This very embarrassing quote:
---------------------------------------------
"A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, 'Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession. Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, 'Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.'
He [Jesus] answered, 'I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel.' The woman came and knelt before him.
'Lord, help me!' she said.
He [Jesus] replied 'It is not right to take the children's [Jews] bread [blessings and miracles reserved for them] and toss it to their dogs [the Canaanite, or the Philistines].' :oops:
'Yes, Lord' she said, 'but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.' :?
Then Jesus answered, 'Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.' And her daughter was healed from that very hour. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 15:22-28)"
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel": :cry:
Jesus also said: "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: 'Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.' (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 10:5-6)" :(
And when Jesus told his disciples to go "to all nations" and teach them the words and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit (Mathew 28:18-20) :shock:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think how these quotes are taken all depends on how literal and how factual people want to take the bible. There will always be some interpretation made of some part of it by someone who wants to use it to support their cause.
I personally don't believe any religion should evangelise. If someone is drawn to a spiritual path, whatever that path may be, then it will be out of a desire from the heart, which is a good thing. It doesn't require evangelism on anyones part to attract someone to their chosen path. This desire is intrensic, as the soul had already made the choice to seek that experience before incarnating.
So far all I have seen of evangelism, no matter what the religion, is a lot of emotionally charged fear based arguments to repent & follow a particular way or else. Now, those who want to be defensive of their religion will always argue that it is not an "or else" situation, but no matter what angle you look at it, dig deep enough into the argument and there is an "or else" in there.
Regards,
James.
Well said James. :P
Something I find interesting about the concept of Evangelizing is Christians see it as a must be done thing, yet they would be truly upset for people of other religions to knock on the door and try to Evangelize them.
Evangelizing automatically ASSUMES that the information being presented is 100% perfect and True.
If we are honest with ourselves, we know that no religion is perfect and the One True Way. So this leaves a big hole in the need to Evangelize.
:D
In order to make more sense, these passages have to be considered in the context of Jewish religion, as well as Paul's elaboration on God's plan of salvation in Romans 11.
The original plan was for Jesus to come and offer salvation to the Jews, and then for them to offer his message to the rest of the world. It makes sense for Jesus to have come for the Jews first and foremost, since in the first century, the concept of a messiah would've only made sense in a Jewish context. Done any other way, it would've gone something liket this:
Jesus: "Hi, I'm your messiah!"
RandomPagan: "Uh... that's nice. What's a messiah?"
You get the idea. :P The message had to be established among a following who understood what it meant (i.e. those who'd had a relationship with this God and been expecting this messiah for several centuries), before it could be shown to those who were new to the whole thing.
Since things didn't completely turn out that way, Paul lays out what happened next. The rejection of Jesus by the majority of his people necessitated that salvation be passed on to the Gentiles. However, Paul is adamant that although the Jews have experienced a "hardening," so that the Gentiles can be included, once their inclusion is complete, that hardening will be lifted, and "all Israel will be saved" as well.
Anyway, I have my own take on what might have actually happened at the time of the "embarrassing" quote you posted. It's interesting to me that when Jesus basically calls this woman a dog, she doesn't storm off in a huff like most people would -- she gives him a pretty witty reply, he's pleased with it, and grants her request. I'm just wondering if Jesus' original statement was said in a rather tongue-in-cheek way, as if to poke fun at the social prejudices of his peers... and the woman, who was in on the joke, played along.
Of course that may or may not have been what happened... but I think it does raise a good point about how easy it is to read things into the text from our own biases and preconcieved notions.
QuoteSo far all I have seen of evangelism, no matter what the religion, is a lot of emotionally charged fear based arguments to repent & follow a particular way or else. Now, those who want to be defensive of their religion will always argue that it is not an "or else" situation, but no matter what angle you look at it, dig deep enough into the argument and there is an "or else" in there.
I agree that this is a major problem in Christianity, among other religions. However, Christians who take this approach aren't paying attention to this:
Quote
2 Corinthians 5:18-20
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.
The message of the gospel is a positive one, and not one of fear and threats. In a nutshell, it is all about getting people to recognize that God has *already* done all the work of reconciling Himself to humanity -- all that's left is for us to become aware of it so that we can enjoy full union with our creator. The only "or else," therefore, is the kind of hell that is created when people fail to recognize their true identity and that of their fellow human beings. However, any such hell is ultimately temporary once all relevant lessons are learned, as it is God's final intention to become "all in all." (1 Cor. 15:28)
QuoteThe message of the gospel is a positive one, and not one of fear and threats. In a nutshell, it is all about getting people to recognize that God has *already* done all the work of reconciling Himself to humanity -- all that's left is for us to become aware of it so that we can enjoy full union with our creator. The only "or else," therefore, is the kind of hell that is created when people fail to recognize their true identity and that of their fellow human beings. However, any such hell is ultimately temporary once all relevant lessons are learned, as it is God's final intention to become "all in all."
Very well said Palehorse!
I really do agree here.
Since leaving the church some years ago, I have discovered many wonderful truths within the bible that make soooo much more sense when you take them out of the context of a religion that seeks to control people through fear of some imaginary god that suffers many human failings, and put them in context of a god that unconditionally loves all and wants absolutely nothing from us except for us to experience who God really is and who we really are.
Kind regards,
James.
Dear Kalratri,
Your post would be quite acceptable if you posed it as a question. Instead, you resort to the typical New Age expedient of issuing dogmatic pronouncements about texts you don't understand. My main beef with New Agers is that they often don't know what they don't know.
