₦airaland Forum

Kobojunkie:
Again, the context is the Gospel, not some private delusion one chooses in the name of religion.
...


2. That isn't what Jesus Christ of Israel said. Rather, what He said, as detailed below, is that the children first have their fill before the rest is given to the dogs, i.e., it is not right to take the children's bread and give it to the dogs before they are even done eating.

Again, religion does something ....

Have a good day.

Kobojunkie:
1. Are you joking? 🥱

The context here is the Gospel where over and over the children of the house/Master are referred to as sheep that He, the good shepherd, was sent to gather back. 🥱

2. The context of the Gospel message of Jesus Christ of Israel is the Gospel. And that extends to the Laws and the Prophets as He never removes anything He says from all of that. 🥱

I have no time for this kind of dishonesty.
A specific statement was made where one group were called children of the house and another the dogs. He also said that the children should eat their fill rather than have their food thrown to dogs. That is what was said.

If you want to spin this, please just go and play with your toys somewhere else.

Kobojunkie:
Hold up! He referred to the Israelites as sheep, lost ones at that, in the same context. Sheep are animals that are largely considered stewpid and in need of a master. But somehow that is not profane? Dogs, on the other hand, are capable of surviving on their own, to the point of even having the ability to lead sheep, yet somehow you think the term is profane and racist when used for non-Israelites(not gentiles)? It seems to me that you have an agenda, and this is not about what Jesus Christ of Israel, in fact, said. 🤔

This is dishonest. In the particular sentence quoted, he referred to the Jews as children of the house, not as sheep. That's the context, while comparing them to gentiles who he called dogs. He also said that the children should eat their fill rather than have their food thrown to dogs. That is what was said.

Wherever else they may be referred to as sheep, you know very well that it has it's own context which simply renders the reference as one of the relationship between a shepherd and his herd, namely, a group he guides.

Dtruthspeaker:
Ask him oo.

It is you I am asking oh.

MaxInDHouse:
He wasn't referring to you but gentiles who adopted Judaism and they were so pleased that the promised Messiah recognized them as pets in the house of their masters. Matthew 15:27
So you don't have to worry it's none of your business if you aren't part of those who chose Judaism.

This is a weird excuse. And the fact that you say domestic pet leads me to believe you either used a concordance or AI in researching your approach. Fair enough but still, whether puppy or domestic pet it is still derogatory in the way used.

Jesus is the word of our God {John 1:1} so whatever protrudes out of his mouth is exactly what our God would have said if He is here in person! Matthew 17:5; John 5:30; 8:28

This just amounts to calling him God.

Dtruthspeaker:
Is the evidence not seen and known?

At least you admit that people wrote it so Off Point

Who would have written it before, goats?

Kemetian:
Where is your evidence that 'Jesus' existed?

Are you aware the New Testament was written by ANONYMOUS writers?

Indeed i am aware.

Also, i do not assume that Jesus as described in the gospels was a single historical person. My general idea is that he could be a composite of several persons and prevailing urban legends of the time.

However my query remains based on the Jesus presented in scripture. I am interested in that for personal reasons.

PS: You managed to write a post without typing in all caps and starting with an insult. There is hope for you.

zedman1:
If you must criticize anything, do it well. I don't think there's any university in Nigeria where students of faculties such as Law or MBBS don't wear uniforms. Abi na primary school you dey not to have known this?

Its still yuck. I was in Unilag over twenty five years ago when they started suggesting black and white for law students and even back then we thought it was madness.

MaxInDHouse:
From his father's viewpoint all mankind are DEAD {Romans 5:14;Luke 9:60} yet a LIVING dog is better than a DEAD lion {Ecclesiastes 9:4} even though that woman was called dog she is still like a domestic pet who always eat from its owners crumbs. Matthew 15:27
Due to her faith in the God of the Jews she chose to live among them despite the fact that Jews never view gentiles as equal to them but she obviously chose Judaism which makes her closer to salvation already because salvation of mankind comes through the Jews. John 4:22
However she perfectly understood Jesus' illustration and that earned her a credit from Jesus himself who declared that he is seeing faith that's lacking in the Jewish community among gentiles! Matthew 8:10; 15:28
Finally Jesus who has been consistent with the salvation plan declared to the Jews that God has chosen another nation to carry out the job {Matthew 21:43} and of course such gentiles who were formerly viewed as dogs now has better chances with the God of Abraham than the Jews themselves! Matthew 8:11-12

All this grammar does not excuse such a profane racist analogy by JC, if truly he was referring to Gentiles as dogs.

Do you still think the true God is a racist?🙂

Since when do you, a JW, equate Jesus with God?

Kobojunkie:
But none of the verses contradict any of what Jesus Christ of Israel(not me) said of His Father sending Him only to the Lost sheep of Israel. 🤔

Jesus Christ of Israel said He was the Truth of YHWH, did He not? Meaning there could exist no contradiction in any of the statements He made... His Gospel was contradiction-proof... is that not the case?
Given the truth of the premises set above, what conclusion regarding the Gospel would best produce a valid and, at the same time, sound argument from the above? 🤔

Of the six verses i provided, five are direct words of JC.

