=Something Bad Jesus Did=

sojourner · May 30, 2009

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.

I was under the impression that a foreign woman was not allowed to approach a Jewish male (especially a Rabbi). If that's the case, Jesus' response is completely understandable, from a cultural POV.

sojourner · May 30, 2009

Ben Masada said:
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.

I don't deny that Jesus was fully human.
And it was a blunder, only if we apply modern cultural norms to the story (which we oughtn't do).

sojourner · May 30, 2009

Ben Masada said:
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.

Oh, I err not. Here, Matthew wants us to identify with the woman, who was also marginalized and yet was persistent in her faith, just as Matthew's community was.
Sorry to disappoint you. It falls perfectly within the scheme of Matthew's five great sermons, all of which seek to identify the Church as the true Israel.

free spirit · May 30, 2009

Ben Masada said:
Ben Masada said:

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?

Click to expand...

Enlighten me what is his name?

Read the first two chapters of ACTS you may learn something about this Jew named Jesus, for in them you will find written of him. "therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured forth this which you both see and hear. for it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says; THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE THINE ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR THY FEET. Therefore let all the house of israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ - this Jesus whom you crucified

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.[/

Click to expand...

You are misinterpreting the scriptures, it is obvious that you see what you want to see. But Isaiah 53 is portraying a man, he is also mentioned in PSALM 22, who is suffering for the atonement of all of humanity, one man and not one state, and from that one man cames a new people, a new nation, that has no land, a new israel, the bride of Christ, for we read in 2 Peter 2 - 6 to 11, "For this is contained in scriptures; Behold I LAI IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER STONE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM SHALL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." This precious value, then is for you who believe. but for those who disbelieve, THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECOME THE VERY CORNER STONE. AND A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE. For they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the exellences of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts, which wage war agains the soul."

free spirit · May 30, 2009

Poisonshady313 said:
hat is not at all what that means.

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.

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

Click to expand...

The Jews Primary purpose for been chosen of God was to bring the Messiah into the world, all the rest of the blessings are only by products of that single fact.
The privilege of bringing the incarnated God among us is so exraordinary that bogles my mind as to why Jews like you cannot see, I must conclude therefore you love your nation more than you love God.
You are not the first to fill the way you do; for 2000 years ago "the chief priests and the pharisees convened a council, and were saying, What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, all men will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." John 11 - 47 - 48. And so they had him killed, the son of God that is.

sojourner · May 31, 2009

free spirit said:
Enlighten me what is his name?

Read the first two chapters of ACTS you may learn something about this Jew named Jesus, for in them you will find written of him. "therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured forth this which you both see and hear. for it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says; THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE THINE ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR THY FEET. Therefore let all the house of israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ - this Jesus whom you crucified

You are misinterpreting the scriptures, it is obvious that you see what you want to see. But Isaiah 53 is portraying a man, he is also mentioned in PSALM 22, who is suffering for the atonement of all of humanity, one man and not one state, and from that one man cames a new people, a new nation, that has no land, a new israel, the bride of Christ, for we read in 2 Peter 2 - 6 to 11, "For this is contained in scriptures; Behold I LAI IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER STONE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM SHALL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." This precious value, then is for you who believe. but for those who disbelieve, THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECOME THE VERY CORNER STONE. AND A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE. For they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the exellences of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts, which wage war agains the soul."

Click to expand...

Actually, Acts doesn't support you here, since Acts was not written by a Jew.
and I'm afraid I have to side with Ben here. Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 refer to Israel -- not to a particular man. It's always a mistake to read "Jesus" into OT writings, since the authors didn't know of "Jesus."

free spirit · May 31, 2009

sojourner said:
free spirit said:

Actually, Acts doesn't support you here, since Acts was not written by a Jew.
and I'm afraid I have to side with Ben here. Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 refer to Israel -- not to a particular man. It's always a mistake to read "Jesus" into OT writings, since the authors didn't know of "Jesus."

Click to expand...

