Mainly what I remember of the Jonestown Massacre, as it pertained to The Way International, is that we fervently tried to distance ourselves from any comparisons being made with the lifestyle they lived to the lifestyle we lived. There wasn't much discussion of doctrinal differences. Our concerns seemed to be mostly about public perception. I don't recall much discussion internally, amongst ourselves, questioning whether or not we were deluding ourselves. From our perspective, they were a counterfeit and we were "the real deal".
In the video above by Kristi Burke, six passages from the bible are talked about in order to show the other side of the belief that Jesus was all about peace and love. One passage is Matthew 10:34-39. It says, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38And he that takes not his cross, and follows after me, is not worthy of me. 39He that finds his life shall lose it: and he that loses his life for my sake shall find it.
Here are some of her quotes in italics:
"Jesus knew his message was radical. He knew that his message would not be accepted by the masses. He was essentially creating his own apocalyptic cult that was branching off of Judaism, and he knew that it would not be well received by those around him – Jew and Gentile alike. So, of course, he knew that they would be persecuted for their beliefs, for following him, for doing something very different and radical."
According to the Old Testament, God began the great "us vs them" scenario when he called the children of Israel to be his chosen people. Jesus seems to have continued this theme in his ministry.
"To Jesus and his followers, this really seemed to be more of a battle, a spiritual and earthly battle. They were waiting for the kingdom to come here on earth, and they had to accomplish all that would be accomplished including war and persecution and bloodshed before all of that could be done."
Again, similar to the history of constant wars against other nations in the OT, Jesus purpose for coming was not to bring peace, but a sword.
"You would think that the message of the creator of the universe come to earth [sic] to bring it would find a way to bring people together, but instead, it almost seems that Jesus’ coming was an attempt to make that all boil to the surface so that those who wanted to be his disciples and follow him can walk away, can shut everyone off and walk away, leave their family behind."
This was encouraged by twi and even expected if you were participating in their different programs like the WOW, Fellow Laborer, Corps, etc. programs. How many other religious groups/cults have said something similar to this?
"At the end of it, he is saying, 'He that finds his life shall lose it: and he that loses his life for my sake will find it.' That’s a dangerous message. He is encouraging people to become martyrs. That is cult-leader behavior – somebody telling you, you might die for me, and I want you to die for me. I want you to be persecuted for me. You’re going to be blessed in the afterlife – don’t worry, I’ll take care of you afterwards, but in this life, you need to be willing to leave your dad and leave your mom, to become enemies with everyone you love and know and follow me even unto death."
"Cult-leader behavior" as seen in the Jonestown's story from penworks' post above about the International Cult Awareness Day. Was this not the same mindset as Matthew 10:34-39?
In the Old Testament, God supposedly needed to call out a group to be His people known as the Israelites. The bible then goes on to tell of the many wars between Israel and other nations. Sometimes, God was on Israel’s side and the other nations were defeated; other times, God was not on Israel’s side because of their disobedience, and the other nations won.
My question is why was the nation of Israel even necessary? Scholars say the reason was two-fold: it was for the children of Israel, through their laws, priests, prophets, etc., to teach other nations about the one true god, Yahweh, and also to declare that through them, God’s promised Messiah would come to redeem mankind.
Sounds good, but in reality, what resulted were millenniums of division, suffering, death, genocide, etc. This division was carried down to the time of Jesus (while the suffering, death and genocide because of war continued after Jesus and periodically right up to the present time).
Mark 7:25-29 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet: 26The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. 27But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. 28And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs. 29And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter. 30And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.
Jesus is calling a non-Jewish woman a dog – someone, who according to God’s plan, was not deserving of his help because “the children must be filled first.” Only out of desperation for her suffering child does she submit to this degrading term and respond in such a way that pleases Jesus enough to give her the crumbs she needed. No mention is made of her “faith.”
However, Matthew 15 (which was written a decade or more after Mark) attempts to redeem this record in Mark by adding the following: in verse 22, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David,” and in verse 28, a reply from Jesus “Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt.”
As a result, the focus of the record is mostly on her faith in Jesus as the son of David and not so much on Jesus’ calling her a dog because she was an outsider.How does this story show Jesus as the way of peace and love?
We've been asked to step in on this thread and at the moment I don't have time to do so. Gonna try to have a read of the thread, then look at the report, then decide if there are any rule violations.
Please do not take this action as any judgment of the thread or the complaint. Thank you for your patience.
On the About the Way forum, there were posters who defended twi, and their contributions made for some of the more lengthier threads as both sides shared/argued their POV's.
I do understand the concern about starting this thread because I am an atheist. My decision to post here was because I wanted to hear what people who follow the scriptures thought about my questions concerning some of them and for them to bring up scriptures of their own for discussion.
I do not want to argue whether the scriptures are authentic (word of men vs inspired by God) or whether Jesus, the apostles, Paul, etc. were historical or fictional characters - just on what the passages say. I also want to learn more about thinking critically rather than merely from emotions.