MaxInDHouse:
NO!
After He confused people's language God called one man named "Abraham" as he was willing to do what most of his contemporaries wouldn't try which is doing things according to the will of an unseen friend who keeps telling him what to do even when he is not comfortable with it. Hebrews 11:8-9
God promised to save mankind through this man's lineage {Genesis 12:1-3} even among Abraham's eight sons God stick to the child born by the man's first wife (Sarah) and from that time until Jesus was born God kept all His promises to His dear friend Abraham!
What most people failed to understand is that after the rebellion in Eden Satan gained full control over the earth as the chosen dictator our first parents preferred to God who is their Creator so God had no moral justification to interfere in Satan's government but at least He could continue in His purpose to rescue obedient humans from the curse brought upon the planet and that is exactly what God focused on doing.
From Abraham till the time Jesus walked the earth only one nation God faced as His chosen race to set example for the rest! Exodus 19:5
With this God opened the door for any individual throughout the world to enter into His purpose for salvation through the redemption plan. John 1:11-12, 3:16
So when Jesus stick to that plan it wasn't a case of racism but consistency!

Is that why he would refer to the Gentiles as dogs?

Kobojunkie:
The original Jesus Christ was an Israelite who made it known that He was sent only to the Lost sheep of Israel.

In the religion of Christianity, the Jesus Christ character somehow subverts the will of his father to include in his doctrine all non-Israelites. In the religion of Islam, Isa, the copy, claims that not only was he sent to non-Israelites, but that he also was not sent by his father. There are also many other attempts at copies in the various denominations of each religion. So, it becomes important to differentiate the original entity from all the religious copies out there. It is for this reason that I stress the fact that not only was He the Will of His Father, but He was also sent by His Father only to the Lost sheep of Israel.

These verses contradict you -

Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Mark 16:15: "And he said to them, 'Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.'"

Luke 24:47: "...and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

1 John 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

John 10:16: "And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd." (Referring to Gentiles).

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus was sent to gather only his future corulers in turn this will go throughout the earth to gather their future subjects. All his corulers were supposed to be chosen among Israelites that is why Jesus keeps avoiding people who are not Israelites.
Centuries before his time the nation of Israel splitted into two which are the ten Northern tribes later known as the Samaritans and the two Southern tribes known as Jews. Samaritans stopped listening to prophets who were rejecting their forms of worship as they kept doing what was wrong in their choice of worship so by the time Jesus walked the earth only the Jews had the complete scriptures from Genesis to Malachi as for Samaritans its only the five books of Moses they regarded as inspired writings.
So Jesus regarded the Jews as prepared race awaiting the Messiah since they had all the scriptures to guide them. John 4:22
That is why he specifically told his first century disciples not to enter into the cities of Samaritans (for they can't know all the promises of God regarding the Messiah) but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (those earnestly waiting for the Messiah) Matthew 10:6

Is there not racism in this?

Kobojunkie:
The religion of Christianity is a system that was built by Romans, not Israelites. (Your church fathers were all non-Israelites.) It does not follow the basics of what is written in the Gospel of Jesus Christ of Israel. Rather, it pretends that by way of its many interpretations and implications thereof, many of which directly contradict what is in fact recorded in the books of Israelite Scripture, somehow a non-Israelite can magically partake in the inheritance meant only for the Israelites. That religion literally has no direct connection to anything contained in the books of Israelite Scripture. 🤔

It is sort of like having a non-Yoruba laying claim to inheritance meant only for Yorubas in Yorubaland.

And yes, I am anti-religion or irreligious. Though I do understand the place of and need for non-violent religion/tradition in the lives of individuals and nations.

Why do you use the peculiar phrase "Jesus Christ of Israel" to refer to Jesus?

Kobojunkie:
1. Huh? It seems you completely ignored the actual message contained in the very same passage.
You literally ignored the fact that the Priest, the Pharisee, and the Samaritan, in the story, were all Israelites.

2. That schism goes further back, at least 500 years before Jesus Christ of Israel. It is from the time that the original nation of Israel was divided into two states -- the northern nation of Israel, of which its capital was named Samaria, and the southern state of Judea.

3. It was more than just that. If you recall, during the time of Nehemiah and Ezra, that same accusation was leveled against the Jews themselves, yet that didn't cause them to alienate their own people the same way they did the others from the 10 tribes that belonged to the other Israelite Nation that was destroyed by the Assyrians.

4. Jesus Christ of Israel did not use the word "despised" to describe the Samaritans in that context.

5. Neiman's faith was also praised -- he obeyed the command that was given him and was healed as a result. Did that faith qualify Neiman for the promise and covenant that was made by YHWH of Israel only to the Israelites?

Well, I see you are steadfast in your view. So, I take it that you are not Christian and you don't believe that any non Jew can or should be Christian.

