Jesus' Sins

[michel]

The online Bible that I use gives a note as follows to the verse below:-


Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel
(The Lord Jesus had come into the world to die for the sin of the whole world, but He had also come as Israel's promised Messiah. His seeming harshness to the Canaanite woman is best understood as not only a test of her faith in the God of Israel, but also as a means to show His disciples that Gentiles also were included in God's plan, and that they too could have saving faith.)

Does that explain your last point?

 

[Ryan2065]

He didn't refuse to heal ANYONE.

22 And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out, "Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon." 23 But he did not say a word in answer to her. His disciples came and asked him, "Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us." 24 He said in reply, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." 25 But the woman came and did him homage, saying, "Lord, help me." 26 He said in reply, "It is not right to take the food of the children 11 and throw it to the dogs."

He didn't refuse to heal her? Oh, apparently he said yes 3 times to her. The fact that the last time she asked he said yes is not what I am debating. Is this seriously going to turn into a debate of "he did/didn't refuse to heal her"? If you ask me for some food and I tell you "It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs." you would surely think that I was refusing to give you the food.

That is a fable, not a fact. Asking us when did Jesus stop beating Mary would have been more sincere. You have only cast aspersions with NOTHING but verses taken out of context. You DELIBERATELY left off the two last verses where Jesus healed the lady in question. Why? You have an axe to grind, and that sort of agenda should be exposed whenever possible. You call this "anger" when incredulity is far closer to the the truth. I have called you on your lies and distortions and you call it anger: how convenient. Instead of admitting your error, you cast more aspersions, but on me this time. Don't play me a fool and expect me to accept your arrogance.

First off, how do you know I am the one taking verses out of contex? Because most people interpret the verse this way? I did leave the last two verses off because it did nothing for or against my argument and I was only quoting what I needed. If you notice in my commentary I did say that Jesus did heal her. That is all those verses said. I am sorry if you thought that Jesus healing the woman in the end was reason enough for him to call her a dog. I did not. And what is this saying I have an axe to grind? If I did I would not mention the fact that Jesus healed the woman. Again, I was debating the times that he told her no, not the times that he said yes.

So you say you are in a state of disbelief that ANYONE can think this of Jesus?

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel
(The Lord Jesus had come into the world to die for the sin of the whole world, but He had also come as Israel's promised Messiah. His seeming harshness to the Canaanite woman is best understood as not only a test of her faith in the God of Israel, but also as a means to show His disciples that Gentiles also were included in God's plan, and that they too could have saving faith.)

Apparently the people who wrote Michel's bible believed that Jesus seemed harsh to the Canaanite woman also. I stated the "sins" I thought Jesus made to see what others thought. Others have debated the points I raised quite well. You have not.

Does that explain your last point?

Yes Michel. I thank you and DeepShadow for debating me on this. I learned alot from this.

 

[Scuba Pete]

He didn't refuse to heal her?

Nope. Show me where he says that we would NOT heal HER. Go ahead. I am waiting. No inferences or twisiting on your part... where did he EVER refuse to take care of her?

how do you know I am the one taking verses out of contex?

Here is my first clue:

I did leave the last two verses off because

You are willing to present a lopsided view because it does not support your arguments.

Clue #2:

I am sorry if you thought that Jesus healing the woman in the end was reason enough for him to call her a dog.

You put words in the man's mouth. He didn't call her a dog, but you are twisting things just like a politician.

My conclusion? You have a FINE carreer as the spokesman for the "Swift Boat Veterans" or maybe even Rush's replacement. It is more than obvious to me that "winning" the debate is everything to you and that the truth takes a dim second or third place.

 

[Ryan2065]

You put words in the man's mouth. He didn't call her a dog, but you are twisting things just like a politician.

He didn't call her a dog? You seem to be the ONLY one argueing this point. Your exact words. "He didn't call her a dog" just so you know im not putting words into your mouth.

He said in reply, "It is not right to take the food of the children 11 and throw it to the dogs."

So he refers to her as a dog... He doesn't directly call her a dog. In this quote, she is the dog, the jews are the children.

