Jesus was sent by God only for the chosen people of Israel and not the Gentiles…
Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.”
Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”
…unless you beg like a dog to earn Jesus’ pity.
“Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”
Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
–Matthew 15:21-28
Post updated 11/06/09 4:25 CST
Tags: Atheism, Atheist, Chosen People, Demon, Faith, Gentile, Heal, Jesus, Jew, Jewish, Miracle, Repent, Save, Sin, World
November 10, 2009 at 12:11 pm |
I think a a few Biblical hermeneutics classes are in order…
November 10, 2009 at 12:44 pm |
It is easy for an unbeliever to hurl an onslaught of alleged discrepancies and/or contradictions at a believer, but it is not always a simple task for the believer to respond.
This is the case because many of the so-called discrepancies and contradictions cannot be answered via a quick wave of one verse, but instead requires in-depth research in order to reply on a case-by-case basis.
I choose instead of crafting a researched answer for you to allow you the privilege of finding the truth out on your own. God bless
November 10, 2009 at 3:09 pm |
I think you should actually get to know a little about some of the people that comment here. Most of those that come here were christians for many years before they actually woke up. I am not one of those but you are making the normal assumption most first timers do.
November 10, 2009 at 3:31 pm |
“Most of those that come here were Christians for many years before they actually woke up”
I would argue that most of “them” were never really Christians only “traditionally indoctrinated” and therefore only acted out desires once they “summoned up enough courage” to stop ‘fearing” a God they never really believed in, in the first place.
November 10, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I was a fake Christian? I’ve never heard that one before.
You can make generalized assumptions about me if that somehow makes you feel superior with your super Christian status and authority.
The fact is I whole-heartedly believed in Jesus my entire life. I prayed and worshiped God every day and believed he was at work in my life. Please let me know in you wisdom if that made me a fake Christian.
And yes, I did wake up as Baconsbud commented. It was a rather sudden transformation after a lifetime of faith. And I can tell you life is much more beautiful without using silly superstitions and ancient folklore to guide my life. Just because some things are beyond our understanding does not require a human being to find comfort in man-made deities and theology.
November 10, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Ah, the old “you weren’t a real Christian” dodge. One of the most popular convenient categories for flailing apologists to toss de-converts into.
Sorry laddybuck, but it won’t wash. It’s a classic “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Here, try this video by Theramin Trees. He lays it out very clearly. http://www.youtube.com/user/TheraminTrees#p/a/u/0/_HJrAaGJudw
November 10, 2009 at 4:29 pm
You have shown yourself for what you really are by saying who is or has been a chrisitan. What makes you so special that you know what makes someone a true christian? You are so afraid of the truth that you hide behind the oh they weren’t true christians. I am still waiting to find 5 people that define what a true christian is and not contradict each other.
November 18, 2009 at 3:28 am
not true scotsman fallacy. congratulations. you have won a hundred ‘logical mistakes’ points.
spend them well.
November 11, 2009 at 7:40 pm |
It is easy for an unbeliever to hurl an onslaught of alleged discrepancies and/or contradictions at a believer, but it is not always a simple task for the believer to respond.
Yes, curious isn’t it?
The perfect word of a Holy God contains “an onslaught of alledged discrepancies and/or contradictions”?
Err…sure…let’s redefine the word “perfect”.
This is the case because many of the so-called discrepancies and contradictions cannot be answered via a quick wave of one verse, but instead requires in-depth research in order to reply on a case-by-case basis.
Yes, and when God supposedly inspired these verses, he was doubtlessly promoting historical research skills and critical thinking for his creation as well as revealing to them the perfect and unaltering truth.
I choose instead of crafting a researched answer for you to allow you the privilege of finding the truth out on your own. God bless
Which translates to that you’re wasting WordPress’ server space. God bless.
November 12, 2009 at 8:54 am |
1) Alleged = doubtful, or supposed (by you and other like you) to be.
2) Exactly!, “The basics of scripture are simple, but if one desires to understand more as to be able to justify or negate in their mind such assertions then STUDY.”
3)”Which translates to that you’re wasting WordPress’ server space” – If you translate scripture the way you translated my statement, then I am sorry to say “no wonder”
I agree to disagree wholeheartedly with most of you.