You quote Matthew 15:21-28 and label it "this very embarrassing quote."
First, you imagine that Jesus is being coarse and rude to the Canaanite woman. What you overlook is the need, often stressed by Jesus, for the supplicant to act on her [his] faith before it can be effective. The test begins with Jesus' silence at her request. The term "dog" is a slang Palestinian term for "Gentile" and lacks the offensive connotation it has today. The woman takes Jesus' test in stride with a witty retort and Jesus is gladly bested in His rhetorical skirmish with her. Far from contempt, Jesus' high regard for her is finally revealed in His response, "Woman, great is your faith! Your request is granted (15:28)."
The only ones who fare badly in this incident are Jesus' disciples who urge Him to "send her away, for she keeps crying after us." Their reaction mirrors the low standing of Jewish women in first-century Palestinian society. According to early rabbinic tradition, a Jew is urged to speak to his wife as little as possible and not even to greet a woman in public. A Jewish woman is not permitted to approach a Jewish teacher in public. This oppressive attitude explains why no Jewish woman ever confronts Jesus with a request for healing.
So the woman with the menstrual bleeding problem sneaks up behind Jesus to touch His garment in the hope that this will bring her healing (see Mark 5:26-34). By Jewish law, she made Jesus "unclean" in the act of touching Him. Jesus makes her act of faith public to praise it and to expose the stupidity of heartless religious laws. He implicitly poses the question, "Why would God heal her if she was sinning by touching me?"
In the synagogue Jesus knows that the crippled woman will not dare approach her; so He takes the initiative, summons her, and heals her on the Sabbath (see Luke 13:10-17--another no no). Jesus must also take the initiative to engage the Samaritan woman in conversation (see John 4). She becomes the first Christian missionary to non-Jews.
Jesus is revolutionary in His unprecedented respect for women. Note His sexually parallel parables, one featuring a man, the other a woman. Note also His love and openness to the socially marginal--prostitutes and tax collectors.
(2) Second, you imagine you detect a serious contradiction between Jesus' initial restriction of the disciples' mission to Israel (Matthew 15:24, cp. 10:5-6) and the Risen Lord's instructions to take His message "to all nations" (Matthew 28:18-20). Of course, the contradiction exists only in your untutored imagination. Jesus' message cannot be finalized until His redemptive death (see e.g. Mark 10:45). Prior to His resurrection, Jesus first needs to establish an ample Palestinian core group of followers. But even during His public ministry, Jesus anticipates that, after His death, His disciplies would take the Gospel to the Gentile world outside Israel:
"And the Gospel must...be preached to all nations (Mark 13:10)."
"And this Gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed thruoghout the world, as a testimony to all nations (Matthew 24:14)."
Berserk
Hi Berserk,
Quote from: BerserkDear Kalratri,
Your post would be quite acceptable if you posed it as a question. Instead, you resort to the typical New Age expedient of issuing dogmatic pronouncements about texts you don't understand. My main beef with New Agers is that they often don't know what they don't know.
well actually I'm an old ager type... :P, it's really funny that young whipper snapper religions such as Judaism and Christianity can be called "that old time religion" compared to Hinduism/taoism or Buddhism and other smaller religions.
Quote
You quote Matthew 15:21-28 and label it "this very embarrassing quote."
First, you imagine that Jesus is being coarse and rude to the Canaanite woman. What you overlook is the need, often stressed by Jesus, for the supplicant to act on her [his] faith before it can be effective. The test begins with Jesus' silence at her request. The term "dog" is a slang Palestinian term for "Gentile" and lacks the offensive connotation it has today. The woman takes Jesus' test in stride with a witty retort and Jesus is gladly bested in His rhetorical skirmish with her. Far from contempt, Jesus' high regard for her is finally revealed in His response, "Woman, great is your faith! Your request is granted (15:28)."
It would however seem in VERY bad taste to test someone when they have a sick dying child, now wouldn't you say? Christ however did state several times that he ONLY came for the 10 tribes of Israel, even on his return he only mentions saving some members of the 10 tribes.
I'm not saying Christ didn't attain to spiritual greatness, particularly after his resurrection, it's that Christ didn't come for non-Jews until AFTER his death, when Paul had a vision of him... but then again who needs this?...Gentiles have their own spiritual histories who have produced men and women equal to or of greater spiritual caliber than Christ. Christ came to fulfill the covenant for the Jews, he even died on the cross to fulfill this Jewish covenant...non-Jews can accept him if they please as long as they admit that Christ did not come for them primarily. As I said, I like Christ, but am not gonna sell out my own religion for him any time soon.
Quote
The only ones who fare badly in this incident are Jesus' disciples who urge Him to "send her away, for she keeps crying after us." Their reaction mirrors the low standing of Jewish women in first-century Palestinian society. According to early rabbinic tradition, a Jew is urged to speak to his wife as little as possible and not even to greet a woman in public. A Jewish woman is not permitted to approach a Jewish teacher in public. This oppressive attitude explains why no Jewish woman ever confronts Jesus with a request for healing.
So the woman with the menstrual bleeding problem sneaks up behind Jesus to touch His garment in the hope that this will bring her healing (see Mark 5:26-34). By Jewish law, she made Jesus "unclean" in the act of touching Him. Jesus makes her act of faith public to praise it and to expose the stupidity of heartless religious laws. He implicitly poses the question, "Why would God heal her if she was sinning by touching me?"
