₦airaland Forum

God2man2again:
Grace to hear God's voice is very important.

Stop trading this lie abeg! God has absolutely nothing to do with Nigeria or what is happening to OP.

DestinedForGrea:
➜How many persons have you encountered who masturbate and aren't addicted to it? ➜Humans always love an easy way out of a problem. Once that way becomes adopted and comfortable, it becomes a norm real fast. That's the case with masturbation, for people who have little or no means for release of sexual tension.
➜Do you understand? No, I'm sure you don't. Let me make it plain: masturbation is easily addictive. You can't masturbate and not want to do it again, often.
➜As for my religious standpoint, I don't care what you think. I base my opinions about life generally on what God says, whether science backs it up or not. Call me religious, I won't budge. It's you who sees that as an insult, but that's my pride. You'd need to come up higher to see things differently.

See attached information! 🙄

2. Bullsheet! 🙄🙄

3. Religious gobbledegook is meaningless to me. 🙄🙄🙄

4. You cannot critically reason reality and life while coloring it all with the religious lies/hogwash you have been fed by your scammers-in-the-lords. That is a fact made clear even in this case. 🙄🙄🙄🙄

DestinedForGrea:
➜And there you go again. You just can't stop proving how unreasonable you are.
You think throwing around the words "religion" and "religious" makes you smart? You think people who hold a supernatural worldview are dull?
By the way, "masturbation is bad" and "masturbation is a sin" are essentially two different statements. That is attacking the matter from two areas. Of course, you can't understand because you're too quick to play the "religion" card, which you think makes you smart. Please go away.

See this one! 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

Addiction is what is bad, not masturbation. Not everyone who masturbates ends up addicted. You would know and understand this if you would reasonably approach matters such as this. But sadly, religion strips the vast majority of the ability and capability to critically reason matters hence the reason why I point it out since your earlier comment on this very same thread was piled high with religious gobbledegook devoid of real meaning. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

abba190b:
➜what the FCK is happening? Am I a failure or what? I just logged into facebook 3 of my childhood friends are getting married this weekend. Talk less of the ones that did so, long time ago, while all I do is struggle for my daily bread.
➜Who do I offend in this life abeg? Why am I the poorest among my friends? Why all the people that I grow up with are getting it better than me? Some will say I should thank God that I am alive, my mates are lying down in mortuary, some in their graves, yes I thank God for life, but I think I will be better off dead than this kind of life I am facing.
➜ It has reached a level where my parents have now leveled me as failure and stop taking me serious. paying attention to my younger ones. Life is a bitchchchchhc

In 2025, you believe that marriage is a sign of success? 🙄

2. If you truly do believe you are better off dead, you know what to do. Just be sure you have plans for the after-cleanup. 🙄🙄

3. Well, if they feel that way, why dem no born wife for you put? I would not in good conscience send you out there to go shackle any woman's daughter all so you can have your ignorant parents consider you in a better light. 🙄🙄🙄

DestinedForGrea:
➜You've got nothing sensible to say. Run along now, kid.

This comes from someone who, in 2025, senselessly indicated that Masturbation has something to do with his religious ideas rather than admitting it as the behavioral illness that it is. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

DestinedForGrea:
➜I understand that when something is too complex for a little mind to grasp, it's tagged unreasonable. What is the point having an intelligent conversation with someone whose brain is programmed to argue blindly, just to show that they're right?
Please stop mentioning me, seeing your name alone is disgusting and annoying. I really don't like people who love to argue for the sake of it.

That you believe that a writeup of yours can be qualified as complex serves as proof of the terrible damage religion inflicts on one's ability to think clearly.

DestinedForGrea:
➜Meaningless to you, because you refuse to think. I won't bother to engage you, you're impossible to reason with.

That entire writeup of yours is devoid of reasoning; it is a pile of religious gobbledegook, so I wonder how you intend to above that in bold, to begin with.

Lukuluku69:
✓ Funny enough a certain Paul wrote that there are Two Convenant/Two Jerusalem. One for Isaac and One for Ishmael.
✓ We have seen Isaac Convenant in Judeo-Christian Ways, Sir where can I find Ishmael's?