God Bless you and yours.
November 12, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Ah…now I see what you’re saying…
Sorry, the drink’s on me.
November 10, 2009 at 1:40 pm |
Hi there. I’m a long-time reader, first time caller.
I have to say I’m disappointed here. I agree with techi33 in saying that it’s easy for a non-believer to try and confuse a believer than for a believer to respond, because it takes effort not only to understand the verses, but to explain them to someone who doesn’t believe them in the first place.
This post was a FAIL on several levels. You didn’t need to bring in John 3:16-17 and try to contradict it with Matthew 15:21-28. Isn’t a “contradiction” apparent just in the Matthew verse alone? In it, Jesus said that his powers were for his people, but he changes his mind to heal a woman’s daughter. So why John 3:16? I understand that you try to point out the danger of interpreting the Bible literally, but it you fall into the same trap by not reading in between the lines.
The Matthew verse illustrates that Jesus is not about dogma, but about faith, and thus it supports John 3:16-17.
November 10, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
I’m first to admit when I’m off target on something. A bit of a FAIL by distracting from the point of my post.
This was to point out the contradictory character of Jesus vs. the contradictory verses. I’ve updated the post to focus on the contradictory actions of Jesus.
The Bible claims he came for all people, but he intentionally deceived and confused certain people as I posted in my last conflicting Bible teaching post.
http://thebeattitude.com/2009/11/03/conflicting-bible-teaching-of-the-week-29/
And this week he openly mocks a woman and compares her to a dog because she isn’t an Israelite. Either he loves all equally, or loves certain people more.
November 10, 2009 at 1:52 pm |
Have to say that this one doesn’t come across as very contradictory. Sounds like two fairly different things. Most of your posts in this series are bang on, this one’s just a kinda dud.
techi and surfer: Look through the whole series of contradictions that BE has put up.
many of the so-called discrepancies and contradictions cannot be answered via a quick wave of one verse, but instead requires in-depth research
So where does that leave the poor person who is trying to understand the silly book and doesn’t have seminary training?
November 10, 2009 at 2:22 pm |
“So where does that leave the poor person who is trying to understand the silly book and doesn’t have seminary training?”
Seminary training is not needed just a desire to study and understand the scriptures is required. The basics of scripture are simple, but if one desires to understand more as to be able to justify or negate in their mind such assertions then STUDY. We can’t make such assertions and be objective without background knowledge.
November 10, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
So if someone just studies the Bible with “a desire to study and understand the scripture”, they won’t find any contradictions, nor come to any conclusions that are irreconcilably contradictory with what you believe from the Bible?
November 11, 2009 at 7:14 am |
Read “justify or negate in their mind such assertions”
November 18, 2009 at 3:33 am
very well. no contradictions or problems?
did the disciples have to stay in the city to see jesus risen or where they commanded to leave the city to see him?
how many people came to the tomb?
how about the whole plagues issue in egypt….did the animals all die….then get driven out….and die again? didn’t they all die at the beginning?
etc etc etc.
tons of issues and contradictions. just because you say you can read between the lines to figure it out (hey wasn’t there something in corrinthians about not doing this? nah that would be a problem then…) doesn’t mean it makes sense. if you change what the text means or even what it flat out says….how are you following the texts?
i love romeo and juliet, the space battles where awesome.
November 10, 2009 at 3:14 pm |
I do agree that the verses do make statements which don’t work with each other. I can easily see how you could they are saying completely different things as to why he was on earth. In the first one it says all can be saved but the second say you have to beg just to get crumbs and possibly helped. Sounds like someone doesn’t really know why he is there.
November 10, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
Verdict is in: You have not had a good Bible teacher. :\ But hey, you are doing a GOOD thing by posting your questions here, and I will be more than happy to answer them to the best of my ability.
First off, the Canaanites were not “worthless dogs,” as you put it; they were pagans. Pagans were basically rural country dwellers. They were characteristically “materialistic, self-indulgent, unconcerned with the future and uninterested in sophisticated religion.” Jesus was in pagan country when the Canaanite woman started screaming at him.