In the synagogue Jesus knows that the crippled woman will not dare approach her; so He takes the initiative, summons her, and heals her on the Sabbath (see Luke 13:10-17--another no no). Jesus must also take the initiative to engage the Samaritan woman in conversation (see John 4). She becomes the first Christian missionary to non-Jews.
Jesus is revolutionary in His unprecedented respect for women. Note His sexually parallel parables, one featuring a man, the other a woman. Note also His love and openness to the socially marginal--prostitutes and tax collectors.
Jesus was revolutionary in the middle east I guess. He was definately nicer to women than the Jews of THE TIME. However Jesus didn't think women could be priests, atleast according to Paul.
Quote
(2) Second, you imagine you detect a serious contradiction between Jesus' initial restriction of the disciples' mission to Israel (Matthew 15:24, cp. 10:5-6) and the Risen Lord's instructions to take His message "to all nations" (Matthew 28:18-20). Of course, the contradiction exists only in your untutored imagination. Jesus' message cannot be finalized until His redemptive death (see e.g. Mark 10:45). Prior to His resurrection, Jesus first needs to establish an ample Palestinian core group of followers. But even during His public ministry, Jesus anticipates that, after His death, His disciplies would take the Gospel to the Gentile world outside Israel:
"And the Gospel must...be preached to all nations (Mark 13:10)."
"And this Gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed thruoghout the world, as a testimony to all nations (Matthew 24:14)."
Berserk
YOu forget as a TESTIMONY...the gospel is to be preached as a testimony that Jesus did arise from the dead --- HALLELUJAH...that's it... the guy did it, did I ever say he didn't? Nope, only certain priest type Jews did... priests are always jealous of outsiders attaining higher than they did...believe me I know, I'm a Hindu:lol:
QuoteHowever Jesus didn't think women could be priests, atleast according to Paul.
Paul said "
I do not permit a woman to teach"... i.e. Paul made that pronouncement in his own name, not that of Jesus. It's also thought now that many of "Paul's" seemingly chauvinistic statements about women were not written by him at all; I don't remember if that's one of them, but I can check later. I think that makes sense, as I can't really see the same guy who said "there is no Jew, Greek, male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" turning around and saying the kinds of things about women that have been attributed to him.
Also, while there were no Christian priests in the first century per se, women did occupy prominent positions as teachers, deaconesses, leaders of church services and so forth. This is partly because early Church services were held in homes, which in Roman society, was the woman's domain... so she ended up being the de-facto hostess/facilitator more often than not.
Ah, a Hindu who manifests uncharacteristic New Age hostility to Christianity! Well, you're entitled, as long as you pose questions rather than make dogmatic assertions about issues you poorly grasp. Perhaps, my detailed clarification will create a more tolerant Kalratri.
[Kalratri:] "It would however seem in VERY bad taste to test someone when they have a sick dying child, now wouldn't you say?"
________________________________________________-
No, I wouldn't say that. Jesus makes it clear that His healings are not always subject to His whim, but sometimes require the supplicant to act on their limited faith. He tests the Canaanite woman's faith not to torment her, but to draw out her ego-free perseverance in a way that activates her faith and facilitates the healing. To understand this, consider Jesus' healing of an epileptic child in Mark 9:14-29. Prior to Jesus' arrival, the disciples have tried and failed to cure the boy. The frustrated father pleads with Jesus: "If you are able to do anything, have pity on us and help us." Jesus replies by reversing the responsibility for the healing: "If YOU are able!--All things are possible for the one who really believes." The father now focuses his energy and cries out, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!" and the healing takes place. The precise relationship between Jesus' healing power and the activation of healing faith remains a mystery.
[Kalratri:] "Christ however did state several times that he ONLY came for the 10 tribes of Israel, even on his return he only mentions saving some members of the 10 tribes."
_________________________
You are confused here on 3 counts: (1) Jesus limits his focus to Israel just twice, not several times. (2) There are 12--not 10--tribes of Israel. (3) Jesus never mentions merely "saving SOME members of the 10 tribes."
In fact, Jesus often breaks his pattern by ministering to Gentiles and even sometimes meeting them outside Israel (e.g. John 4; 12:20ff.; Luke 7:1-10; 17:11-19; Mark 5; Matthew 8:5-13). But the basic point you miss is this: Jesus distinguishes between the initial mission confined to Israel (Matthew 10; 15) and his disciples later ministry after His crucifixion (Mark 13:10; Matthew 24:14; 28:18-20), a future ministry that must await an appreciation of Jesus' redeeming death (so Mark 10:45). The "embarassing" contradiction you claim to find is illusory.
[Kalratri:] "Jesus didn't think women could be priests, at least according to Paul."
_______
No! Jesus treats women as equals to men, but does not address the question of female church leadership roles. So Paul can't and doesn't comment on Jesus' teaching about the priesthood of women. The more typical claim is that Paul opposes female leadership. This claim is based on the prohibitions against female leadership in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. The scholarly consensus accepts the view that 1 Timothy was written decades after Paul's death by someone from his churches who wanted to bring Paul's radical teaching lin line with current patriarchal values which cannot tolerate female leadership. 1 Corinthians was written by Paul. So its prohibition against female leadership is problematic until one realizes that 14:34-35 is a later interpolation roughly from the period in which 1 Timothy was composed.
