Milan K,
Presenting a passage then reinterpreting it to suit your own agenda doesn't provide evidence, it provides your point of view. Which we are all entitled to of course.

The crumbs on the table is an analogy, that Christ uses. It certainly does not illustrate a disdainful indictment to gentiles on Christs behalf.

quote:

Originally posted by gt:
Milan K,
Presenting a passage then reinterpreting it to suit your own agenda doesn't provide evidence, it provides your point of view. Which we are all entitled to of course.

The crumbs on the table is an analogy, that Christ uses. It certainly does not illustrate a disdainful indictment to gentiles on Christs behalf.

I have no idea what you are smoking, but surely it aint good for your head.

regards

"The crumbs on the table is an analogy, that Christ uses."

I've been wracking my brains on this, reading and re-reading the relevant verses, and I must say that I've finally come to the conclusion that I agree with you. It would indeed appear to be an analogy.
Reading the phrase in context, would it not seem that the analogy Jesus is drawing is likening 'the children's bread' to Jesus' mercy for the Jews (the lost sheep of the House of Israel), and 'dogs' to those not of the House of Israel (gentiles)? Would this be a reasonable assumption?
Incidentally, as a matter of interest, is there a prescribed methodology in determining which bits of the Bible, indeed any Holy Book, are analogy and which bits are to be taken literally? Are the Biblical descriptions of the creation, for example, analogies or are they literal? Adam and Eve? The Flood? 2 bears and 42 children/youths? The virgin birth? Raising the dead? Believers can handle snakes/serpents, can drink deadly poisons without harm and can heal the sick? The resurrection?

Yes there is a prescribed methodology; you take the palatable bits literally and call the stuff that contradicts or doesn't fit an analogy - otherwise known as lying.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Anyway, don't you think that the world would be a better place if mankind actually observed some of these rules?

No, it would be horrendous, or at best no different to now as some of those rules are irrelevant to modern life:

No christian should accept a non-christian (clerical) court or accept any ruling from said.

It should be one law for all, not a law each depending on your religion.


All christians should give up all their worldly wealth and should not seek such.

This I'd like to see, starting with the churches themselves leading by example.


No christian should plan or prepare for the future (god will provide - LOL).

Very dangerous, especially when christians get in power as they have now. Imagine Gordon Brown not planning for the future. Although, saying that, don't imagine, just look at what that other noted christian GWBush has done to America in the last 9 years.


No christian should wear any multi-fabric garment.

A complete irrelevance.


No christian can have a divorce. (There is one allowed instance but it not usual.)

People make mistakes, they should not be forced to endure them for their whole lives.


No christian can commit violence to any other person.

Sometimes it's necessary, such as when defending yourself or others.


No christian should pray in a congregation.

Again, an irrelevance. However, it would mean an end to the churches. Makes you wonder how they've got away with it for so long.


Christian women should dress modestly and should not wear jewelery, make-up or gold.

Just a personal one here, but I like seeing women dressing immodestly. The key point however is that women should have the choice to dress as they please, immodestly or othrwise.

quote:

Yes there is a prescribed methodology; you take the palatable bits literally and call the stuff that contradicts or doesn't fit an analogy - otherwise known as lying.

Precisely - and I just wondered what kind of analogy can be drawn from the 'dogs' passage, other than that which is self-evident from the language used, as gt clearly indicates that "it certainly does not illustrate a disdainful indictment to gentiles on Christs behalf."

quote:

Originally posted by Scafell Pike:

quote:

Yes there is a prescribed methodology; you take the palatable bits literally and call the stuff that contradicts or doesn't fit an analogy - otherwise known as lying.

Precisely - and I just wondered what kind of analogy can be drawn from the 'dogs' passage, other than that which is self-evident from the language used, as gt clearly indicates that "it certainly does not illustrate a disdainful indictment to gentiles on Christs behalf."