Paul never said any of what you claim. Also, the only two Covenants that the God of Israel made with the people of Israel are

✓ The covenant that is the Nation of Israel which was given to them by Moses
✓ The covenant of Salt promised through David and His bloodline to all of Israel which is Jesus Christ

The selection of Isaac by YHWH was a promise made to Abraham, not a Covenant made to Israel.

Questionsonly:
A popular preacher name withheld (because this is not a bashing thread )said that you must be 100% healthy before you are qualified to get married.

How true is this? Does the Bible says so ? So an SS patient must turn AA or AS before they can get married that is if luck smiles on them?

Why you folks listen to these bunch of crazy scammers is something I will probably never understand.

An SS-patient can marry however, it would be utterly wicked for an SS-patient...inhumane even...for an SS to consider having a baby knowing the chances exist for the baby to turn out SS at birth. That would definitely be an unimaginably cruel existence for any mother or father to punish her own flesh and blood with.

DestinedForGrea:
✓ Thank God for the sound scriptural knowledge that I have and the liberty to attend a local church with sound doctrine. If not, I'd have been deceived by folks like you.
Firstly, the fact that a word or a concept wasn't explicitly used or stated in the Bible does not necessarily mean that God approves of it or doesn't. The words "masturbation" and "pornography" were not used in the Bible, but that doesn't make them practices that God approves. The point is, they are against God's design for man. God designed man to please himself sexually with his spouse alone, not himself or anyone else. Anything besides that is a sin. Sex in itself is not a sin, but doing it the wrong way is.

Let's focus a bit on masturbation. Why is it that, to masturbate, a person needs to come in contact with sexual content (either by fantasizing or consuming illicit sexual information in the form of pornography)? That in itself is a perversion of God's original intention for man's sexual needs and satisfaction.

Anything that you do that inflicts harm on you or someone else is a sin. God did not plant those things in the earth you created, then why would you think it's okay to do them? A man drinks himself to stupor, sleeps and wakes up in a gutter, a person fornicates and ends up contracting diseases or conceiving a child inadvertently, and you say those things are not sins? I don't know if you go to church or not, but either way, you're under strong deception. Masturbation, fornication, pornography, drunkenness, as well as a host of others have a general effect -- to destroy their victims (in one way or another).

Back to masturbation, I'll reiterate, it has ZERO benefit and a ton of disadvantages; a few of which I mentioned in my previous comment. I'll charge you to ask at least ten people who are struggling with masturbation and want to get out, what it has done to them. I bet you, you'd get the same response I shared here. In fact, VDM who shared this video said the same thing. If you think there's nothing wrong with masturbation and other addictions, then serious questions need to be asked concerning your supposed faith in God and His word.

I'm a child of God, but I've struggled with masturbation even before I became His. I can tell you that He's helping me deal with that nonsense and restoring me to the person I ought to be -- His child. You won't understand, unless you renew your mind. I pray you do.
Peace!

Stop with all of these meaningless lies already! 🙄🙄🙄🙄

JustJoined001:
➜Nah, I don’t suffer from body stuff… I think it’s just the breathe which she mentioned….
But Mehn broken down… just need to break up and then fix the breathe thing.

If you no longer like her, then break up with her. No biggie!

Peakdesign23:
God is real.
Heaven is real.
Hell is real.
Devil is real.

Are your gods of men aware of all of this? Does this only apply to your their gullible followers? I ask because most of your gods-of-men don't seem to care much about this desire for heaven since they already built it for themselves here on earth through the sweat, time, and lives of their sheeples. 🤔

Queengee:
✓ When I was young used to be very scared of hell especially when in church and the preacher narrated the horrors of hell, but now things have changed . I don't know maybe because eyes has seen many things in three decades of my existence, really don't get scared of hell fire anymore , anytime someone or pastors talk about it it sounds like every other takes to me, I think something is wrong with me, does anyone here now feel the same way ? Men of God in the house please how can I go back to my former self and start believing hell is real

unconsciously, you have realized and accepted the lie only consciously you may not have acknowledged it. That is pretty my much the story with most religious people if you ask me. I bet when you were younger, you would scold yourself harshly for sinning but as time went by you began believing rather that your sins were specially pardon by your deity as opposed to the sins of others. You also probably began also believing that those who sinned against you, --- even if the same sins you may have yourself committed against others --would always get punished severely by your deity.

ricson11:
Pastor Tobi of SPAC Nation raised £500,000 in 5 minutes for charity
£500,000= 1 billion Naira plus.

