₦airaland Forum

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.

Kobojunkie:
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:
➜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.

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

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

Kobojunkie:
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:
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.

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

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 )

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: ??

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

Kobojunkie:
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.
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.
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:
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.

Kobojunkie:
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.



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. 🤔

Kobojunkie:
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:
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.

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: ??

Kobojunkie:
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.


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

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.

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."

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

Kobojunkie:
Nachmonides, you still haven't completed the logic quiz I gave you the other day. I even posted a small tutorial to help you in solving it.

Nachmonides:
➜Go and read my conclusion on the premises given. It's there.

Kobojunkie:
Compare the conclusion examples given in the tutorial below to the supposed conclusion you posted earlier to see how your conclusion is not logical and meaningful.

Nachmonides:
➜I wrote extensively to cover any possibility of misunderstanding. Go and read my text.

Kobojunkie:
Well, the gobbledegook you wrote does not extensively cover anything, not even your ignorance of what was asked.

Kobojunkie:
Well, the gobbledegook you wrote does not extensively cover anything, not even your ignorance of what was asked.

Nachmonides:
➜Shalom Kobojunkieee. This is not a conversation, sir.

Kobojunkie:
What is it? An attempt to usurp/insult my intelligence?

Nachmonides:
➜You are simply unwise. You have your mind made up, unwilling to review former ideas. That is not intelligence. Intelligence is malleable. This is an accumulation of foolishness.
➜I have created a thread based on your questions. Let's see if you will ruin the opportunity for a conversation there.

Kobojunkie:
You don't know what intelligence means, do you? 😏

2. Have you posted the conclusion which should result from the very words of Jesus Christ of Israel contained in the provided premises? That is what I am most interested in. So, long religious droning/meaningless mansplaining.