There are 5 reasons for believing that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is a later interpolation: (1) It contradicts what Paul has just said in chapter 11, namely that female prophets can preach in church. (2) It rests uncomfortably in its present context. Before and after, Paul discusses the gifts of prophecy and tongues. When the interpolation is removed, the texts on each side fit together smoothly. (3) Unlike 14:34-35, Paul would never base an argument for church order on the Law of Moses. (4) There is precedent for an interpolation in the Corinthian correspondence. The scholarly consensus regards 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 as an interpolation. (5) The ancient New Testament manuscripts display confusion about where this text should be located.
The status of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as as a later interpolation allows Paul's status as a great champion of female leadership to be recognized.
This can be illustrated by his baptismal theology and his frequent celebration of specific female leaders.
Through baptism the believer symbolically puts on Christ like a garment. The resulting oneness with Christ theoretically safeguards the believer against discrimination based on race, gender, or social standing:
"For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:27-28)."
The church leader could theoretically be a black female slave. Paul's theology of baptism is specifically directed against a rabbinic prayer for men which begins with the man thanking God for NOT making him a Gentile, a slave, or a woman.
Consider this brief discussion of 3 female leaders celebrated by Paul.
1. Phoebe: Romans 16 can be deemed a letter of recommendation for her. She is a "diakonos", a Greek term that means "minister", not "deaconess" in Phoebe's era. It is only with the development of an elaborate church hierarchy long after Paul's death that "diakonos" takes on the specialized meaning "deaconess." Paul also implies that "she has been a `prostatis' (usually "ruler" in Greek, not "helper") over many, including myself." This probably means that Paul voluntarily submits to her leadership when visiting her church (Romans 16:1-2).
2. Junia: Paul refers to Andronicus and Junia as "outstanding apostles" who became Christians even before him (Romans 16:7). The Greek allows "Junia" to be translated "Junias", which would be a man's name. The Catholic church has erroniously preferred "Junias" for most of its history. In the Greco-Roman world "Junias" is unattested as a man's name, but "Junia" is common as a woman's name. So "Junia" must be correct. If women can be apostles, why can't they be priests or, for that matter, popes?
3. Priscilla: The Roman historian Suetonius (112 AD) says that Emperor Claudius (49 AD) expelled all Jews from Rome because of a revolt led by "Chrestus". "Chrestus" is a name that Romans commonly confuse with "Christus" (= Christ), which is not a Roman name. Claudius imagines this Chrestus to be organizing jews to revolt against Rome. What actually seems to be happening is that the first Jewish Christian missionaries have arrived in Rome and are preaching Christ in the synagogues. The Jews are rioting not against Rome, but against these missionaries and their converts. The only Christians expelled by Claudius that we know by name are Priscilla and her husband Aquila (Acts 18:1-2). It seems reasonable to assume that they are already Christians prior to Claudius's edict. This couple has established early house churches both in Rome (Romans 16:4-5) and outside of Rome (1 Corinthians 16:19); and Paul says that all the Gentile churches owe them a debt of gratitude (Romans 16:4). Priscilla seems to be the primary missionary because she is mentioned first in 4 of the 6 times that she and Aquila are paired in the New Testament (shocking in this patriarchal atmosphere). She therefore qualifies as our best candidate for the title Founder of the Church of Rome! There is no evidence that Peter arrives in Rome before 64 AD--15 years later.
Quote from: BerserkAh, a Hindu who manifests uncharacteristic New Age hostility to Christianity! Well, you're entitled, as long as you pose questions rather than make dogmatic assertions about issues you poorly grasp. Perhaps, my detailed clarification will create a more tolerant Kalratri.
You misjudge me -- I'm not against Christ , I just say he came for the Jews primarily and perhaps after his resurrection for others, and it's there problem that they couldn't recognize a divine figure of their own, not mine...
you know like Quetzacoatl(sp?) came for the Mayans...now if some follower of Quetzacoatl comes to me and says convert and Quetzacoatl is gonna save you and he's gonna have a second coming, I'll say....well actually I don't know what I would say! Then I would have to look up all Quetzacoatl verses and see if he ever called me a dog...even in a zen way...then I would see that Quetzacoatl ALSO gained eternal life...and then I would go Hallelujah...why so many immortals in this world...now I gotta do what I gotta do since they are done with their hard work and now want to start a silly following...
wait for the second coming of Quetzacoatl...?? Are you crazy, what a waste of time! I'd rather work on my very own first resurrection ---
:lol:
Tell me, all folks want to know on how Christianity will help me have a resurrection and a second coming...? Can I be the second Christ...if not, why should I care, why should I wait for some Jewish person to come riding on a horse with his kingdom in Israel? It's the same with Islam, Mohammad said he was the last prophet...isn't that like well, sorry rest of you pathetic losers can't do it...just follow me atleast you'll get to heaven.... don't other people find this very limiting?...why should anyone wait for Jesus the King?....I want to be king...er, Queen... :lol: I just don't see the benefits... :?:
Kalratri, just so you know: as a college religion professor, I regularly taught Hinduism in my course on Comparative Religion. I only spoke positively about your faith and had a great relationship with my Hindu colleague, who is one of the leading experts on Hinduism in America. All I want from you is this: replace your acerbic ad hominems with probing questions and I will never hassle you about your bias. I only wish I knew as much about Hinduism as my Hindu colleague.