These liars never quit!

Nachmonides:
Why Mention "Semitic"?
1. Shem as the Ancestor of the Israelites:
Shem is traditionally viewed as the forefather of the Semitic peoples, including the Israelites (descendants of Jacob/Israel), Arabs, and others in the ancient Near East.
The Bible traces the lineage of the covenant people—Israel—through Shem, making him crucial to biblical history.
2. Distinction Between Lineages in Genesis 10:
Genesis 10 lists the descendants of Noah's three sons (Japheth, Ham, and Shem) and their respective geographic and linguistic distributions.
Japheth’s descendants are labeled "Gentiles" in this passage, but the descendants of Ham and Shem are not explicitly given that label.
3. Implications for the Term "Gentiles":
In Genesis 10, Gentiles is applied specifically to Japheth's descendants, but as the term evolves in Scripture, it comes to mean any non-Israelite.
The distinction between Semitic (descendants of Shem) and non-Semitic peoples becomes important when understanding later biblical uses of terms like "Gentiles."

It's the way you lot think it is OK to contravene what is stated only to them suggest that these contradictory ideas of yours equally fit into what is written to leaves me floored.

1 This is the history of the families of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. They are Noah’s sons. These men had children after the flood.
Japheth’s Descendants
2 Japheth’s sons were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras.
3 Gomer’s sons were Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah.
4 Javan’s sons were Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.[a]
5 All the people who lived in the area around the Mediterranean Sea came from these sons of Japheth. The people separated and went to different countries according to languages, families, and nations. - Genesis 10 vs 1 - 5

At the time in question, we are informed that all — not some— of the people who lived in the area around the Mediterranean Sea, were from the sons of Japheth. No Semitic or non-Semitic differences existed in that context.

The term Gentile was used about the family or clan of Japheth in the passage; it seems to separate those of them who remained within the Mediterranean Sea region and those who separated to go to different countries, all according to languages, families, and nations. Again, there we are made to know they were all of them of the same family of Japheth!

The etymology of the term Gentile indicates it is used about people belonging to a family, clan or particular tribal group.

TOPCRUISE:
That is why the day of the Lord which will come like a thief in the night will not be revealed to any human being as no one knows the exact day or hour it will happen.

Oh! So this day of the lords will come and carry the hooligans and sluts who entered your churches before December 31st while abandoning the hooligans and sluts outside of your churches along with the others who entered after December 31st, abi?

Nachmonides:
➜You're simply unintelligent to be attacking scriptures, you have no idea the weight of study involved. You should keep shut and spend the next 30 years studying to see if the things it claims are true. You remain foolish to your own detriment. Even the science you believe in is catching up with scriptures and agreeing.I used to be an ardent adherent of science and scorned at scriptures, unbelievable fables I'd call them, like you I scorned at it.Until I humbled myself in the study. The eyes of my understanding became enlightened.I shouldn't have engaged this conversation, reading from your profile, you seem to be everywhere, attacking Christians, you have your mind made up. You attack Christians, get another hobby, start "attacking" scriptures, examine to see if it is true. Be true to the science of theology, see if it doesn't get vindicated. I believe in the power of God for you, towards you, you are not a lost cause. You too, can be used by God for his glory, I am not to engage in endless conversations that lead to unbelief. Shalom.... I will be mute on this matter henceforth.

I believe in facts ... not fiction and certainly not religious gobbledegook which you seem to overflow with. The sad of all of this is that you use terms like context which you blatantly disregard every single change you can only to continue asserting ideas that violate what is clearly stated in the same Scriptures you quote from.