Second, no one will ever fully understand precisely why Jesus said he had only come for the lost sheep of Israel. BUT, we can certainly have a hypothesis, and mine is this: Jesus showed human characteristics throughout his ministry. We know how grew frustrated, we know he wept, we know he slept with a pillow under his head at times. We know he was once an embryo and grew to be a thirty-something year old man. Hence it is very possible he didn’t fully understand the breadth of his ministry until he witnessed the faith of the Canaanite woman.
OR
It is very possible he said he had only come for the lost sheep of Israel for the express purpose of TESTING her faith.
Regardless, the most important thing about this encounter is the Spiritual purpose it serves for the growth of the Christian heart and mind, and that is to show the extraordinary power of perseverance and FAITH
November 10, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
Verdict is in: You have not had a good Bible teacher.
HAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!! OMAR!
November 11, 2009 at 12:08 am |
I find it more than a little condescending that you believe I’m incapable to comprehend the Bible without a good Bible teacher (a.k.a.: you). I fully understand the context and historical significance of the Bible and it’s many stories. I’m not a newbie in search of divine discernment. I’ve heard all of the Christian apologetics I’d like to admit for one lifetime.
The fact is, I don’t buy it. The texts are much to flawed to be divinely inspired. Nothing in it lines up with what we know to be true through science, technology and historical and textual science.
I’ll go with option #3:
OR
It is very possible the story is fictional.
November 11, 2009 at 11:51 pm |
With all due respect it’s hard to believe you have read all the apologists (what about the theologians?) given your propensity to frame scripture in such a–pardon the frankness–crude and single dimensioned manner.
I wonder .. have you read Stott? Sheen? Lewis? Kempis? Aquinas? Augustine? Chesterton? Tolstoy? Emerson? Just curious.
November 12, 2009 at 12:12 pm
The real question is this: if the Bible was meant to be an accessible way for people to know God, then why is it necessary for anyone to teach us about it? Shouldn’t God be a good enough writer or source of inspiration as to render His points in a universally understandable way?
Even simple, fallen human beings are capable of writing instruction manuals (if you don’t count those guys at IKEA). Why is it too much to ask for a deity with unlimited wisdom, knowledge, and capability to produce something that is immediately understandable?
November 12, 2009 at 9:09 pm
I’m not hear to prove myself to you … but yes, I have read form most on your list. My question to you is why God’s book requires a bunch of theologians and apologists to explain it. Your theory is that if I read enough explanations for all of the Bible absurdities, I will eventually believe again. That is essentially brainwashing to ignore the obvious.
If the Bible cannot stand on it’s own it’s worthless. You shouldn’t be required to read it with a pair of rose colored glasses on.
November 11, 2009 at 9:41 am |
Hey Mark, see my response below — I think it will be a great blessing!
November 12, 2009 at 7:07 am |
You categorize crying out for help for one’s child as “screaming at him? What a nasty thing to say. The poor woman was desperate, not necessarily faithful.
“Pagans were basically rural country dwellers. They were characteristically “materialistic, self-indulgent, unconcerned with the future and uninterested in sophisticated religion.”
- except for the pagans who ran the Roman Empire. As for pagans being uninterested in sophisticated religion, all I can say is you need to keep reading. Surely one of the reasons for Christianity’s spread was that it was LESS sophisticated than many other ancient religions.
November 10, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
Without getting into a long and winded biblical dissertation:
Jesus a Jew – preached to the Jews – Jews rejected Jesus – was crucified – Paul (Saul) and other apostles told to preach to the Gentiles (Other People not Jews) – Jesus was accepted by many gentile nations – Yes! Jesus came to save all people.
November 10, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
“The fact is I whole-heartedly believed in Jesus my entire life. I prayed and worshiped God every day and believed he was at work in my life. Please let me know in you wisdom if that made me a fake Christian”
I don’t mean to imply that you were a fake Christian but Believe and Faith differ in that ‘Belief’ may or may not imply that the believer is certain, whereas ‘faith’ implies confidence and certainty.
You and others were just never certain and chose to abandon your belief (never really having faith) based on your own thoughts and ideas of how, who or what God should or should not be.
I wish you well really.
November 10, 2009 at 4:28 pm |
What you cannot comprehend techi; what you really do NOT want to comprehend: is that many of us de-converts were exactly like you. I used to witness. I used to debate with unbelievers. I used to say exactly the same things you are now saying. You can apply any words you want to it (certain, belief, confident, spirit-filled, etc.).