No, Kalratri, I have not misjudged you. If you wonder about my blunt tone in dismantling both your critical skills and your penchant for gross inaccuracies, then you should know that I decided by pay you back in kind for your arrogant ad hominen attacks against a young Christian, exothen, in another thread. Here is a collage of your remarks to him:
"I know that in the neo-religious traditions of the Middle East, you are supposed to turn off your brain and just believe, but that's not the eastern way. . .But it seems you are not after the truth, but simply after continuing to believe what you believe. . . So what? What is your point (besides showing your poor reasoning)?. . .I'm just amazed that you and many other evangelists keep saying the same things, even after you are wrong."
You began the present thread by smugly confronting Christians with issues arising from a "very embarrassing quote" (Matthew 15:21-28). But I have exposed your many interpretive errors and demonstrated that your strident ignorance of biblical teaching is the only source of embarrassment here. So you resort to the desperate expedient of trying to save face by changing the subject to Christ's Second Coming and future millennial reign in Israel. Neither subject is relevant to your thread, but in making this shift you only succeed in exposing additional ignorance:
[Kalratri:] "Wait for the second coming of Quetzacoatl...? Are you crazy, what a waste of time! I'd rather work on my very own first resurrection."
_________________________________
I'll leave aside your sarcastic "Hallelujahs" and mocking comparison of Christ with Quetzelcoatl [note the correct spelling] and direct my comments to your mistaken assumption that the Christian hope is pinned to the second coming of Christ. True, in the early years of his ministry, Paul expects Christ's imminent return, and so, does not anticipate the fact that his converts will all die (see 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17; 1 Corinthians 15:51-52). But with additional revelation, Paul comes to the same realization as Jesus, namely that at death we receive spiritual bodies appropriate for the heavenly realm. Thus, Paul can exult in his later epistles:
"I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far (Philippians 1:23)."
"We know that if the earthly tent [body] we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God [a spiritual body], an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. . .While we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because. . . we long to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling [spiritual body], so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. . .We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:1, 3, 8)."
By his later epistles, Paul shares Jesus' conviction that we enter our heavenly home fully conscious at the moment of death. The crucified Jesus makes this conviction clear to the penitent thief on a nearby cross:
"Then he [the thief] said, `Remember me when you come into your kingdom.' He replied, `Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise (Luke 23:42-43).'"
[Kalratri:] "Why should I wait for some Jewish person to come riding on a horse with his kingdom in Israel?"
_____________________________
Your crude caricature of Christ's anticipated millennial reign has two fatal flaws: (1) You assume that the Bible teaches that Christ's future kingdom will be located in time and space, that is, in Israel. But your error is exposed by Jesus' statement in Luke 17:20-21:
"Once having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, `The kingdom of God does not come with signs to be observed, nor will people say, `Here it is,' or `There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."
If Jesus road down to Israel on a horse, that would be "a sign to be observed", now wouldn't it? And if Jesus established His kingdom in Israel, people could say, "There it is", now wouldn't they?
(2) You are of course making a disparaging reference to the doctrine of Christ's future millennial reign. But the highly symbolic text on which this doctrine is primarily based never says that Christ's millennial reign will occur on this earth (Revelation 20:4-6). In fact, the prophetic seer envisions the divine creation of "a new heaven and a new earth" after our earth passes away (21:1). In his vision the new earth lacks any sea. It seems likely that the seer intends us to conclude that Christ's millennial reign will be located on this new earth, i. e. probably on an earthlike astral plane. Otherwise, "the new earth" has no function in early Christian thought!
Berserk
Hi Berserk,
I'm sorry you think I am being arrogant or facetious, I'm just being my natural obnoxious self... :P well, I'm glad that you have had a great experience and you are not one of those "it's my religion or else" type evangelists, but you must admit there are those types and it is to them that I pose these questions.
I have no problems with open minded sorts who read about every religion and offer all sages respect. Again, I never said I was against Christ, I simply asked a very good question...why wait for the return of anyone? Why should you leave the work of self redemption to someone else's return? Isn't that simply wasting your time...and you surely must agree that time waits for noone. Jesus has finished his job, now you have gotta do yours, you've got to bear the cross...or forget about it. Jesus never said he'll make it easier for you.
You also seem to have been somehow insulted that I speak of Quetzacoatl and Christ in the same breath. Why? That is quite arrogant. I was simply making the point that to me a Jewish God somewhere in Israel is the same as some Mayan God somewhere in south America... they do not speak to me...although as human beings, albeit of different spiritual lineages, we share some experiences.
And if you are insulted that Jesus can be compared to Quetzacoatl, Aryans can be insulted that their Gods are being compared to a Gods from a people who couldn't even rule Israel for long without Aryan help. The Mayans were a highly gifted people and so were there Gods, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna start worshipping Quetzacoatl any time soon and wait with baited breath his return :D
You also quote one of my conversations with Exothen, who despite my historical references of Mitanni ruling northern Syria and being a part of Egyptian royalty refuses to admit that the Bible as well as most world scriptures are a product of mutual influence and wishes to separate eastern traditions from the semitic ones simply because he can't stand the idea of humanity actually sharing spiritual ideas.
And yes I make no apologies, I do not think like many Christians, that the semitic tradition is the highest...or that they recieved the highest truths...I follow the Aryan traditions of my ancestors and I think they have the highest understanding...Aryans have been maligned as racists for far too long, with the semites quietly and sometimes violently converting people behind their backs...so it is not wrong for me to set the record straight and show the semites their own racist/casteist records -- they are sons of Adam no doubt, having lied and been kicked out of heaven...Aryans atleast are honest and have never misrepresented their beliefs to anyone...