I attempted to get you to showcase your ability to critically reason what you claim to believe in and in response posted a bunch of religious gobbledegook that invariably condemns Jesus Christ of Israel a liar without even realizing it. That is there as proof that you don't even realize how steeped in falsehood you have become all thanks to religion. Jesus Christ of Israel proclaimed that He is the Truth of God meaning that every word He spoke was Truth. However, you constantly contravened His Truths— I gave you 4 premises and you immediately found ways to trash them all to assert your ideas over His— yet refuse to see how it invariably means you cannot be of Him— you are against Him. The blindness caused by religion is one beyond medical science. I mean this inability to critically reason even one's own beliefs are unacceptable by any scale.

Nachmonides:
➜Read all of my texts, you'll find the conclusion there.

I already told you that religious gibberish is not my thing. Base your conclusion on the exact statements made in all those 4 premises making certain to apply all rules of logic/critical thinking when you do so. Given that all 4 premises are declared to be the Truth of God of Israe, therefore the conclusion must assert the Truth of all four premises combined.

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/logic_in_argumentative_writing/using_logic.html

essentialone1:
➜This is why hooligans must not be allowed to attend Churches on 31st December Night.

The hooligans and sluts— sinners/unholy people — in your churches before December 31st are better than the hooligans and sluts that show up on December 31st?

essentialone1:
➜Too much of everything is bad

Are you insinuating that your churches have no more space for more of the same hooligans and sluts on december 31st? 😏

Nachmonides:
Introduction to Logic, haha, an interesting course in my first year as a computer science student. I read M.Irving Copi's book. Let's look at your logic and analyse using Copi's ideas:Argument Restatement (Using Copi’s Framework):
1. Premises:
Premise 1: Jesus said He was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24).
Premise 2: Jesus warned against giving what is holy to the dogs (Matthew 7:6).
Premise 3: Jesus instructed His disciples to avoid Gentiles and Samaritans, focusing only on Israel (Matthew 10:5-6).
Premise 4: After His resurrection, Jesus commanded His disciples to go and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19-20).
2. Potential Conclusion:
There seems to be a tension between Jesus’ initial restriction to Israel and the later command to reach all nations. The goal is to determine whether the premises logically support a coherent conclusion.


Logical Evaluation (Using Copi's Methods):
1. Testing for Validity
The premises must logically lead to the conclusion without contradiction.
A key question is whether the shift from exclusivity to inclusivity represents a contradiction or a progression.
2. Clarifying Terms
Lost Sheep of Israel: Refers specifically to Israelites who were estranged from God.
Dogs: A metaphor used in a specific context, often to denote those outside Israel at that time.
All Nations: Refers to all ethnic groups (ethne in Greek), extending beyond Israel.
3. Analyzing Logical Consistency
Premises 1, 2, and 3 consistently emphasize the priority of Israel during Jesus’ earthly ministry.
Premise 4 introduces a broader mission, which could imply either:
a) A contradiction in Jesus’ commands, or
b) A deliberate progression from a specific mission to a universal one.
4. Avoiding Logical Fallacies
Fallacy of Hasty Generalization:
Assuming Jesus’ initial focus on Israel excludes the possibility of a later universal mission would be premature without evidence to the contrary.
Fallacy of Equivocation:
Misinterpreting terms like “lost sheep,” “dogs,” or “all nations” without considering their context could lead to flawed reasoning.
Copi's Deductive Approach:
Step 1: Logical Formulation
If Premise 1: Jesus was sent only to Israel.
If Premise 4: Jesus later commanded His disciples to teach all nations.
Then: The shift suggests a progression in His mission, not necessarily a contradiction.
Step 2: Assessing the Argument’s Form
The argument can be framed as a hypothetical syllogism:
1. If Jesus’ mission initially focused on Israel (Premise 1),
2. And if He later expanded it to all nations (Premise 4),
3. Then His mission was first particular (to Israel) and later universal (to all nations).
Step 3: Establishing Validity and Soundness
Validity: The structure is logically valid. The premises support the conclusion that Jesus’ mission evolved in scope.
Soundness: Depends on the truth of the premises. The biblical texts confirm both the initial restriction (Premises 1-3) and the later expansion (Premise 4).
Conclusion (Based on Copi’s Principles):
The argument is valid under deductive reasoning: Jesus’ earthly mission was initially focused on Israel but expanded to include all nations after His resurrection. This does not represent a contradiction but a progression in God’s salvific plan.