November 10, 2009 at 5:05 pm |
I comprehend the likeness of our belief at one point in your life, what I defer is in the likeness of our faith. Were I am convinced, convicted you are not and I argue never were. I am sorry if some of you think I am trying to speak as if superior to you I assure you that is not the case. Where you all think you woke up, I think you “fell asleep”, “had the wool pulled over your eyes” If you are all satisfied with your conclusions on life and faith then I am not the one to convince you or anyone, God bless.
November 10, 2009 at 6:31 pm |
I am sorry if some of you think I am trying to speak as if superior to you I assure you that is not the case.
But it is the case. That’s the whole point of your flailing apologetics on this topic of whether or not we were ever “real”. You must hold to it because only in that way can you hold to your belief that you are “real” or “saved”. If you admit we were “real Christians”, then you have to allow that you too could leave the faith as we have. Your security is gone. Your assurance is gone. Of course your arrogance would be gone too, but what “Christian” would ever want to be rid of that?
November 11, 2009 at 7:11 am
I don’t need to feel superior to know that I am a Christian nor do I need to feel superior to know you were not. It is not a matter of superior thinking. Being a Christian does not make me superior to anyone. This sounds more like a personal problem with Christians as a whole, then matters of Faith and the inerrancy of scriptures. You use the former to fuel the latter. In either case, I am disappointed and astonished on how so easily you all have been swayed.
November 11, 2009 at 9:18 am
“how easily you have all been swayed”
You know NOTHING about how uneasily I, or anyone else, was “swayed”. You persist in your ignorant opinions and make no effort at all to even think about trying to understand. And you want to pretend you’re not arrogant? Typical fundamentalist. Go back to brainwashing your flock.
November 11, 2009 at 9:23 am
Meant to say, you’re the kind of “christian” who exemplifies the worst of what we freed ourselves from.
Now go ahead and have the last word. Don’t worry, I won’t respond. I’m sick of being sickened by your bigoted asininity.
November 11, 2009 at 10:57 am
The shame. How easily I have been swayed.
Oh, wait a minute … I could say the same thing. How easily you were swayed by primitive texts and scare tactics of a fiery hell.
You believe an evil fallen angel has succeeded in deceiving me. I believe you were deceived by the fictional words of men. Which holds more validity?
November 12, 2009 at 9:15 am
“Which holds more validity?”
To me the former, to you, the latter, we disagree and I guess we’ll see or maybe not right
November 10, 2009 at 5:47 pm |
Belief is derived from Gothic (Germanic) roots. It is a synonym for faith, which derived from Latin and Frankish roots. Both words have been used in translating the Greek pisteo (or pistis). In other words techi, you’ve created new definitions for the terms and hence a false dichotomy.
Here are some definitions used for the two terms.
Belief:
•something believed; an opinion or conviction
•confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
•confidence; faith; trust
•a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith
Syn. – view, tenet, conclusion, persuasion, faith, assurance, certainty, conviction
Faith:
•confidence or trust in a person or thing
•belief that is not based on proof
•belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion
•belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.
•a system of religious belief
Syn. – acceptance, allegiance, assent, assurance, belief, certainty, certitude, confidence
Of course part of the Christian faith is creating new meanings for things. That’s one of the secrets to dealing with the glaring contradictions.
November 12, 2009 at 9:32 am |
Belief – something thought to be true.
Faith – Trust, conviction in that belief.
Sorry but you are refering to the informal usage of the word. Just because it has been used to mean the same does not make them the same.
November 10, 2009 at 6:27 pm |
The real questions for all the “true Christians” are:
(1) how do you put a positive spin on the idea that the Jews are God’s children and the Gentiles are dogs?
(2) How does the notion of Jews being God’s children before becoming Christians mesh with John the Baptist saying ’say not we are Abraham’s seed’ and with John the gospel-writer saying you must be born again to be a child of God as in John 1:12 ‘as many as believed in him he gave the right to BECOME children of God’? If they were already children of God why did they need rebirth? Therefore the statement that ‘it is not right to cast the childrens bread to the dogs’ is in conflict with the rest of the NT on who actually are the children of God.
