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 thought were dogs.

Jesus wanted to free Israel from Rome and Paul wanted to spread Christianity through the Roman Empire.  Even with numerous ommisions, admissions, and alterations to Christianity thoughout the ages, this fundamental meaning is still preserved in the Bible.

How easily you criticize others with the tag of "interpretation"... but your opinion is not an interpretation, is the truth.

You're very lucky!

Oh, and kudos to you for not accepting my will to close this discussion.

Isn't that exactly what you've been doing too... taking your own interpretation as the truth.  That's where both you and Manus get it wrong for different reasons.

You because admitting certain things in the bible are wrong or modified by instutions for their own gain means that faith relies soley on... faith... and Manus is his over literalness in a non-literal time just simply because he seems to hate religion for whatever reason.

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 understand your point and I partially agree with it.

ManusJustus give up promoting those twisted theories.

Ther's no basis in them.

1. U found one passage about Jesus caring only about the Hebrews, but even that very passage ends with Jesus helping the foreign chick.

2. There's no signs of Jesus wanting to free Israel from the Romans. That's ridiculous. I almost never hear anyone claim this. Where did you get this crazy theory?

Many people expected it from the Messiah, but nothing in the NT or the apocrypha suggests that he had any such intentions. He actively told the disciples to not use violence, to not care about winning in this world.

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.

1. Jesus helped the 'foriegn chick' but only after he ignored her and the Apostles asked Jesus to send her away since she was pestering them, and even then Jesus called her a dog and told the woman he wasn't here to help non-Hebrews.  This was horribly insulting, and not the loving image of Jesus that Christians adopted later.

2.  Jesus' message is that he rebuild the Kingdom of God on Earth.  The Kingdom of God is the Kingdom if Israel, which is what Jews had been revolting for and why their temples were destroyed during this time.  To keep things in perspective, you should read up on the Jewish Revolts under the Roman Empire.  Jesus would rule in Jerusalem as king and give Israel its glory as God's chosen people, and rebuild God's temple.

Shouldn't their motives be the same?  Jesus (King of the Jews) wants to liberate Israel and rebuild the Kingdom of God while Paul is concerned with spreading Christianity while making peace with the Roman authority.

For me, its obvious that Paul's stance of Roman appeasement (render to Caesar what is Caesar's) is a response to Christian persecution, and Paul wants Christianity to grow and be practiced freely under the Roman Empire.  Jesus didnt take a stance of appeasement, and was executed by the Romans for his opposition to the Empire.

Interesting enough, when the Romans adopted Christianity they ran into the problem of killing their own god.  They fixed the problem though, by making the Jews responsible for his death while painting the Romans in a positive light, Pontius Pilot not wanting to execute Jesus, Pontius Pilots mother converting to Christianity (Catholic dogma not in Bible), and Roman soldiers who conducted the execution realizing their error and converting to Christianity.  Also, Romans usually only conducted crucifixions for political enemies of the Empire, not thieves and murders that Jesus and the others crucified at that time were accused of.  Crucifixion was used as an example to others what happens to those who oppose Rome, such as Jesus and Spartacus (army).

You're understanding it your way, again.

Jesus accomplished God's plan in order to become the last sacrifice for our sin, and that was only meant to Him, not to Paul. Every Christian may have its own goals within the "great" goal of Christianism. Is that simple.

Moreover, Jesus acted as God in Earth in a prophetic way while Paul's mission was to spread the message.

By the way, "render to Caesar what is Caesar's" is a quote by Jesus.

So, according to your line of thinking, NINTENDO's CEO and the cleaning lady that cleans his office aren't in the same enterprise just because they have different tasks?