What in the world is all of this meaningless gibberish for? All I asked for a simple conclusion based on the statements which where all of them declarations taken from the Gospel of Jesus Christ of Israe. Is it that you don't understand what a conclusion statement should be from the given statements or what? Again! 🤔

Did you ever take a class in Logic for instance? If you did, this would be a good exercise for you to exercise your critical reasoning abilities as opposed to spewing religious gobbledegook any further.

Premise 1: I was sent only to the Lost sheep of Israel - Matthew 15:24
Premise 2: Do not give that which is Holy to the dogs - Matthew 7 vs 6
Premise 3: Don’t go to the non-Jewish people. And don’t go into any town where the Samaritans live. But go to the people of Israel. They are like sheep that are lost. - Matthew 10 vs 5-6
Premise 4: 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. - Matthew 28:19-20
Conclusion: ??

What do you think would be the most reasonable conclusion from all of the above proclamations made by the person of Jesus Christ?
Take your time — days even — to respond. 🤔

Nachmonides:
1, "Gentiles" in Genesis 10
In Genesis 10:5 (KJV):
> "By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations."
This verse refers to the descendants of Japheth and their spread into territories, specifically the regions around the Mediterranean and beyond. Here, Gentiles is used to describe non-Semitic nations—those distinct from the descendants of Shem (who would include Israel).
The term Gentiles here reflects ethnic and geographic separation rather than theological categorization. The original Hebrew word "goyim" is often translated as nations, referring to peoples outside Israel in a general sense.

But there were no Semitic nations in Genesis 10, so? So, how can Gentiles there refer to non-Semitic nations when all that was referenced was the family of Japheth who are written to have occupied the area at the time? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Nachmonides:
➜It depends on the translation you're reading I guess

The problem here is not the translations which all agree that Jesus Christ was indeed sent ONLY to the Lost sheep of Israel(by YHWH of Israel) but what is written versus your private ideas of what is written. You can take your time to respond over the next couple of days .

Nachmonides:
2
Jesus commands His disciples in Matthew 28:19-20:
> "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."
Does This Nullify Matthew 15?
It does not nullify Jesus’ earlier focus on Israel but rather builds upon it. The Gospel’s trajectory follows a progression:
Phase 1: Ministry to Israel (Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24)
Phase 2: Extension to All Nations (Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 1:8 )

Did you ever take a class in Logic for instance? If you did, this would be a good exercise for you to exercise your critical reasoning abilities as opposed to spewing religious gobbledegook any further.

Premise 1: I was sent only to the Lost sheep of Israel - Matthew 15:24
Premise 2: Do not give that which is Holy to the dogs - Matthew 7 vs 6
Premise 3: Don’t go to the non-Jewish people. And don’t go into any town where the Samaritans live. But go to the people of Israel. They are like sheep that are lost. - Matthew 10 vs 5-6
Premise 4: 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. - Matthew 28:19-20
Conclusion: ??

What do you think would be the most reasonable conclusion from all of the above proclamations made by the person of Jesus Christ?

You are free to take your time — days even — to respond. 🤔

Nachmonides:
1, Jesus explicitly states in Matthew 15:24:
> "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
I do not deny it.
This is a clear and unambiguous statement regarding the primary focus of Jesus' earthly ministry. His mission was indeed to Israel, fulfilling God’s covenant promises to Jacob’s descendants. However, this statement does not necessarily preclude the eventual extension of the Gospel beyond Israel.