November 11, 2009 at 9:53 am |
Love the name.
1.) Not sure it’s a matter of positive or negative “spinning”, but rather that’s just how God chose to set it up. I don’t know if the Bible says why Israel was the chosen people in God’s master plan of redemption (remember Genesis 3:15) other than “For thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that [are] upon the face of the earth.” (Deuteronomy 7:6)
2.A.) JTB was talking to the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 3:7-9) and said “that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” and not “Jews being God’s children”. In the old testament (and when JTB was talking), Israel were not children of God, but servants (Galatians 4:7). (Another reason why the new birth is such a big deal!)
2.B.) John 1:12 follows the synopsis of Christ’s completed works, which ends with (and is true that) new birth would be available. JC goes into more detail in with Nic (John 3:1-8). JC was ushering in a whole new relationship!
If you were a Jew living at the time of the Old Testament, the word “dog” would be synonymous with Gentile (you can do a quick word study on “dog” in the OT to see more usages).
November 18, 2009 at 3:38 am |
sure. because an all knowing all MORAL and JUST god would set up a system where some have this rule and favor and some have this rule and disfavor.
all are equal but some are MORE equal.
what exactly did they do to get this favor? oh yeah, born being the people he favored.
sure makes perfect sense now.
November 10, 2009 at 6:39 pm |
You could just as well be describing Galileans with that ‘rural country dweller’ and ‘not interested in sopisticated religion’ defition of ‘pagan’. If you read the gospel of John carefully you see a quarrel between Judea and Galilee at its core. Why do you think the Galileans way up there north of Samaria would have problems getting along with the sophisticated Judeans who said everybody had to offer sacrifice at their temple way down there in the south and pay money to them? Hmmmm….that must be made up. Everybody loves making a long trip to give their money away to someone else.
November 11, 2009 at 7:42 am |
It’s funny, that no matter whether your in the church or not you get the “real christian” lecture.
In the church
A real Christian wouldn’t masturbate. If you really loved Jesus you wouldn’t want to sin. If you just went to bible study you won’t question if the bible is unfailing.
Outside the fold
Well, if you were a real Christian, you wouldn’t have lost faith.
OK, how about this list?
If you were a real christian you wouldn’t drive that mini van with the DVD player for the kids to church and study scripture where Jesus said give up your riches and follow me.
If you were a real christian every time you found a cold homeless person, you would give up your coat. (even that nice North Face down coat you spent 100 bucks on).
If you were a real christian you would stone your child to death when they disobeyed you.
If you were a real christian you would put a stop to women talking in church.
I think my list is a lot more Biblical correct than anyone’s. I must must be the real christian.
November 11, 2009 at 9:25 am |
To me, as a woman, it hardly matters what Jesus felt about non-Israelites. This is just one more instance of his misogyny. He was rude to this woman who had never done him any harm, just as he was rude to his own mother. He appears to despise, yet demand servility – it’s an ugly episode, no matter how you look at it.
I might also add that Jesus shows himself to be an unenlightened prisoner of his culture when he uses ‘dog’ as an insult. Shouldn’t the son of the creator of the universe understand that it’s ridiculous to attribute human personality characteristics to animals?
November 11, 2009 at 10:00 am |
I disagree. I don’t believe Jesus was misogynistic. See Matthew 9:20-22, Matthew 26:6-12, Mark 14:6, John 4 (mind the culture), John 12:7, John 19:26-27.
Also, I’m not 100% sure of the “rude Messiah” record being referenced.
November 11, 2009 at 7:17 pm |
Here’s what I think – Jesus, IF a historical Jesus existed, was a fairly typical Jewish man of his time, which is to say, he never would have dreamed of anything like fairness for women. I’m betting that the episodes where he hangs out with women, saves the Magdalene from being stoned, etc. were the inventions of preachers who were trying to win the patronage of gentile women who had wealth and social influence.
How about the “Woman, what have I do do with thee?” scene? Real nice way to talk to your mother, huh?
November 18, 2009 at 3:41 am |
“mind the culture”
yes, lets mind it. as in why would an all knowing, all JUST god who supposedly has _perfect objective moral teaching_ treat anyone unequally?
why would a preacher who was also supposedly god and when god has all these supposed traits act….COUNTER to these traits? oh yeah the culture…well then thats ok then.