But then, neither was Jesus a great respecter of Jews, unless they had an appropriate level of humilty.
He gave the Pharisees a right old beasting, for instance.
The point of the story, I suppose, is that Christ accepts those who show humility and faith.
Had the woman taken a stance of "Who're you calling a dog, big nose?!", then she would have gotten no help, presumably.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

The point of the story, I suppose, is that Christ accepts those who show humility and faith.
Had the woman taken a stance of "Who're you calling a dog, big nose?!", then she would have gotten no help, presumably.

LOL!!! Maybe a few spits in her face plus a couple of kicks and punches by JC and his boys to test her "humility" would have been in order. I bet you think she got off far too easy just by having a few racial insults thrown at her, don't you?

quote:

Originally posted by Scafell Pike:
"The crumbs on the table is an analogy, that Christ uses."

I've been wracking my brains on this, reading and re-reading the relevant verses, and I must say that I've finally come to the conclusion that I agree with you. It would indeed appear to be an analogy.
Reading the phrase in context, would it not seem that the analogy Jesus is drawing is likening 'the children's bread' to Jesus' mercy for the Jews (the lost sheep of the House of Israel), and 'dogs' to those not of the House of Israel (gentiles)? Would this be a reasonable assumption?

Your interpretation of the analogy regarding the crumbs is spot on.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

quote:

Originally posted by Scafell Pike:

quote:

Yes there is a prescribed methodology; you take the palatable bits literally and call the stuff that contradicts or doesn't fit an analogy - otherwise known as lying.

Precisely - and I just wondered what kind of analogy can be drawn from the 'dogs' passage, other than that which is self-evident from the language used, as gt clearly indicates that "it certainly does not illustrate a disdainful indictment to gentiles on Christs behalf."

But then, neither was Jesus a great respecter of Jews, unless they had an appropriate level of humilty.
He gave the Pharisees a right old beasting, for instance.
The point of the story, I suppose, is that Christ accepts those who show humility and faith.
Had the woman taken a stance of "Who're you calling a dog, big nose?!", then she would have gotten no help, presumably.

PMSL.......

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

The point of the story, I suppose, is that Christ accepts those who show humility and faith.
Had the woman taken a stance of "Who're you calling a dog, big nose?!", then she would have gotten no help, presumably.

LOL!!! Maybe a few spits in her face plus a couple of kicks and punches by JC and his boys to test her "humility" would have been in order. I bet you think she got off far too easy just by having a few racial insults thrown at her, don't you?

Simmer down, simmer down....your full of anger. So glad forum members can accommodate you with this "free" therapy.

quote:

Originally posted by gt:

Simmer down, simmer down....your full of anger. So glad forum members can accommodate you with this "free" therapy.

Ho ho. I guess your lobotomy solved all your problems. No more therapy needed.

How kind of you to mention

quote:

Originally posted by gt:

PMSL.......

PMSL?

quote:

The point of the story, I suppose, is that Christ accepts those who show humility and faith.

That the Canaanite woman, you suppose, possibly demonstrates an appropriate level of both humility and faith, after having been subjected to Jesus' quite unwarranted and unnecessary verbal abuse, and was therefore granted the gift of God's mercy, is irrelevant to the point that Jesus had nevertheless demonstrated a quite extraordinary level of racism and intolerance, bordering hatred. Are these the traits that one would expect an all-loving, all-merciful, all-knowing, all-powerful Messiah and Son of God to be exhibiting?

quote:

Had the woman taken a stance of "Who're you calling a dog, big nose?!", then she would have gotten no help, presumably.

But couldn't this be interpreted as just the response that Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy suggests should be made (life for a life, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, hand for a hand, wound for a wound, injury for an injury etc)?
However, imagine how desperate the woman's position might have become had she responded with a 'baldy' comment rather than 'big nose'......

quote:

Originally posted by Scafell Pike:

quote:

The point of the story, I suppose, is that Christ accepts those who show humility and faith.