ACTS did not have to be written by a Jew to be telling the truth.
PSALM 22, "My God my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" these words Jesus spoke while on the cross. verse 16, "they pierced my hands and my feet." the last time I looked this hapened to Jesus.
In verse 23 the prophet is addressing us by saying "You who fear the Lord praise him." In the beginning God promise that a seviour would come by saying to the serpent, "and i will put enmety between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel." The OT. and the NT. is all about Jesus, if you do not see that.

sojourner · Jun 1, 2009

free spirit said:
sojourner said:

ACTS did not have to be written by a Jew to be telling the truth.
PSALM 22, "My God my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" these words Jesus spoke while on the cross. verse 16, "they pierced my hands and my feet." the last time I looked this hapened to Jesus.
In verse 23 the prophet is addressing us by saying "You who fear the Lord praise him." In the beginning God promise that a seviour would come by saying to the serpent, "and i will put enmety between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel." The OT. and the NT. is all about Jesus, if you do not see that.

Click to expand...

Of course Acts does not have to be written by a Jew to be true. But, since it is not written by a Jew, it is skewed more Greek (and far more urban) than will prove your point.

With regard to the Psalms: Do you not understand that the gospel writers quote the OT? Do you not understand that they wrote theological treatises from hindsight? That the writers have Jesus quote Psalm 22 is neither surprising, nor proof that 22 is about Jesus.

The NT is about Jesus -- and the Church.
The OT is definitely not about Jesus. The OT writers had no inkling of Jesus.

Poisonshady313 · Jun 1, 2009

sojourner said:
I was under the impression that a foreign woman was not allowed to approach a Jewish male (especially a Rabbi). If that's the case, Jesus' response is completely understandable, from a cultural POV.

You were under the wrong impression. A foreign woman was not allowed to MARRY a Jewish male, especially a Rabbi... but of course a foreign woman could approach a Jewish male... even request help.

This being the case, Jesus' response is completely abhorrent and unacceptable, from a cultural and a spiritual point of view.

waacman · Jun 1, 2009

So how did you come about this knowledge Poisonshady313, that a foreign woman could approach a Jewish male? I hear lots of this, but never have seen any material otherwise backing this idea up.

Poisonshady313 · Jun 1, 2009

waacman said:
So how did you come about this knowledge Poisonshady313, that a foreign woman could approach a Jewish male? I hear lots of this, but never have seen any material otherwise backing this idea up.

The better question is, what made you think otherwise?

Being Jewish, I have a pretty good handle on the things I can and can't do... and who can or cannot approach me.

The idea that a foreign woman could not approach a Jewish male is absurd and unfounded... so the burden is on you to provide evidence that this is the case.

Unless you're content to assume that Jews are nothing but ethnocentric bigots who view non-Jews as less than human.

waacman · Jun 1, 2009

So you think that things were the same now today as they were 2000 years ago? Also, being in the Middle East changes things dramatically. The ideals, ideas, and the the way things were done, said, even heard were understood differently then they are today.

Yes, the burden of proof is on me, but I'll have to excuse myself for a little while, today is a busy day, and get back to you soon.

Poisonshady313 · Jun 1, 2009

Exodus 22:20

You shall not taunt or oppress a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Poisonshady313 · Jun 1, 2009

waacman said:
So you think that things were the same now today as they were 2000 years ago? Also, being in the Middle East changes things dramatically. The ideals, ideas, and the the way things were done, said, even heard were understood differently then they are today.

Yes, the burden of proof is on me, but I'll have to excuse myself for a little while, today is a busy day, and get back to you soon.

Jewish law concerning the treatment of gentiles, observing one's speech, not humiliating people, etc.. have been consistent for 3321 years.

We're (ben and I) not objecting to Jesus' actions simply because we don't think it was nice. It was categorically a violation of Jewish law.

There was never a problem with Jewish living a peaceful coexistence with their non-Jewish neighbors... just as long as these non-Jewish neighbors weren't busy killing Jews... or marrying them, or trying to entice them to idolatry.

But the idea that Jews wouldn't even speak to gentiles, let alone help them in a time of need, is a Christian invention set up to demonize Judaism, to make Christianity seem like the more loving and compassionate choice.

Breathe · Jun 1, 2009

Ah, but Poison, the Tanakh can easily be used to show intolerance and racism.