November 11, 2009 at 9:28 am |
Great post!! I like that you noticed Jesus Christ was originally the Jewish Messiah only — not many people notice that.
There’s a whole paradigm shift going on! Originally, the Jews were the chosen people, but when Jesus Christ fulfilled the Jewish law regarding a perfect sacrifice, a new covenant was started, the One Body!
There’s so much to this, but here are a few verses. The book of Acts is great because it shows that the early church was amazed at the Gentiles being saved as well: Acts 10:45, Acts 11:18, Acts 13:46-48, Acts 14:27, Acts 28:28, etc.
More in the doctrine of Romans:
Romans 1:16, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”
Romans 10:12, “For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.”
And let’s not forget Ephesians! Ephesians 2:11-22, Ephesians 3:5, “Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:”
** And to many, this mystery of God’s master plan is still not made known **
BUT IT HAD TO BE HID — WHY???
1 Corinthians 2:6-8, “Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for HAD THEY KNOWN [IT], THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF GLORY.” (Emphasis Mine).
That’s right!!!! Big deal!!
Great post!!!!!!
November 11, 2009 at 6:36 pm |
He was NOT originally the Jewish Messiah. He didn’t even fulfill the Messianic prophecies, not even the ones the NT claims he did. Micah 5 the Bethlehem birth is about a warrior to kick all the Assyrians out of the land not a crucified sacrifice. Isaiah 7-8 the virgin birth was fulfilled by Mahershalalhashbaz. Jer 31 Rachel weeping is about exile not death of infants, and Bethlehem isn’t even in Rama so far as I can tell.
He was originally an alien God who came to defeat the OT God by tricking him into killing him then blackmailing him like “you killed me so now if you don’t want me to kill you then you better give me the souls of everyone who believes in me so I can take them up to my heaven and they can avoid your hell.”
But then this little thing called the Catholic church was born and they started making corrupt gospels that lied on Jesus and said he was a racist Gentile-hating Jew who called Gentiles dogs and who came ‘not to abolish the law but to fulfill’ and who supposedly fulfilled prophecies that can be contextually shown with TRIVIAL effort and MARGINAL brain usage to not have anything to do with him.
“If you believe in Moses you’ll believe in me cuz he wrotee about me” the Catholics make him say. Yet I challenge you to find ONE THING that Moses wrote that can be unambigously shown to be about him! It is clear that the Jesus as Jewish Messiah trick is a late addition. He originally came to prevent the Jewish Messiah from coming by preempting him and by defeating the OT God.
November 11, 2009 at 7:07 pm |
Wow, you really hate the Catholic church, don’t you? Don’t you think every other sect made up their own version, too? If Constantine’s mom had been a follower of Isis or Mithras, history would be entirely different. I think that in Jesus’ day religion was a business, just as it is now, and a good preacher will craft a doctrine to appeal to his target audience. All the Jewish and Christian groups owed some of their doctrine to even older ideas from Egypt, Persia and Mesopotamia; they were all “late additions.”
If i could go back in time, I’d most like to attend the church of Simon Magus. I understand he put on a really good show.
November 11, 2009 at 9:45 pm |
Other sects may have made up a lot of stuff to be sure, but I don’t know of any other than the Catholic church that murdered everyone who disagreed with them for about 1400 years straight. You’re comparing apples to razorblades.
November 12, 2009 at 7:38 am |
They just followed in the footsteps of Joshua, David, etc. I certainly am not defending the Catholics, but the “Catholic” leadership of CE 450 had little in common with the church leadership and doctrine of CE 1150, and neither of those were much like the doctrine of 1950. One could also say that Protestants didn’t wait for someone to disagree with them, they scoured the countryside looking for witches for several centuries straight. No, I don’t give a damn “who started it.” The Protestants enthusiastically tortured and burned women.
So, find me a religion that has NEVER been guilty of prejudice, oppression, anti-scientific bias, or murder, and then I may be willing to entertain the idea that religion might offer something positive to humans. Apparently you’re here trying to convince atheists that only Catholics are the bad guys, but I’m here to convince people to stop wasting their finite lives with irrationality.