That the Canaanite woman, you suppose, possibly demonstrates an appropriate level of both humility and faith, after having been subjected to Jesus' quite unwarranted and unnecessary verbal abuse, and was therefore granted the gift of God's mercy, is irrelevant to the point that Jesus had nevertheless demonstrated a quite extraordinary level of racism and intolerance, bordering hatred. Are these the traits that one would expect an all-loving, all-merciful, all-knowing, all-powerful Messiah and Son of God to be exhibiting?

quote:

Had the woman taken a stance of "Who're you calling a dog, big nose?!", then she would have gotten no help, presumably.

But couldn't this be interpreted as just the response that Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy suggests should be made (life for a life, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, hand for a hand, wound for a wound, injury for an injury etc)?
However, imagine how desperate the woman's position might have become had she responded with a 'baldy' comment rather than 'big nose'......

Sorry, Pikey, but you can't have it both ways:
Either the woman's a Jewess, in which case she can exercise her rights under Leviticus and Deuteronomy, or else she's a Gentile, and therefore, by definition, not one of the chosen people, and not in line for God's preferential treatment.
The fact that she receives of God's bounty, despite that she has no birthright, speaks of His unfathomable grace.
Do you understand the story, now?

About half a dozen posts were deleted today in one stroke. The moderators seem to be overactive today. It must be the start of spring.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Anyway, don't you think that the world would be a better place if mankind actually observed some of these rules?

Some of the rules (such as non-violence) may be OK but most of them aren't. You really cannot have it both ways either you obey the rules or you don't - Just choosing to comply with those which make sense in a modern society is not an option if you are truly a christian.

And let's not forget that the penalty for many of these "crimes" is stoning to death or burning at the stake. I think we in the west should be very thankful that the days when the religious had a significant input into law and punishment are long gone.

quote:

Originally posted by Joliet:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Anyway, don't you think that the world would be a better place if mankind actually observed some of these rules?

Some of the rules (such as non-violence) may be OK but most of them aren't. You really cannot have it both ways either you obey the rules or you don't - Just choosing to comply with those which make sense in a modern society is not an option if you are truly a christian.

And let's not forget that the penalty for many of these "crimes" is stoning to death or burning at the stake. I think we in the west should be very thankful that the days when the religious had a significant input into law and punishment are long gone.

My sentiments exactly.
Just that the laws which you were referring to were specifically prepared for the Jewish people, not Gentiles.
And Jesus pretty graphically gave us good reason to not apply the death penalty.
He who is without sin; anybody?

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K:
About half a dozen posts were deleted today in one stroke. The moderators seem to be overactive today. It must be the start of spring.

Did any of those posts contain an explanation of what PMSL meant?

quote:

Originally posted by Joliet:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Anyway, don't you think that the world would be a better place if mankind actually observed some of these rules?

Some of the rules (such as non-violence) may be OK but most of them aren't. You really cannot have it both ways either you obey the rules or you don't - Just choosing to comply with those which make sense in a modern society is not an option if you are truly a christian.

And let's not forget that the penalty for many of these "crimes" is stoning to death or burning at the stake. I think we in the west should be very thankful that the days when the religious had a significant input into law and punishment are long gone.

Unfortunately the delusion that only religion is capable of this is humanities folly.

Communists with its gulags and National socialism with is brand of State terror between contributed to 10's of Millions deaths.

People are a problem in general.

Society is an option as a Christian and has seem a successful assimilation for rather a few centuries now. However perhaps your having problems assimilating into western society, your certainly seem to have an aversion to Socratic debate.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K:
About half a dozen posts were deleted today in one stroke. The moderators seem to be overactive today. It must be the start of spring.

Did any of those posts contain an explanation of what PMSL meant?

Oh...I was laughing at your post because I thought it was quite witty. Thats what its an abbreviation for....kinda.

quote:

penalty for many of these "crimes" is stoning to death or burning at the stake

err, they aren't edicts in the New Testament, neither is pancake Tuesday

I think Mr Woolf quoted a passage from the new Testament regarding stoning