Exodus 12:43, Exodus 17:16, Deuteronomy 23:2:-3, Nehemiah 13:26-27, Ezra 9:2

These can all be used to support racism, even though this is not the intention of the Old Testament at all, in my view. John 4:9 even writes the conversation between a Samaritan woman and Jesus, and she says, "You're a Jew and I'm a Samaritan, how can you ask me for a drink?" - not as though this is binding evidence or anything like that, but this shows that it was commonplace enough for the compilers of the New Testament to include it.

And as far as I am aware, the prohibition on not eating meat and dairy together comes from Exodus 23:19, which is a huge stretch from what the text actually says? Bearing in mind, I have family in Israel, my cousin (I have no idea how to explain how we're actually related, but cousin is close enough

) has pointed out to me before now that "many here hate non-Jews" and that "Jews think they are the highest people"; how do they get this idea? Because they are the Chosen People.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I don't mean to cause offence or anything.

free spirit · Jun 1, 2009

TO POISONSHADY313

Poisonshady313 said:
Poisonshady313 said:

Jewish law concerning the treatment of gentiles, observing one's speech, not humiliating people, etc.. have been consistent for 3321 years.

Click to expand...

Yes that is what all of us like to thimk of our ancestors but unfortunaterly it is not so.

We're (ben and I) not objecting to Jesus' actions simply because we don't think it was nice. It was categorically a violation of Jewish law.

Click to expand...

Sorry to do this to you but you do not seem to aknowledge the obvious, 2000 years ago someone wrote this down as a fact of life, he had no other motive, but to tell the story as it unfoldet. ACTS10 - 25 to 28, "And when it came about that Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshiped him. but Peter raised him up, saying, stand up; I too am just a man. And as he talked with him, he entered, and found many people assembled. And he said to them, you yuorselves 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." And in ACTS 11 - 2 - 3, we read "And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him, saying, you went to uncircumcised men and ate with them." If this does not convince you that in these days was unlawful for Jews to look upon gentiles as equals, nothing will. And the gentiles knew about the jewish law because peter said to them: you yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew.

There was never a problem with Jewish living a peaceful coexistence with their non-Jewish neighbors... just as long as these non-Jewish neighbors weren't busy killing Jews... or marrying them, or trying to entice them to idolatry.

Click to expand...

By you own mouth, how can you live a peaceful coexistence if marrying them was abhorrent to you. and it is still abhorrent today, but take comfort other religions do the same thing, so you are not any worse.

But the idea that Jews wouldn't even speak to gentiles, let alone help them in a time of need, is a Christian invention set up to demonize Judaism, to make Christianity seem like the more loving and compassionate choice.

Click to expand...

You need to take a good look at yourself I think, and take a reality check.

free spirit · Jun 1, 2009

Odion said:
Ah, but Poison, the Tanakh can easily be used to show intolerance and racism.

Exodus 12:43, Exodus 17:16, Deuteronomy 23:2:-3, Nehemiah 13:26-27, Ezra 9:2

These can all be used to support racism, even though this is not the intention of the Old Testament at all, in my view. John 4:9 even writes the conversation between a Samaritan woman and Jesus, and she says, "You're a Jew and I'm a Samaritan, how can you ask me for a drink?" - not as though this is binding evidence or anything like that, but this shows that it was commonplace enough for the compilers of the New Testament to include it.

And as far as I am aware, the prohibition on not eating meat and dairy together comes from Exodus 23:19, which is a huge stretch from what the text actually says? Bearing in mind, I have family in Israel, my cousin (I have no idea how to explain how we're actually related, but cousin is close enough ) has pointed out to me before now that "many here hate non-Jews" and that "Jews think they are the highest people"; how do they get this idea? Because they are the Chosen People.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I don't mean to cause offence or anything.

ODION you are a gentleman!

sojourner · Jun 1, 2009

Poisonshady313 said:
You were under the wrong impression. A foreign woman was not allowed to MARRY a Jewish male, especially a Rabbi... but of course a foreign woman could approach a Jewish male... even request help.

This being the case, Jesus' response is completely abhorrent and unacceptable, from a cultural and a spiritual point of view.