Quote from: BerserkKalratri, just so you know: as a college religion professor, I regularly taught Hinduism in my course on Comparative Religion. I only spoke positively about your faith and had a great relationship with my Hindu colleague, who is one of the leading experts on Hinduism in America. All I want from you is this: replace your acerbic ad hominems with probing questions and I will never hassle you about your bias. I only wish I knew as much about Hinduism as my Hindu colleague.
No, Kalratri, I have not misjudged you. If you wonder about my blunt tone in dismantling both your critical skills and your penchant for gross inaccuracies, then you should know that I decided by pay you back in kind for your arrogant ad hominen attacks against a young Christian, exothen, in another thread. Here is a collage of your remarks to him:
"I know that in the neo-religious traditions of the Middle East, you are supposed to turn off your brain and just believe, but that's not the eastern way. . .But it seems you are not after the truth, but simply after continuing to believe what you believe. . . So what? What is your point (besides showing your poor reasoning)?. . .I'm just amazed that you and many other evangelists keep saying the same things, even after you are wrong."
You began the present thread by smugly confronting Christians with issues arising from a "very embarrassing quote" (Matthew 15:21-28). But I have exposed your many interpretive errors and demonstrated that your strident ignorance of biblical teaching is the only source of embarrassment here. So you resort to the desperate expedient of trying to save face by changing the subject to Christ's Second Coming and future millennial reign in Israel. Neither subject is relevant to your thread, but in making this shift you only succeed in exposing additional ignorance:
[Kalratri:] "Wait for the second coming of Quetzacoatl...? Are you crazy, what a waste of time! I'd rather work on my very own first resurrection."
_________________________________
I'll leave aside your sarcastic "Hallelujahs" and mocking comparison of Christ with Quetzelcoatl [note the correct spelling] and direct my comments to your mistaken assumption that the Christian hope is pinned to the second coming of Christ. True, in the early years of his ministry, Paul expects Christ's imminent return, and so, does not anticipate the fact that his converts will all die (see 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17; 1 Corinthians 15:51-52). But with additional revelation, Paul comes to the same realization as Jesus, namely that at death we receive spiritual bodies appropriate for the heavenly realm. Thus, Paul can exult in his later epistles:
"I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far (Philippians 1:23)."
"We know that if the earthly tent [body] we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God [a spiritual body], an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. . .While we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because. . . we long to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling [spiritual body], so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. . .We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:1, 3, 8)."
By his later epistles, Paul shares Jesus' conviction that we enter our heavenly home fully conscious at the moment of death. The crucified Jesus makes this conviction clear to the penitent thief on a nearby cross:
"Then he [the thief] said, `Remember me when you come into your kingdom.' He replied, `Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise (Luke 23:42-43).'"
[Kalratri:] "Why should I wait for some Jewish person to come riding on a horse with his kingdom in Israel?"
_____________________________
Your crude caricature of Christ's anticipated millennial reign has two fatal flaws: (1) You assume that the Bible teaches that Christ's future kingdom will be located in time and space, that is, in Israel. But your error is exposed by Jesus' statement in Luke 17:20-21:
"Once having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, `The kingdom of God does not come with signs to be observed, nor will people say, `Here it is,' or `There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."
If Jesus road down to Israel on a horse, that would be "a sign to be observed", now wouldn't it? And if Jesus established His kingdom in Israel, people could say, "There it is", now wouldn't they?
(2) You are of course making a disparaging reference to the doctrine of Christ's future millennial reign. But the highly symbolic text on which this doctrine is primarily based never says that Christ's millennial reign will occur on this earth (Revelation 20:4-6). In fact, the prophetic seer envisions the divine creation of "a new heaven and a new earth" after our earth passes away (21:1). In his vision the new earth lacks any sea. It seems likely that the seer intends us to conclude that Christ's millennial reign will be located on this new earth, i. e. probably on an earthlike astral plane. Otherwise, "the new earth" has no function in early Christian thought!
Berserk
First, I demonstrated that the contradictions you implied for Mattkew 15:21-28 are illusions based on your misunderstanding of Jesus' teaching.
Then, rather than address my detailed critique, your changed the subject to Christ's Second Coming and His future millennial kingdom in Israel.
I argued that you have no clue about either teaching and hence have no right to criticise them. You chose to ignore my refutations.
Then you asked, "Why leave the work of self-redemption to someone else's return?" But as I've just demonstrated in detail, Christ's second coming has nothing to do with your redemption unless you live to see it. In Christian teaching, redemption is a function of your spirituality in this life and is entered into immediately after death. Your critical comment, "I'd rather work on my own resurrection" merely proves that you haven't grasped this simple point. And as I have shown, so does your comment, "Why should I wait for some Jewish person to come riding on a horse with his kingdom in Israel?" So let me say it again, only more bluntly this time. Your question reveals a misunderstanding of biblical eschatology: The New Testament does not teach that Jesus will return to Israel.
You should know by now from my posts that I am no bibilcal inerrantist.
I am perceived as too New Agey by many of my fellow Christians. But I still believe in the power of the Gospel to redeem and transform and therefore that Christian missionary efforts are needed in every country, including India. Of course, I respect your right to disagree and even oppose that teaching.
