day. The Israelites are the children, the Canaanite woman is the dog. You are not even acknowledging that the woman herself agreed that she was a dog. If the issue was about humility, Jesus sure picked an odd way of doing it by making the woman first agree that she is a dog asking for crumbs.

So no, the woman was not of the "children", that was the whole point. She admitted this. That was why she said "But even the dogs get the crumbs". Why did she have "faith" in the first place? Faith in what and why? That Jesus was Christ of the Jews and had authority from God. The fact that she believed that Jesus was the Messiah, he granted her crumbs: He caused a miracle to happen for her. But if that was crumbs for dogs, what is the bread for the children? Most people don't even receive such a miracle when they ask.

I can understand why so many want to interpret this far differently than what it specifically says.

Now when you say "God help you", is it not because you think there is a problem?

 

[Sleeppy]

First off you didn't offend me, but your interpretation basically ignores the immediate context. He didn't make the Roman soldier compare himself to a dog. Your reasoning is similar to other commentaries that are afraid to address the truth of the racial issues of the day. The Israelites are the children, the Canaanite woman is the dog. You are not even acknowledging that the woman herself agreed that she was a dog. If the issue was about humility, Jesus sure picked an odd way of doing it by making the woman first agree that she is a dog asking for crumbs.

So no, the woman was not of the "children", that was the whole point. She admitted this. That was why she said "But even the dogs get the crumbs". Why did she have "faith" in the first place? Faith in what and why? That Jesus was Christ of the Jews and had authority from God. The fact that she believed that Jesus was the Messiah, he granted her crumbs: He caused a miracle to happen for her. But if that was crumbs for dogs, what is the bread for the children? Most people don't even receive such a miracle when they ask.

I can understand why so many want to interpret this far differently than what it specifically says.

Now when you say "God help you", is it not because you think there is a problem?

Yes; I said it because I really believe you've gotten that very wrong.. But, I also surely have some things very wrong, and everyone else.

As far as it being odd.. I look at it in the same way as when Abraham went to sacrifice his son.. or Moses questioning God on the mountain, before it resulted in the sons of Levi killing those thousands. Much of it can seem very odd.

Israelites die like any other. We all have the same earthly father, with Adam. It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with God's will.

 

[outhouse]

Hmm, ok ,interesting opinion, but John knew Jesus. Were do you get "a group of people" wrote this particular gospel were this verse I mentioned is found? the Gospel of john was written by the apostle John around around AD 90, John was a disciple of Jesus as you well know. and was with him before his death burial and resurrection.

the authors are at this time unknown


As it stands a johannine community wrote it over quite a long time with 3 different compilations of unknown authors, yes plural


A devoted follower of jesus would have been a strict jew, not the anti semetic writing left in john from a roman community

 

[outhouse]

We see in the OT God mentioning all the nations.

god never mentioned anything


were talking about 100% judaism in the OT, because romans took what they wanted but would never convert fully to the religion, then cherry picked the OT on what they wanted to create their new religion based on jesus martyred death. DOES not mean jesus opened up the religion to all.

There is no historicity at all to jesus taking his movement outside judaism

 

[outhouse]

Matt. 28:19 - 'Having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them -- to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..'

Mark 16:15 - 'And he said to them, 'Having gone to all the world, proclaim the good news to all the creation..'

Luke 24:47 - 'And reformation and remission of sins to be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem..'

and these are not a accurate portrayal of amnything jesus may have stood for or represented.


all the gospels were written by romans who followed judaism, only the unknown author of GMatthew holds jewish law tighter then the rest, but still uses the roman foundation of the unknown author of GMark.


all we have to know anything about jesus IS, people who never knew him, met him, heard him, didnt even belong to the same religion, AND didnt even live in the same area! who wrote decades after his death by oral mythology.

We dont even know how many of the apostles Paul murdered before he felt like writing his mythology based on what he had learned hunting this jewish sect of jesus for up to 3 years when there were not that many members to begin with.

 

[Shia Islam]

He says to the world in John 3:16..

John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This verse is explaining why God gave Jesus despite his love to him. It explains the giving by God's love to mankind. However, looking at it alongside the clear other verses (as the one about the lost sheep of Israel ) will show that that as many prophets were sent to certain people according to God's plan to rescue Mankind, Jesus was sent to the Jews. And whoever believes completely in all that 'any true prophet' has spoken will not perish.

 

[Shia Islam]

It seems that according to Islam, although Jesus was sent to the Jews, after his return he will guide the current Christians to the truth.

 

[javajo]

I believe Christ came the first time as the Messiah to the Jews and to fulfill scripture that he would die and rise again paying the penalty (death) for all our sins, that whoever trusts him for that is freely given eternal life. Many Jews did and do not recognize him as their Messiah and he was crucified as a result, but it was all part of God's plan of salvation for all.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. From Isaiah 53

 

[Rational_Mind]

Many Jews did and do not recognize him as their Messiah and he was crucified as a result, but it was all part of God's plan of salvation for all.

Quite honestly, this makes no sense to me. Could you explain how this would be acceptable to reason. How can I understand why this would possibly happen or would possibly be needed. I need to understand how one can hold this belief in reason. As it appears, it seems like a cop out to explain the death of a person who Jews rejected and said would die on the cross as a cursed man according to the scripture. So how can one hold this belief in reason.