Finally, I figure this sub-forum Doctrinal would probably be viewed by more people who have faith in the Bible than the Atheist sub-forum would.
Seeking clarity:
You are posting here because you WANT Christians to discuss what they believe the Bible teaches about the subject of your thread?
You understand that by posting here, you are voluntarily limiting your capacity to criticize those views in detail? (A mention might be ok, but anything more would be violating the gentleman's agreement that governs these subforums).
Would anyone else like to weigh in?
I understand Charity wants engagement with believers on apparent mixed messages within the text. However, the tone and language aren't inviting, rather, they are seemingly hostile.
"Inthe Old Testament, Godsupposedly needed to call out a group to be His people known as theIsraelites."
Charity, though I think yours are legitimate questions, I don't think this is the correct forum. You could start over and rephrase, but you've already outed yourself, however unintentionally.
There's an inherent conflict in this thread, namely, "thinking critically" (natural knowledge) vs. "thinking spiritually" (faith).
As a believer I must not and do not want to brush God aside for the sake of intellectualism. I'm not saying that being an intellectual is a bad thing; what I mean is I think that intellectuals have a very hard time wrapping their heads around God because they try to over-intellectualize God and you can't do that because his ways are far above that.
Seeking clarity:
You are posting here because you WANT Christians to discuss what they believe the Bible teaches about the subject of your thread?
You understand that by posting here, you are voluntarily limiting your capacity to criticize those views in detail? (A mention might be ok, but anything more would be violating the gentleman's agreement that governs these subforums).
Would anyone else like to weigh in?
Thank you for your reply modcat5. I'm sorry I didn't get back to you right away on this. I've been busy with some things that have come up and which will continue to need my attention for a bit.
There's an inherent conflict in this thread, namely, "thinking critically" (natural knowledge) vs. "thinking spiritually" (faith).
As a believer I must not and do not want to brush God aside for the sake of intellectualism. I'm not saying that being an intellectual is a bad thing; what I mean is I think that intellectuals have a very hard time wrapping their heads around God because they try to over-intellectualize God and you can't do that because his ways are far above that.
I appreciate your comment oldiesman. As a reminder though, I did wrap my head around God through faith for a very long time. There were times when it was not hard to do at all - the bible would call it having a strong faith. What happened was that I decided to give my questions concerning the contradictory biblical teachings about prayer and the rationale for a rapture which will leave millions of others to go through a great tribulation the attention they deserved. My posts throughout the Deconversion thread on the Atheism sub-forum speak of this time along with other questions which kept coming up along the way.
So now, I have a very hard time wrapping my head around the concept of faith which has resulted in a difference between our belief systems. The word conflict though can add a negative combative quality to this difference, and I will admit that my words and feelings have shown this quality at times. I want to work on this which was part of my purpose for starting the About the Way of Jesus thread.
Moved the thread and retitled it to make it an explicit invitation to Christians.
I have no problem with his although I am rethinking what I wanted to achieve from creating the About the Way of Jesus thread in the first place. I'll post on it again once I've thought it through some more.
On the About the Way forum, there were posters who defended twi, and their contributions made for some of the more lengthier threads as both sides shared/argued their POV's.
I do understand the concern about starting this thread because I am an atheist. My decision to post here was because I wanted to hear what people who follow the scriptures thought about my questions concerning some of them and for them to bring up scriptures of their own for discussion.
I do not want to argue whether the scriptures are authentic (word of men vs inspired by God) or whether Jesus, the apostles, Paul, etc. were historical or fictional characters - just on what the passages say. I also want to learn more about thinking critically rather than merely from emotions.
Finally, I figure this sub-forum Doctrinal would probably be viewed by more people who have faith in the Bible than the Atheist sub-forum would.
On 11/25/2024 at 1:37 PM, Nathan_Jr said:
I understand Charity wants engagement with believers on apparent mixed messages within the text. However, the tone and language aren't inviting, rather, they are seemingly hostile.
"
Inthe Old Testament, Godsupposedly needed to call out a group to be His people known as theIsraelites."
Charity, though I think yours are legitimate questions, I don't think this is the correct forum. You could start over and rephrase, but you've already outed yourself, however unintentionally.
I don’t think this is what you intended to mean by “outed yourself” Nathan, but there was no purposeful hidden reason behind why I started the About the Way of Jesus thread. I didn’t intentionally want to deceive or entrap posters to comment on the thread so I could go ballistic on their viewpoints.
What you have noted about there being apparent mixed messages in my text, however, is a valid point. After seven months of starting threads about my deconversion, I am still learning how to have a clear, consistent, respectful and unbiased way of expressing my POVs when discussing the bible while at the same time, I am still learning more about what those views are. I want to eventually get there, and that is what I meant in my post above.
If anyone posts to this thread in the future, I will endeavour to reply in such a way.