November 12, 2009 at 12:06 am |
Rey said “Micah 5 the Bethlehem birth is about a warrior to kick all the Assyrians out of the land not a crucified sacrifice.”
Do you take every word of the Bible literally?
November 12, 2009 at 9:21 am |
I have lost interest in this site, and will be exiting now. A few concluding notes..
I added this site to my daily feed after seeing the deceptively friendly site name. I made the mistake of thinking the author might have some interesting and unique viewpoints to go with it. Oops.
For all those who are bent on cannibalizing the Bible to present straw man arguments that can easily be eviscerated with callow rebuttals, try a little reading to strengthen your arguments. Give your readers something to chew on. Literal inference of parabolic Scripture is as common as the cold, and just as unremarkable.
En Cristo,
Mark
November 12, 2009 at 9:38 am |
I second that..
God bless and good bye to all.
November 18, 2009 at 3:45 am |
ah, we disagreed with you and pointed out where you didn’t know what you where talking about oh…and your illogic and obvious cognitive dissonance…and we where to mean for you.
let me call you a wambulance.
look. either your ideas are true, and can stand up to the unmerciful beating of conflicting ideas….or they are not.
when you quit because you simply disagree no matter what anyone can show you about your beliefs….well yeah, that says more about YOU then your beliefs doesn’t it?
November 12, 2009 at 11:21 am |
Nazani14, you are confused by modern usage of the word Catholic. I’m not referring to a modern denomination but to the sect that (in the 2nd century) produced what all modern denominations still believe, ie that Jesus is the OT God, the OT Messiah, and was born of a virgin, and along with that it produced the current Biblical canon. My point was directed at rich saying Jesus was originally only the Jewish Messiah in comment 15. I am not saying that Protestants (again modern) never killed anyone. I’m not even talking about modern sects but ancient ones. Nor does it escape me that they were just following David and Joshua and all those OT examples. That’s my point. Jesus was originally understood to be a Better God who came to oppose the low morality of the OT and save us from the OT God, but Catholicism (2nd century, not modern) changed the idea and made him into the OT God who commanded all the very genocidal behaviors he came to condemn, and all modern sects inherit this edited version of the religion from 2nd century Catholicism. My point is that this passage under discussion was one of the edits to make this change in understanding of who Jesus was, and that the failure of all the OT prophecies to be truly shown to be fulfilled by him shows that the idea of him as the Messiah of the OT has to be a late addition because no Jew would have ever bought it. The notion that the idea of Jesus as Messiah developed among a bunch of Jews in the first century is absurd. The point was mostly for Rich, but it will do atheists good as well, to understand that what they attack everyday is a strawman invented by Rome for that very purpose. I am convinced that the Roman Empire made this shift in Christian belief to make Christianity absurd on purpose so it could be easily refuted by the fact that the OT prophecies clearly have no reference to Jesus. The religion as it stands today was engineered to be refuted. But since it appealed throught the horrid examples of David and Solomon and so on to the basest human passions it continued for centuries even in this absurd state. The older and better more moral view was obliterated because what people are really lloking for in religion is an excuse to do evi and then say it doesn’t matter because they have magical forgiveness and also atheists need an absurd religion to be the major religion of the world so they can easily bash it. A combination of atheists and immoral religious people keeps Christianity as we know it today dominant. The more moral modern Christian sects themselves only exist as breakaways of the immoral faith-onlyist ones. I’m not sure what point is at this point but that atheism is futile in that it actually props Christianity up.
November 13, 2009 at 10:21 am |
Then find a different term besides Catholic. Otherwise, you are contributing to prejudice.
“atheists need an absurd religion to be the major religion of the world so they can easily bash it.” ALL religions are absurd. The New Testament is not less absurd because there’s a lower body count. I don’t limit my disgust to Christians; when New Agers, Hindus, or Umbanda followers try to hijack my government, stand in the way of saving the environment so our species can go on living, and expecting me to bow my head when they “bless” boats and football games, then I will be standing up to those crimes and impositions, too.
Atheism is not futile. It is freedom from servility, hypocrisy, and self-destructiveness. I’ll steal a line from an old sci-fi show – it’s humanity’s last, best hope.