I'll have to look this up in my cultural anthropology book. But I believe that, in the culture of the ancient Middle East, shame and honor were imbedded in sexual identity -- males embody honor, females embody shame. Therefore, a woman would have to be approached by a man -- especially one of Jesus' station -- and especially since she was not Jewish.

Poisonshady313 · Jun 1, 2009

Odion said:
Ah, but Poison, the Tanakh can easily be used to show intolerance and racism.

Exodus 12:43

That verse is neither intolerant nor racist. Sure, it's somewhat exclusive, but that doesn't mean it's bad, or wrong. Everything has a time and a place... and when it comes to the Pesach offering, it's something unique and special for the children of Israel as a reminder of being taken out of Egypt.

If you choose to view that as being intolerant or racist, that's truly unfortunate. You're entitled to your opinion, but I would say you're missing the mark.

Exodus 17:16

The destruction of Amalek wasn't because the Jews figured they had it coming to them because Jews are better than Amalekites... it wasn't because they were gentiles... it was because of what Amalek did to Israel when Israel was leaving Egypt... attacking the weak and the elderly. If Exodus 17:16 was racist because of what God commanded Israel to do to Amalek... you might as well say all of Exodus is racist because of what God did to the Egyptians as well.

Deuteronomy 23:2:-3

A specific reason is given, having to do with those nations cursing Israel. To chalk this up to racism is incorrect. Consider the next passage:

You shall not reject an Edomite, for he is your brother; you shall not reject an Egyptian, for you were a sojourner in his land.

If Israel were nothing but a bunch of ethnocentric bigots, this line sure seems out of place.

Nehemiah 13:26-27

Wives from idolatrous nations caused the king to sin. This is a statement of fact, not meant to malaign foreigners... it was a specific warning against marrying women the bible had previously prohibited Jews from marrying, i.e. Moabites. The nations mentioned were specifically those who would try to lead Israel astray.

You don't hang out with people who generally mean harm to you and your people. This is neither a racist nor intolerant position.

Ezra 9:2

Again... consider what's actually being spoken of. The Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, and the Moabites. All nations hostile towards Israel. The Girga****es were one of the nations that inhabited the land... but they made peace with Israel.

These can all be used to support racism, even though this is not the intention of the Old Testament at all, in my view.

Not legitimately. They might be used by people with a poor understanding of the text, with an agenda to paint Israel as being racist... but nobody who takes an honest, impartial view can use it to support racism.

I mean I could point to the golden rule spoken by Jesus.. do unto others as you would have done unto you... and cite selfishness. It's all about how you want people to treat YOU. Of course that misses the mark... but if I used it, I'm sure you'd tell me exactly why the golden rule is not the epitome of selfishness.

John 4:9 even writes the conversation between a Samaritan woman and Jesus, and she says, "You're a Jew and I'm a Samaritan, how can you ask me for a drink?" - not as though this is binding evidence or anything like that, but this shows that it was commonplace enough for the compilers of the New Testament to include it.

I don't trust the "new testament" to highlight the cultural standards of the time. It is my position that either the characters or the authors purposely sought to malign the Jews to establish Christianity, therefore had to fraudulently make the pharisees the epitome of hypocrisy, Israel the epitome of rebelliousness, and the average Jew the epitmoe of ethnocentric bigotry.

Bearing in mind, I have family in Israel, my cousin (I have no idea how to explain how we're actually related, but cousin is close enough ) has pointed out to me before now that "many here hate non-Jews" and that "Jews think they are the highest people"; how do they get this idea? Because they are the Chosen People.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I don't mean to cause offence or anything.

[FONT=TREBUCHET, ARIAL, HELVETICA]
[FONT=TREBUCHET, ARIAL, HELVETICA]
The Jewish nation is often referred to as "the Chosen People."

Many people (including Jews) are uncomfortable with this idea. They perceive the concept of a "Chosen People" as racist and mindful of the Nazi concept of a supreme "Aryan" nation. It appears to contradict the accepted Western ideal of all people being equal before God.

Is the Jewish concept of choseness racist?

When the Torah refers to the Jewish people as "chosen," it is not in any way asserting that Jews are racially superior. Americans, Russians, Europeans, Asians and Ethiopians are all part of the Jewish people. It is impossible to define choseness as anything related to race, since Jews are racially diverse.