Show me where he says that we would NOT heal HER. Go ahead. I am waiting. No inferences or twisiting on your part...

I was not there. Neither were you. The woman, of course, was there. She felt it necessary to ask Jesus 3 times to heal her. From this we can infer that he did not appear willing to heal her. You are saying that we can't infer things from the bible now? We are only to believe what it says word for word?

My conclusion? You have a FINE carreer as the spokesman for the "Swift Boat Veterans" or maybe even Rush's replacement. It is more than obvious to me that "winning" the debate is everything to you and that the truth takes a dim second or third place.

I respectfully request that you refrain from trying your best to insult me. Either you do not read my whole posts or you just decide to respond to certain parts in an attempt to make me look bad and this I do not appreciate. You say that I am trying my best to win this debate after I have agreed that Jesus was not racist.

Yes Michel. I thank you and DeepShadow for debating me on this. I learned alot from this.

This is me saying that I am done with the debate because it was prove to me by DeepShadow and MIchel that my view was wrong and taken out of contex. Again, enough people thought Jesus was harsh to the woman that in Michel's bible they put a footnote in about it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So he refers to her as a dog...

Nope. He is quoting a proverb. That would be like saying he is calling rich people "Camels". You just want to smear his name.

From this we can infer

At least NOW you are saying you are merely infering, but your inferences are born of someone trying to smear someone else's name. Did I mention these are tactics used by politicians yet? Namely the Swift Boat Veterans???

I will ask you point blank.

DID THE LADY LEAVE JESUS' PRESENSE UNHEALED?

Your entire premise crumbles with your monosylabic answer.

or you just decide to respond to certain parts in an attempt to make me look bad

You are doing a fine job all by yourself, you certainly DON'T need my help for you to look bad. I am trying to get you to see just HOW you are twisting Jesus' words. Of course, those who twist are usually the first to cry "foul" when their words are held up for close inspection.

I can see how you would like to retreat now that you see your arguments are not well thought out. So be it. Next time you want to insult others, try not to have such a thin skin.

 

[Ryan2065]

NetDoc, I have always enjoyed your debates, why have you resorted to this inneffective form of debating?

Nope. He is quoting a proverb. That would be like saying he is calling rich people "Camels". You just want to smear his name.

Why is it you bring this point up now? Would it not of been better to bring it up before others pointed it out?

At least NOW you are saying you are merely infering, but your inferences are born of someone trying to smear someone else's name. Did I mention these are tactics used by politicians yet? Namely the Swift Boat Veterans???

I will ask you point blank.

DID THE LADY LEAVE JESUS' PRESENSE UNHEALED?

Your entire premise crumbles with your monosylabic answer.

Please do not misunderstand me. I never once said that Jesus did not heal the girl. This has never been an issue. Why do you keep bringing it up? And if someone needs to ask something of you three times, do you not usually infer that they said no the first two times? Or that his "attitude" showed that he said no. This is what I infered, DeepShadow and Michel actually debated me on this, and have changed my views on this. You have throw around more insults in this argument than have offered constructive arguments.

You are doing a fine job all by yourself, you certainly DON'T need my help for you to look bad. I am trying to get you to see just HOW you are twisting Jesus' words. Of course, those who twist are usually the first to cry "foul" when their words are held up for close inspection.

I can see how you would like to retreat now that you see your arguments are not well thought out. So be it. Next time you want to insult others, try not to have such a thin skin.

I am not "retreating" and my arguments were not well thought out. If you think they are go to ask.com and type in "Is Jesus a Racist?" I did, I got 232,200 results of webpages dealing with this very issue. Many people have read certain things in the bible and have come to the conclusion that Jesus might have done racist things when looking at the bible with todays standards. Michel and DeepShadow showed me that in his time he did nothing racist. I saw this and admit that the passages I showed do not show that Jesus is a racist.

This argument has turned from its origional meaning, unless someone else has something to say in the argument about racism and sins and Jesus I don't see the point of continuing this thread.