So, carry on fighting with Mark about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or which ancient gaggle of dingbats uttered which bit of superstition.
November 12, 2009 at 12:34 pm |
In otherwords, rather than just saying passage X contradicts passage Y, which tends to just get ignored or labelled as allegory etc., you need to show that because passage X contradicts passage Y and because the ancient sect called Z taught W, therefore W came before both X and Y, meaning Z was the more authentic sect than is U. Otherwise, you accept the premise that the Bible we have is THE Bible and that its always been that way, and hence you fall right into the hands of the apologists of Christianity as it is modernly constituted, and while you ignorantly think you are somehow defeating them you are empowering them. Atheism cannot defeat modern Christianity but ancient Chrestianity can.
November 12, 2009 at 2:49 pm |
theBEattitude and most of the regulars on this blog were formerly followers of Christianity, so they direct their comments mostly to that religion because it is what they know.
But the goal of atheism is not to defeat Christianity or any other religion specifically, or really even to destroy religion per se. The goal is to be free to live a good moral life without being hampered (pestered, discriminated against, abused, or worse) by the practitioners of any religion. Dualism is no more attractive than monotheism; they are both fantasy along with polytheism, animism, and all the other belief systems that can only be accepted on faith.
Your information about Marcionism and other suppressed or vanished variants of the Jesus story, and your allegations about how the message of Jesus may have been corrupted in the early centuries after his time, while interesting as religious history, simply underscore the thesis that all religion is based on fiction. Your argument that Marcionism is more authentic than the current Christian canon might be right with respect to what Jesus and his initial followers actually said and believed, but the notion of two gods fighting over the population of the Earth is no more credible than the notion of one god in complete control. So the question of which is the more authentic sect is pretty much moot to people who want no religion at all.
November 13, 2009 at 1:39 am |
Why is Jesus taken so seriously?
If anyone has a sense of humor, the Matthew passage makes more sense. Jesus is purposefully saying that he only came to save the Jews, knowing full well what his mission is. The purpose of the story, again, is to illustrate that one is saved because of the faith they have in him, and not in some dogma.
By the way, he *was* fully human, too. So what is it to the Caananite woman that he compared her people to dogs. She didn’t care. What she wanted was her daughter to be healed, and Jesus knew that. He just wanted to test her.
Contradiction solved.
November 18, 2009 at 3:50 am |
bow and kiss my ass or i will let your child stay sick.
ok i will heal your child!
in what way is this the acts of a moral all powerful god?
could he not heal the child? could he not have simply _prevented_ the child from getting sick? if he is all powerful then why does _anyone_ _ever_ get sick?
why must she believe in order to get a child saved? shouldn’t a moral god save the child despite any belief involved? why is it the mother that must kiss ass to save the child? i would still think it’s wrong if the child where required to kiss ass but at least then it has a direct correlation here. one to one as it where. in this case it’s one person being punished until another does what they want.
this child was held hostage until she gave up the ransom.
note, all of this is assuming this story is 100% factual and the events and intentions are exactly as YOU have argued….
sure. contradiction solved.
November 18, 2009 at 3:51 am |
should read:
bow and kiss my ass or i will let your child stay sick.
[bows and kisses ass]
ok i will heal your child!
i screwed up and certain characters are not included (tags hehe)
November 30, 2009 at 10:18 am |
This “you weren’t REAL Christians” nonsense needs to stop. Not only are these assertions completely unfounded, but it stems from an arrogant illusion of moral and intellectual superiority. I as well as many other visitors of this site were real, faithful Christians who simply lost our faith after giving it a critical, skeptical review. There’s not much to it. I’m not here claiming that all believers “obviously aren’t REALLY using their intellect,” am I?
Not only are there books written by former evangelical preachers (“Godless” by Dan Barker, or “Why I Became an Atheist” by John Loftus), but there’s an in-depth study being conducted by Dr. Daniel Dennett on a dozen-or-so clergymen who are closeted atheists (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4547). So there’s really no excuse to use this argument anymore, unless you want to claim that somehow every single one of these once-devout ministers was merely faking it… which you are at liberty to do, of course. But you would be doing so based on your own unfounded convictions and not based on rationality or reason.