Yet while the term "Chosen People" (Am Nivchar) does not mean racially superior, choseness does imply a special uniqueness.

What is this uniqueness?

Historically, it goes back to Abraham. Abraham lived in a world steeped in idolatry, which he concluded was contradicted by the reality of design in nature.
[/FONT]

So Abraham came to a belief in God, and took upon himself the mission of teaching others of the monotheistic ideal. Abraham was even willing to suffer persecution for his beliefs. After years of enormous effort, dedication and a willingness to accept the responsibility to be God's representative in this world, God chose Abraham and his descendents to be the teachers of this monotheistic message.
In other words it is not so much that God chose the Jews; it is more accurate that the Jews (through Abraham) chose God.

Choseness was not part of God's "original plan." Initially all of humanity was to serve the role of God's messengers, but after the fall of Adam, humanity lost that privilege, and it was open for grabs. Only Abraham chose to take the mantel. If others would have (and they were offered the choice), they too would have joined in this special covenant which was sealed upon the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai.

If a privilege is offered to everyone willing to pay the necessary price, nobody can protest that those willing to make the extra effort are being shown favoritism. For example: It is reasonable that an employee who agrees to work overtime, attend training seminars, and manage special projects, should be entitled to a performance bonus -- particularly if each employee was given the same opportunity.

The essence of being chosen means responsibility. It is a responsibility to change the world -- not by converting everyone to Judaism, but by living as a model community upheld by ethics, morals and beliefs of one God. In that way, we can influence the rest of mankind, a "light unto the nations" (Isaiah 42:6).

[SIZE=+1]Judaism is Universal[/SIZE]
Further, Judaism is not exclusionary. A human being need not to be Jewish to reach a high spiritual level. Enoch "walked with God," and Noah had quite a high level of relationship, though neither were Jewish. Our tradition is that all of the 70 nations must function together and play an integral part in that "being" called humanity.

According to Judaism (Talmud - Sanhedrin 58b), any person can achieve a place in the World to Come by faithfully observing the seven basic laws of humanity. These seven laws are named the "Laws of Noah," since all humans are descended from Noah:

1) Do not murder.
2) Do not steal.
3) Do not worship false gods.
4) Do not be sexually immoral.
5) Do not eat the limb of an animal before it is killed.
6) Do not curse God.
7) Set up courts and bring offenders to justice.

[/FONT][FONT=TREBUCHET, ARIAL, HELVETICA]Torah is for all humanity. King Solomon built the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, he specifically asked God to heed the prayer of non-Jews who come to the Temple (1-Kings 8:41-43). The Temple was the universal center of spirituality, which the prophet Isaiah referred to as a "house of prayer for all nations." Non-Jews were welcome to bring offerings to the Temple as well. In fact, the service in the Holy Temple during the week of Sukkot featured a total of 70 bull offerings, corresponding to each of the 70 nations of the world. In fact, the Talmud says that if the Romans would have realized how much they were benefiting from the Temple, they never would have destroyed it!
Most other religions say that non-believers are condemned to eternal damnation. Even the calendar systems of Christianity and Islam reflect an exclusionary philosophy; each begins with the birth of their respective religion. The Jewish calendar, on the other hand, begins with the creation of Adam, the first man, teaching us the intrinsic value of every human, even though the Jewish religion was not yet born.

For this reason, Jews do not proselytize in search of converts. One can still merit a place in heaven, no conversion necessary.
[/FONT]
The Chosen People

Thief · Jun 4, 2009

Thief here....
So all of this was sparked by a complaint over what the Carpenter said to a woman...as she pleaded for relief of her ailing child.

What do you argue, should I point out that incident at the temple?

See it clearly...as if you were there....

He walks into the temple with a makeshift whip in hand.
Makes the announcement....GET OUT!

Anyone who hesitates is beaten.
He drives them as if cattle.
He persists until the temple is empty...

Was this a bad thing?
How does this compare to the supposed insult aimed at that poor woman?

=Something Bad Jesus Did=

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Restoration of everything

Well-Known Member

Restoration of everything

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hostis humani generis

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Rogue Theologian