My uncle has been a missionary to Indians most of his life and has converted thousands of Indians to the faith. I disagree with him on 3 critical points: (1) I insist that only God knows who is saved and who is not. Christians must not usurp God's prerogative. (2) Despite the uniqueness of Christ, other faiths have much to teach Christians. Indeed, the New Testament teaches that it is possible for non-Christians to be saved apart from formal profession of faith in Christ. Indeed, it may be important for more Christians to master astral projection like many early Christian prophets did. (3) God's love never permanenently abandons anyone after death. If these topics interest you, see my detailed treatment of them in my thread "A Fresh Look at Heaven."
Berserk
Quote from: Berserk
"I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far (Philippians 1:23)."
"We know that if the earthly tent [body] we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God [a spiritual body], an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. . .While we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because. . . we long to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling [spiritual body], so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. . .We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:1, 3, 8)."
yes, but you must remember that we are talking about evangelical christianity...which in order to get converts says:
1) The good news is Christ died for your sins...i.e. become baptized and you go to heaven--- tadaaa!
2) When Christ comes, all non-Christians will be killed or go to hell -- so convert now!
3) Yahweh was the ONE TRUE GOD, all other gods are false and you are pagan (HERE'S EXOTHEN)...this is when Aryans get an angry twitch since they remember that Yahweh always ran to the Aryan Gods to save his "chosen ones" and to give back little Israel to them on grounds of charity...This is the truth...it's not politically correct...but you can take it or leave it. And now we are to believe it is thanks to the Jewish God Yahweh, who could not even grant Israel to his own people without Aryan help, that Aryans are ruling the earth once again, when they have ruled it for eons without any Jewish God. Aryans are great spiritual attainers and have been granted their own covenant...thank you...and Aryans don't have to say 'woof, woof' to ANYONE.
In India, they go:
Did you know Aryans thought you were slaves, you should follow semitic God --- semites just say you should go "woof, woof" they'll throw you a few crumbs...
This thread is about the plague of evangelical Christianity from the deep ends where people don't really think too much. They misrepresent semitic tradition time and time again in a positive light and make Aryans into a bunch of spiritual clowns! :roll: .
:x Ooh, Aryans had many Gods :x ...oooh, Aryans were pagans...Aryans were racists...Aryans were mean...Aryans are unkosher...One would think Aryans were big green eyed monsters that plagued the earth and these poor, poor sons of Adam couldn't tell a lie, when that's the reason they were kicked out of heaven in the first place...
They have even misrepresented Aryan texts! Saying Aryans have many Gods. Rig Veda 1:132:2, the VERY FIRST BOOK talks about a UNIVERSAL ONE GOD. The BIble only talks about one diety, and he isn't even universal.
Why do Aryans rule the world? Certainly NOT because of the Jewish God yahweh: God says in the Rig Veda 4:26:7:2 : I give the earth to the Aryan.
Now I wonder what would happen if Aryans throughout the world demanded the earth, like Jews demand Israel because of their covenant?
Beserk I think you are being unfair to kalrarti. He's a hindu so he's not a new ager. I've noticed you have been bringing up the new age religion in all your posts. I like your first ones about reincarnation and other mystical concepts not being in the bible but the rest of it seems like you're just trying to attack new age, like you really have something against it.
I don't think that not liking christianity is uncharateristic of hinduism. I'm sure there are plenty of hindu's who don't agree with the christian preception of the divine -- the trinity and through the son being the only way to God. Rather the hindus see many different gods and godesses as avatars of devi or brahman and reverence of chosen avatars will bring salvation. Others see the immense similarity between krishna and christ and consider christ to be a saviour figure that hindus can embrace as a means to the divine and salvation.
Quote from: aryanknight666Others see the immense similarity between krishna and christ and consider christ to be a saviour figure that hindus can embrace as a means to the divine and salvation.
Hindus also see great similarities between Krishna and Santa Clause (Mrs. Santa Clause Be Upon Him 8) )...why we even understand how Santa Clause does all of his tricks -- Yoga of course... Santa is just another Yogi defying space time in his reindeer chariot...with his Siddhi magical powers able to shrink his giant Nordic body to fit into wee small chimney holes while not getting burnt by the fire at the same time...then he uses levitation to ascend back into his fiery reindeer chariot! :wink:
btw, GrandMa wasn't really run over by a reindeer, it was Santa Clause(Mrs. Santa Clause be Upon Him) looking for a new Mrs. to fill his harem in the north pole... obviously brought her back to life using ancient Hindu yogic tantrik techniques :twisted: santa likes being naughty too you know :) ...
and, yeah, Santa (Mrs. Santa Be upon Him)was actually a reincarnation of some Indian Yogi who wanted to be called "Jolly old Saint Nick" after he attained Nirvana...duh!
:D
and another btw, just because Santa did Yoga doesn't mean he is the ONLY ONE who could do such tricks and that we will start worshiping Santa (Mrs. Santa Be Upon Him) as the "light and the way" ...although he can join our myriad saints and yogi masters as "just one of the above"... :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yeah, Jesus is king of the Jews and them alone. I follow my messiah, Chris, Commander of the Canadians.
Quote from: TyciolYeah, Jesus is king of the Jews and them alone. I follow my messiah, Chris, Commander of the Canadians.
Well Chris Kringle is close to bursting his cholesterol filled arteries for you and all you can do is pontificate...well, ya' no what, whenever I hear Chris' sermon on Rudolph..."Rudolph with your nose so bright, won't you drive my sleigh tonight" :cry: :cry: :cry: just speaks to me about loving even weird reindeer with red noses...
