inspiredbyGOD:.:
Thanks for your help. I'll also try to search for them myself.

Thanks for your exposition on the issue. But why did Jesus indirectly refer to the woman as a dog. He said "it is not good to take the children's bread and give it to the dogs" what did He mean by the statement?

JeSoul: Glad you found it useful dear. If not for time handcuffs me, I'd find several threads that discuss many of the questions you've asked here.

Back to the issue...was it ever really about the "physical descendants of Issac"? or perhaps it seems that way because the writers were primarily of Abrahimic lineage? Jesus (and the NT) expound on the OT and reveal to us God's true plans that were misunderstood by the 'traditional' Israelites who believed they were the one true "people of God". Think of it this way...as much as I believe the scriptures are of divine inspiration - it was also written by human hands - and yes subject bias too. There are many instances of non-Isrealites being shown as people of faith or acceptable to God in the OT - including the great Melchizedek, whom Jesus Himself was likened to! what greater an example could you get than that?

And when Jesus said "He came for the lost sheep of Israel"...His mission was first with the Jews. God had promised to save the world through the Jews, so Jesus had to begin with them. Much like I believe in the same way if I was on a mission, I would first go to the 'headquarters' and try to sort out the problem there first -and then allow the solution to trickle down out. It is the same Jesus who also said this in Luke 24:


Clearly what He meant in that verse was to simply start with the Jews - and then reach the whole world through His disciples (again, another case of not building on only one verse).

Cheers brother .

inspiredbyGOD:.:
Thanks for your help. I'll also try to search for them myself.

Thanks for your exposition on the issue. But why did Jesus indirectly refer to the woman as a dog. He said "it is not good to take the children's bread and give it to the dogs" what did He mean by the statement?

plaetton:

Referering tot he bolded in red, did yahweh really say that? what world, this world? Save the world from what, if I may ask?

Save the world or wreck the world?

Jesus supposedly came and went, and........?

1. The jew rejected his messaihship, so obviously, yahweh miscalculated.
Not so?
2. There is no evidence that the world became a better place after Jesus.
Infact, one can make the argument that the world became a more chaotic and rancurous one right after jesus came and left.

Again, it would seem that yahweh and the scriptures are wrong.

JeSoul: Forgive me, but I think all your questions are of facetious intent - in which case any attempt at a response would amount to running a fool's errand. cheers dude.

plaetton:

He he he.
Cheers to you too.

Indeed, there are no answers to such simple questions.
But those are the real questions that deserve answers.

With that in mind, Despite all the noise about the messiahship of Jesus, I dont personally see any greatly positive impact the coming of jesus had for the jews in that era, and to humanity in general. One can argue that the reverse has been the case.

Imagine what possible trajectory human development and progress would have taken if the accident of history had sidestepped Paul's apostolic doctrines, or if, Constantine had not embraced christianity for political expediency.

Imagine if the Europeans had sidestepped the dark Ages?

JeSoul: Au contraire. There are answers - the knock is I don't think you are interested in the answers ...especially when you go ahead and punctuate your post with the below declarations:



^wetin you want pesin to say after that? you've made up your mind now & there is no shaking. No need for jesoul to come and be throwing water at a brick wall .

plaetton:

I may have my own opinions , and may not agree with yours, but nevertheless, it would be enriching to see how you might wanna answer thse nagging questions.
We are bound to learn something, even if its a tiny bit.

JeSoul: hehe...the bolded part is more true than you even realize

Okay, what was the question again?

plaetton:

Ha ha ha. When the chips are down, you ask god for guidance to understand his own written scriptures.
Shouldn't that guidance and wisdom be inbuilt so that one can easily understand the duplicity of god?

If god did not give guidance and wisdom to understand what is already written, then where will the wisdom come from to understand any new revelation from the same god?

It is like saying : We dont understand god because we dont speak his language. And who is going to teach us the language? Well, god ofcourse, using the same language that we don't seem to understand.