Kobojunkie:
1. Well, if you would carefully read through the books of Israelite Scripture, including, read Deuteronomy 28-30 and Ezekiel 34, maybe you will get an idea of why He had to send His servants to the four corners of the earth(all Nations) to gather back the Lost sheep of Israel. The YHWH of Israel Himself promised to scatter His sheep across all of the nations of the world, promising that He would go out as the Good Shepherd that He is, to gather them all back to Himself.

2. Huh? The Samaritans are Israelites, likely descendants of the line of Joseph - Ephraim and Manassah.

3. Recall that during the time of the kings, Neiman the Assyrian soldier was healed by Elisha of Israel. Did that encounter suddenly make Neiman part of the Inheritance that was promised to Israel alone? The correct answer would be no. Miracles/healings were never limited to only the Israelites. So, I don't ever understand the reasoning that because a person was healed by Jesus Christ of Israel, therefore that person was somehow welcomed into the covenant that belonged only to Israelites.

As regards 1, he did not say go to Jews in all nations. He said, people of all nations.

As regards 2, I am aware of who the Samaritans were. I asked what the parable implies. Because to my mind it implies that those who do good deeds are those truly approved of by Christ regardless of where they come from or their pretenses to piety (as symbolized by "a priest and a Levite."

Note that there was a schism between Jews and Samaritans at the time of Christ:

The Jewish tradition held that after the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom of Israel (c. 722 BC), the remaining Israelites intermarried with foreign pagans who were relocated into the region. This led Judeans to view Samaritans as descendants of mixed blood. - Extracted.

This is why Jesus used the phrase "a despised Samaritan" in the parable.

As regards 3, it just suggests that he did not discriminate, especially as he praised the centurion's faith.

Uniforms? Yuck!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Kobojunkie:
I don't THINK it. The Gospels literally report, several times, that Jesus Christ of Israel was sent by YHWH of Israel to gather the Lost sheep of Israel (Ezekiel 34). He described Himself as the Good Shepherd, a term YHWH of Israel used in describing Himself through His prophets.. Also, He specifically said Israelites, not just those among them who were Jews.

Surely his gospel was more expansive than this limited view, otherwise how can you explain the Great Commission where he instructs his disciples to preach to people of all nations - Matthew 28:18–20?

Also what would his Parable of the Good Samaritan imply and what about the healing of the Centurion's servant as described in Matthew 8 and Luke 7?

Kobojunkie:
I accept that the books of Israelite Scripture are meant only for Israelites, as continuously highlighted in the message of every one of the Laws and the prophets detailed in the Books.

And you think that the NT is for Jews alone?

Kobojunkie:
If you believe that by reasserting the fact that He was sent by His Father, YHWH of Israel alone, only to the Lost sheep of Israel(sheep) and not the non-Israelites(dogs) makes him a racist in your book, then there is nothing he can do about that.

I am yet to decide what I think the scripture there is saying.

What is your take.

What does this scripture disclose?

Mark 7.

24 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”

30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.......

Perhaps some leading Christians can help out here.

Kukutente23/ TV01/ Jesusjnr2020

raumdeuter:
You mean a fake account was able to plug into you and generation an emotional response

Typical liberal

I feel hard done by.

raumdeuter:
Yes the messenger who wrote the message you posted clearly stated that it was a parody account was able to deceive emotional people like you

Now you are saying the account has been deleted, A fake account was able to deceive you? Are you that gullible?

Regardless, the question is the message, not the messenger.

Stop being emotional, your emotions are all over the place.

raumdeuter:
Thats how emotional people get scammed by parody accounts, It pays to think deep and be logical

What was posted there was no joke.
Stop being emotional.
The message, not the messenger.

LordReed:
I'll say I ate before I came.

Why so polite, the correct reaction should be to woz them all a round of hot slaps, then frog-jump the would be mother and father in law, followed by a round of 100 lashes of a bullwhip for all family members , cancellation of the wedding and confiscation of all their assets.

raumdeuter:
Only emotional people would be deceived by an account that states its a parody

Ol boy is emotional the only word in ya dictionary?
Funny enough, I just checked again and the account has been deleted.

raumdeuter -

https://x.com/lord_avicenna/status/2064433628919058438?s=20

marlow1962:
No thank you.

That will be the first and last day visiting them and their daughter will be banned from my kitchen. .

Only from your kitchen? You will be comfortable in the relationship knowing that she was raised eating such?

basilico:
What dots. You mentioned Congress. I gave you evidence Congress under democrats us hopelessly corrupt.

How is that a point I have ever raised or disputed?
Why are you scattered and all over the place?

You are not tempered, please stop using that thing.

IjeBos:
Why didn't they host the World Cup in this "Real America" then instead of the "fake Liberal AMerica"?
Lol
Everything is emotions.

He is waaaaaayyyyy toooo emotional.

basilico:
Explain why I'm daft.
That was a flawed process that Congress used to impeach trump.
You wanted evidence , I gave you . You result to insults.

Can you even connect the dots from point to point for Christ's sake ? ? ? ? ?