You just lied! Either that or you believe Jesus Christ of Israel is a liar! So, which should it be? 🙄

Nachmonides:
➜Question 2:Does Scripture use "Gentiles" to refer to non-Israelites?
Your assertion that Gentiles does not refer to non-Israelites is important to explore. Here’s the evidence for how the term is commonly understood and applied:
Old Testament Usage:
The Hebrew word goyim (translated as "Gentiles" or "nations" often refers to non-Israelite peoples:
Genesis 10:5: “From these the coastland peoples spread in their lands...each with its own language, by their clans, in their nations [goyim].”
➜Isaiah 49:6: “I will make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”
➜In these cases, Gentiles clearly refers to non-Israelite nations.
➜New Testament Usage: The Greek word ethnos is similarly used to refer to non-Israelites: No Restriction to Israelites: Nowhere does Scripture indicate that Gentiles refers exclusively to Israelites who were not part of the Jewish subset. The overwhelming evidence from both the Old and New Testaments demonstrates that the term refers broadly to non-Israelites.

1. You quoted Genesis 10, and a clear examination of that passage would reveal that the term Gentile was used in that passage in reference to the family of Japheth.

2 Japheth’s sons were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras.
3 Gomer’s sons were Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah.
4 Javan’s sons were Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.[a]
5 All the people who lived in the area around the Mediterranean Sea came from these sons of Japheth. The people separated and went to different countries according to languages, families, and nations. - Genesis 10 vs 2 - 5

As you can see, the term Gentile was used there about a family, clan, or people, in this case, the family of or sons of Japheth.

The same can be observed in the reference from Isaiah 49 where Isaiah, a Jewish-born Israelite, proclaims to all of Israel — not just the Jewish subset of Israel — that He was sent to all of the House of Jacob — all of the tribes of Jacob/Israel.

1. Hear me, people by the sea. Listen to me, you faraway nations. The Lord called me before I was born. He called my name while I was still in my mother’s womb.
2 He used me to speak for him. He used me like a sharp sword, but he also held me in his hand to protect me. He used me like a sharp arrow, but he also kept me safe in his arrow bag
3 He told me, “Israel, you are my servant. I will do wonderful things with you.”
4 I said, “I worked hard for nothing. I wore myself out, but I did nothing useful. I used all my power, but I did not really do anything.
So the Lord must decide what to do with me. He must decide my reward.”
5 The Lord is the one who made me in my mother’s womb, so that I could be his servant. He wanted me to lead Jacob and Israel back to him. The Lord gives me honor. I get my strength from my God.
6 And now he says, “You are a very important servant to me. You must bring back to me the tribes of Jacob. You must bring back the people of Israel who are still alive. But I have something else for you to do that is even more important: I will make you a light for the other nations. You will show people all over the world the way to be saved.” - Isaiah 49 vs 1 - 6

As you can see, the term Gentile was used there about a family, clan, or people, in this case, the family of/tribes of Israel or Jacob.

3. Wrong! 🙄

4. Don't jump the gun here. We first need to understand the context as set by Jesus Christ Himself whom His disciples claim they followed before we can then move forward to try to understand what His servants meant, shouldn't we?

As far as the Gospels are concerned, Jesus Christ made clear that He was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel aka the 12 tribes of Jacob, leading us to understand that the family/clan of focus in this case is the House of Israel/Jacob still. So where do you come off believeing instead that the term Gentiles, as used by those who claim to believe in Jesus Christ should apply as far as those who are not even of the family that was decreed by Jesus Christ?

Nachmonides:
➜I hope I understand your first question:
That; Why apply "dogs" specifically to Canaanites when Jesus' mission was to the Lost Sheep of Israel?
Jesus' words and actions in Matthew 15:21-28 must be understood within the context of His earthly ministry, which He explicitly described as focused on the Lost Sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24). Here’s the reasoning:
Immediate Context of the Canaanite Woman: Jesus encountered a Canaanite woman who was outside the covenant community of Israel. His reference to "dogs" reflects the broader cultural understanding of the time, where Israelites (especially Jewish-Israelites) distinguished themselves from surrounding nations, including Canaanites.
Universal Application of "Dogs"? -While this particular statement was directed toward a Canaanite woman, it is not explicitly stated that the term "dogs" applies universally to all non-Israelites. Jesus' focus in this passage was on demonstrating the woman’s humility and faith, rather than creating a broad theological classification.
➜Jesus' Larger Mission: Although Jesus’ earthly ministry was centered on Israel (Matthew 10:5-6), His ultimate mission extended beyond Israel, as shown in passages like John 10:16 (mentioning "other sheep" and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19). This encounter foreshadows the inclusion of those outside Israel in God's redemptive plan.