Hi Kal...
I have been following the thread as your statements grapped me. I find however that your arguments do not hold water at all and that your statements seem largely biased and due to a gross ignorance . That is in itself not a problem for me. I also have many beliefs and what I call opinions that I have a hard time letting go off....even when I am confronted with and challenged by someone with better more logic arguments. What I find problematic is that you as a result of running out of arguments pull the subject down to a level where it does not belong through sarcasm and various unfounded statements. If all you have to base your statement on is what you have so far shown it seems viable to reason that your words are just that....words , no substance no strenght logic or even reasonable considerations. The world is full of people who make outrageous claims such as you did. Your reasoning does not impress me instead I find it flawed and must then conclude that you are leaning toward a bigoted throwing of mud maybe because of personal attitudes disappointments or bitterness.
Kindly Little Penguin
Quote from: LittlePenguinHi Kal...
I have been following the thread as your statements grapped me. I find however that your arguments do not hold water at all and that your statements seem largely biased and due to a gross ignorance . That is in itself not a problem for me. I also have many beliefs and what I call opinions that I have a hard time letting go off....even when I am confronted with and challenged by someone with better more logic arguments. What I find problematic is that you as a result of running out of arguments pull the subject down to a level where it does not belong through sarcasm and various unfounded statements. If all you have to base your statement on is what you have so far shown it seems viable to reason that your words are just that....words , no substance no strenght logic or even reasonable considerations. The world is full of people who make outrageous claims such as you did. Your reasoning does not impress me instead I find it flawed and must then conclude that you are leaning toward a bigoted throwing of mud maybe because of personal attitudes disappointments or bitterness.
Kindly Little Penguin
woooo, oh my gosh, I insulted a Clausian... :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: kalratriQuote from: TyciolYeah, Jesus is king of the Jews and them alone. I follow my messiah, Chris, Commander of the Canadians.
Well Chris Kringle is close to bursting his cholesterol filled arteries for you and all you can do is pontificate...well, ya' no what, whenever I hear Chris' sermon on Rudolph..."Rudolph with your nose so bright, won't you drive my sleigh tonight" :cry: :cry: :cry: just speaks to me about loving even weird reindeer with red noses...
Rudolph is a bunch of manufactured carp, he's not real like the other reindeer (all of whom are female). Santa's colours are red and white, just like Canada and Japan, coincidence? No. The only thing good that came from Rudolph was Yukon Cornelius and Eon from the sequel with Father Time. Eon kicked butt.
Dear Kal...
Insulted....not the least, why should I be insulted. I was just stating my point in regards to your line of arguments. I meet many people everyday that behave as you do and they certainly do not insult me at all. They do however leave me a bit sad and also feeling a bit sorry for them. If you choose this style that is your choice, the fact remain, that you through your own words have lost credibility and shown your self for what I believe you are an ignoramus....yes look it up. You are just one of the many ignorant loud mouthed persons sprouting off his or her own opinions and biased viewpoints, showing himself to be a fool. Thats all my friend just a fool. In this very aspect you , although I do not expect you to understand it, are actually very alike the very folks you attack and who you claim should be silenced. Have a nice day
Regards Little P
Quote from: TyciolQuote from: kalratriQuote from: TyciolYeah, Jesus is king of the Jews and them alone. I follow my messiah, Chris, Commander of the Canadians.
Well Chris Kringle is close to bursting his cholesterol filled arteries for you and all you can do is pontificate...well, ya' no what, whenever I hear Chris' sermon on Rudolph..."Rudolph with your nose so bright, won't you drive my sleigh tonight" :cry: :cry: :cry: just speaks to me about loving even weird reindeer with red noses...
Rudolph is a bunch of manufactured carp, he's not real like the other reindeer (all of whom are female). Santa's colours are red and white, just like Canada and Japan, coincidence? No. The only thing good that came from Rudolph was Yukon Cornelius and Eon from the sequel with Father Time. Eon kicked [edit].
http://www.santa-holidays.com/Santa-Claus-elves.html
with elf names like snowy bowy and tricky dicky in a place called "LAPland"...I would think the entire north pole is practicing some weird tantrik ritual or something... I wonder what kind of karma I have to have to be reborn in the north pole? :D
Quote from: LittlePenguinDear Kal...
Insulted....not the least, why should I be insulted. I was just stating my point in regards to your line of arguments. I meet many people everyday that behave as you do and they certainly do not insult me at all. They do however leave me a bit sad and also feeling a bit sorry for them. If you choose this style that is your choice, the fact remain, that you through your own words have lost credibility and shown your self for what I believe you are an ignoramus....yes look it up. You are just one of the many ignorant loud mouthed persons sprouting off his or her own opinions and biased viewpoints, showing himself to be a fool. Thats all my friend just a fool. In this very aspect you , although I do not expect you to understand it, are actually very alike the very folks you attack and who you claim should be silenced. Have a nice day
Regards Little P
If your naughty Santa grows a pointy tail and horns and takes you into a cave in the South Pole...his ho, ho, ho turns into BWA! HA !HA!HA! and his bag of gifts holds torture instruments...His Anti-Santa Avatar... :evil:
kalratri,
Enough is enough!
It seems you have a primary objective in mind here and it has nothing to do with subject title of the thread!
These forums are not designed for the express purpose for you to spout your personal opinion against Christianity, Islam, the Jews, Semites and any other group you feel you do not like at any particular time.
On that basis this thread is locked.
Stephen