ManusJustus said:
Baroque_Dude said:
ManusJustus said:
Baroque_Dude said:
ManusJustus said:
Baroque_Dude said:
ManusJustus said:
And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. - Matthew 15
|
This must be understood the right way. The final objective of that incident was to praise that woman's attitude and faith over the lack of faith and criticism that Christ got from his own people.
|
Jesus calls a woman a dog and makes it clear that he is only concerned with the well being of Hebrews, highlighting Jesus' actual intentions of liberating Israel from its Roman occupiers. This is not the Christianity that Paul spread throughout the Roman Empire.
It would be like me trying to spread Communism and giving you Adam Smith's 'The Wealth of Nations' to read.
|
That's your interpretation, I gave mine and I find that further discussion will be pointless and make us go in circles.
|
Its not my interpretation, its the actual meaning of the passage. You cannot deny that Jesus was primarily concerned with Hebrews while refering to other ethnicities as dogs, these are his own words. This is not the message that Paul endorsed while he spread Christianity throughout the Roman Empire to the very people Jesus thinks are dogs.
Jesus wanted to free Israel from Rome and Paul wanted to spread Christianity through the Roman Empire. Even with numerous alterations and admissions to Christianity thoughout the ages, this fundamental meaning is still preserved in the Bible.
|
How easily you criticize others with the tag of "interpretation." Oh, and kudos to you for not accepting my will to close this discussion.
|
Its not an interpretation. If I call you a dog and someone else comes along and says, "Manus called you a dog," that is not an interpretation, that is an observation. And please dont be offended, unlike your god I dont think your a dog.
I observed that Jesus called a woman a dog because she was not Hebrew, I observed that Jesus says he is not concerned with non-Hebrews, I observed that Jesus says he was sent to rebuild the kingdom of Israel, and I observe that Paul's message is one that attempts to appeal to all ethnicities in the Roman Empire while appeasing Roman authority.
My question to you is to explain why Jesus and Paul differ so much, as to me its obvious that they had different motives. And why would I want to close such an interesting discussion, especially when you havent addressed my points?
|
I have, but my replies don't satisfy you (as yours don't satisfy me).
You're partially right when you say that Jesus and Paul had different motives (I didn't say the contrary, exactly). I would say that they audience was different at some extent, and I'm sure that you agree on this because you said it using different words.
The discordant point here, is that I believe that their motives were compatible but you see them somewhat oposed at some spots, right?
On this last line, there's nothing I can say to actually change your point of view. I can "write a book" but you wouldn't accept it, so here's when I recall my past words: to keep on this is pointless, since we both expressed our opinions. Bottom-line: we don't agree.