1. Jesus Christ clearly said in Matthew 15 that He was sent ONLY to the Lost sheep of Israel — a universal statement that proclaims that all the Gospel of Jesus Christ of Israel belongs only to those descended from the bloodline of Jacob aka Israelites. Why do you deny this?

2. First of all, Jesus Christ never mentioned that His other sheep were non-Israelites in all of Matthew 10. Second, in Matthew 28 Jesus Christ of Israel's message to His followers was that they go forth into the World ... That statement does not in any way suggest a nullification of His previous warning to the same that they do not give that which is Holy to do dogs, nor does it nullify the fact that He was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. To suggest that the teachings and commandments previously given by Jesus Christ to the very same were nullified, you would need to provide explicit proof of this, which is nowhere to be found in the entirety of the Gospels.

Nachmonides:
➜What ideas cannot be proven?
➜What method do you have in mind to prove it?

If an idea cannot be proven or has no facts to back it, then it should not be traded as a fact or a truth. An opinion, for instance, cannot be proven unless there are underlying facts to back every part of the opinion.

2. The same methods you would use to verify whether toothpaste can clean your teeth or not. Test it to verify if it works as stated or not.

Nachmonides:
➜ My comments have been based on an understanding of scripture in general. Thank you for pointing that out. Let’s engage deeply with what is actually stated in Scripture and reexamine the context carefully without projecting interpretations beyond the text.
You’re correct that in Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30, the dialogue does not explicitly use the term Gentiles but focuses on the identity of the Canaanite woman in relation to Israel. Let’s break this down faithfully:
1. Jesus’ Statement:
Jesus said, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs" (Matthew 15:26).
"Children" clearly refers to the Israelites, whom Jesus initially focused His ministry on.
"Dogs" refers to those outside this covenant community. While it could imply non-Israelites in general, it specifically addressed this Canaanite woman in the immediate context.
2. The Woman’s Response: She replied, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table" (Matthew 15:27).
The woman herself recognized her position relative to Israel’s covenant blessings. She humbly embraced the analogy, showing faith that even those outside Israel could receive God's mercy.
➜Why Interpretations Use "Gentiles"? While the passage does not use the term Gentiles, biblical interpreters often use it to summarize groups outside of Israel, including Canaanites. However, you’re right that this term is not stated explicitly in this text, and it’s more accurate to stick with the direct language of the passage:
Israelites = children sheep
Non-Israelites = dogs
The focus should remain on the immediate conversation, where Jesus is testing the faith of a specific Canaanite woman, not making a sweeping theological claim about all non-Israelites or Gentiles. It’s also vital to let Scripture interpret Scripture, avoiding unwarranted extrapolations.

1. How can the application of the term dogs as used by Jesus Christ of Israel in Matthew 15 be said to apply specifically to Canaanites when the world that Jesus Christ of Israel said He was sent to is that which consists only of the lost sheep of Israel, a world that goes beyond just the Canaanites who are also non-Israelites?

2. Again, Jesus Christ of Israelite never insinuated in all of His Gospel that non-Israelites were those referred to as Gentiles in Scripture. You cannot arbitrarily assert this without some evidence to back it up.

Nachmonides:
➜My use of Gentiles assumed you knew non Jews were also referred to as Gentiles. Sorry for that.

Gentile is a term used in Scripture to refer to Israelites who were not of the Jewish subset of Israel. So, to claim that the Canaanite woman was a Gentile is to be in error. So, you are still in error in your use of that term.

Nachmonides:
➜My intent is not to push things down your throat, I'm sorry your encounter with many here has been like that. I'm in a conversation with you and expect you refute things with your own study, so I learn and review or so I can refute with mine. It's been an endless attack since.

The fact that you are pushing ideas that cannot be proven is the major problem here.