 

[javajo]

Quite honestly, this makes no sense to me. Could you explain how this would be acceptable to reason.

Not really, no. I don't pretend to know the mind of God. I just trust him.

 

[Shermana]

Quite honestly, this makes no sense to me

Whether it makes sense or not, the idea is that it fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah 53:10 so it has a legitimate Jewish basis at least according to Messianic minded Jews. How it's interpreted from there is another story. The prophecy is specifically directed at the Jewish people about their Savior that was sent to them, who realize that he really was the Sacrificial Guilt Offering after all. It also may fulfill some "pseudipigraphic" literature which mentions Messianic Prophecies which groups like the Essenes and Nazarenes may have taken to apply to him.

 

[Rational_Mind]

Not really, no. I don't pretend to know the mind of God. I just trust him.

Whether it makes sense or not, the idea is that it fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah 53:10 so it has a legitimate Jewish basis at least according to Messianic minded Jews. How it's interpreted from there is another story. The prophecy is specifically directed at the Jewish people about their Savior that was sent to them, who realize that he really was the Sacrificial Guilt Offering after all. It also may fulfill some "pseudipigraphic" literature which mentions Messianic Prophecies which groups like the Essenes and Nazarenes may have taken to apply to him.

So it obviously cannot be expected of me to accept something that goes against reasoning granted by God. Its more reasonable to accept that this is an excuse to explain the apparent death on the cross. This understanding goes against everything we see of God in practice. I can understand that it is comforting to believe that someone will take over all your sins but it is cruel and trying to ignore it is delusional.

Moreover, I can go to show that it does not fulfil the prophecy as you interpreted because although it is commonly believed that Jesus (as) died on the cross it is not what comes up on closer examination of the bible and history.

 

[Shermana]

So it obviously cannot be expected of me to accept something that goes against reasoning granted by God. Its more reasonable to accept that this is an excuse to explain the apparent death on the cross. This understanding goes against everything we see of God in practice. I can understand that it is comforting to believe that someone will take over all your sins but it is cruel and trying to ignore it is delusional.

How would you explain Isaiah 53:10?

PS You still have to abstain from sin even if Jesus serves as a sacrifice, "If you continue to sin even after receiving knowledge of the Truth, there is no more sacrifice for your sins"

 

[Rational_Mind]

How would you explain Isaiah 53:10?

PS You still have to abstain from sin even if Jesus serves as a sacrifice, "If you continue to sin even after receiving knowledge of the Truth, there is no more sacrifice for your sins"

If I show you Jesus (as) never died on the cross it smashes the entire death on the cross theory. Him dying a natural death then extends to show he was not God. Further leaves no space for disputing on little things. So if you want to know lets head to the root of the issue. Which is disputed among Christians, Jews and Muslims. What happened to Jesus (as) on the cross.

I will show that he did not die on the cross, he did not physically go up to heaven, and he did not come back to life. Instead he survived the cross proving he was not cursed and died a natural death years later.

 

[Shermana]

If I show you Jesus (as) never died on the cross it smashes the entire death on the cross theory. Him dying a natural death then extends to show he was not God. Further leaves no space for disputing on little things. So if you want to know lets head to the root of the issue. Which is disputed among Christians, Jews and Muslims. What happened to Jesus (as) on the cross.

You have evidence that he didn't die on the cross but died of natural causes? Historians would love to see this. I don't believe he was God by the way. The Muslims interpretation is also up to dispute, at first glance it seems to be that they held a Docetist view, in which Jesus didn't actually die but only appeared to. This may very well be the right interpretation but vastly misundestood, such as to say that he didn't actually die while his body was dead. The issue of the ressurection however is not the issue at stake. But I believe that Jews agree "Yeshu" was crucified if I'm not mistaken.

I will show that he did not die on the cross, he did not physically go up to heaven, and he did not come back to life. Instead he survived the cross proving he was not cursed and died a natural death years later

Whether he went to heaven and came back to life is irrelevant to the issue of how to interpret Isaiah 53:10, but if you can show he didn't die on the cross, this I would love to see, please demonstrate this.

 

[Rational_Mind]

You have evidence that he didn't die on the cross but died of natural causes? Historians would love to see this. I don't believe he was God by the way. The Muslims interpretation is also up to dispute, at first glance it seems to be that they held a Docetist view, in which Jesus didn't actually die but only appeared to. This may very well be the right interpretation but vastly misundestood, such as to say that he didn't actually die while his body was dead. The issue of the ressurection however is not the issue at stake. But I believe that Jews agree "Yeshu" was crucified if I'm not mistaken.


Whether he went to heaven and came back to life is irrelevant to the issue of how to interpret Isaiah 53:10, but if you can show he didn't die on the cross, this I would love to see, please demonstrate this.

[youtube]BnW_NM8ViJM[/youtube]

It is better to see it presented from someone who is not of my religious affiliations. That would present much stronger. I will try to list proofs when I get the time, although this topic has been amazing covered by tombofjesus.com and many historians who hold this view have written about it. This view is increasingly growing among academics and it seems every year more evidence is presenting itself in proof. It goes to explain why people thought he died and why they think he came back to life.

Here is an article covering the medical viewpoint written by an Ahmadi Muslim.
Jesus Christ did not Die on the Cross – A Cardiologist

I believe tombofjesus.com list various sources of the view that Jesus (as) survived crucifixion.