Yeah, I don’t think you were intentionally trying to deceive or entrap, but your tone could be seen as contentious and disingenuous. It’s the tone and style. Believers don’t want to engage with it, I suspect.
The text I was referring to is the Bible, not your text. And that text, the Bible, unequivocally has mixed messages and contradictions and errors. The harder the line on harmony, the more the contradictions arise.
I still have lots of questions about theology. Genuine, honest questions. I try to compose my questions as plainly as possible. Answers to these questions are limited only to the number of people who answer - theologies vary widely.
Most of my questions are ignored, but I’m always grateful to those who answer as plainly and as honestly as I ask.
Yeah, I don’t think you were intentionally trying to deceive or entrap, but your tone could be seen as contentious and disingenuous. It’s the tone and style. Believers don’t want to engage with it, I suspect.
The text I was referring to is the Bible, not your text. And that text, the Bible, unequivocally has mixed messages and contradictions and errors. The harder the line on harmony, the more the contradictions arise.
I still have lots of questions about theology. Genuine, honest questions. I try to compose my questions as plainly as possible. Answers to these questions are limited only to the number of people who answer - theologies vary widely.
Most of my questions are ignored, but I’m always grateful to those who answer as plainly and as honestly as I ask.
I appreciate how you approach discussions here – always have. And thank you for your honest input. I'll pay closer attention to my tone and a few other things as well.
There have been 322 views so far on this thread, over 25,000 on the Deconversion thread and 1,500 on the Sin and the Need for Perfect Love thread. Yet, only a handful of different people have replied. Not unusual, I know, but it sure would be interesting to hear from more of them - if only one short reply back as to their thoughts about the topic.
Mark 7:25-29 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet: 26The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. 27But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. 28And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs. 29And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter. 30And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.
To explore the Bible passage quoted in my previous post, I've looked up the Greek words for "dogs" and "meet." Strong's Lexicon defines each one on the Bible Hub website as follows:
"Dogs" is kunarion = little dog, puppy. It is the diminutive form of kuōn which is also translated as "dog" but has a different meaning from kunarion. (See below)
Strong’s Lexicon on Bible Hub explains the usage of the diminutive formonly as “indicating affection or endearment, and is used metaphorically in a context that contrasts the status of Jews and Gentiles in the biblical narrative. However, another usage is consistently shown in these other places.
A diminutive form is a word or suffix that indicates something is small or little. Diminutives can also convey a sense of endearment or intimacy, or sometimes to belittle someone or something. (AI Overview)
A diminutive is a word obtained by modifying a root word to convey a slighter degree of its root meaning, either to convey the smallness of the object or quality named, or to convey a sense of intimacy or endearment, and sometimes to derogatorily belittle something or someone. (Wikipedia)
Diminutive = indicating small size and sometimes the state or quality of being familiarly known, lovable, pitiable, or contemptible (Merriam-Webster)
Traditionally, the term 'diminutive' has been used to refer to words which denote smallness and possibly also expressing an attitude. The expressed attitude can be either positive or negative, i.e. either affectionate or derogatory, depending on the specific interplay of linguistic and situational factors in a given context. (ThoughtCo)
~~~~~
"kuōn" = dog, universally despised in the East; literally, a dog, scavenging canine; (figuratively) a spiritual predator who feeds off others. It is used in this derogatory manner in Matt 7:6; Luke 16:21; Phil 3:2; 2 Pet 2:22; Rev 22:15
Jesus did not use "kuōn" for dogs in Mark; he used kunarion. But which usage is the correct one for kunarion - the affectionate or derogatory one?
~~~~~
"meet" is kalos = good, beautiful, noble, excellent, honorable. According to the Thayer's Greek Lexicon, its usage In verse 27 where Jesus said, ...for it is notmeet to take the children's bread..." is "right, proper, becoming." IOW, Jesus was saying it was not right, proper or becoming to take the children's bread and give it to the dogs. Because of this, the usage of "dogs" appears to be the derogatory one.
How else might this passage be understood? Is there a more correct way?
In Mark 7:27, Jesus said to the Greek woman who kept asking him to heal her daughter of a devil spirit, "Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet (right, proper, becoming) to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs."
But, in Matthew 8:5-13, Jesus made no similar statement when a certain centurion (or in the case of Luke 7:1-10, the elders of the Jews sent on behalf of the centurion) came to Jesus beseeching him to heal the centurion’s servant. In each record, Jesus agreed immediately to go and heal him.
As a centurion in charge of a hundred Roman soldiers, he, like the Greek woman, would not have been a Jew. So why did Jesus respond differently when it came to the centurion?
Was it because in Luke’s record, the elders of the Jews told Jesus the centurion was worthy of this request because “he loves our nation, and he has built us a synagogue” (vs 5)? What is there to learn from this information when it comes to Jesus’ willingness to heal or not?
Another question is who were these elders of the Jews? Were they the same as the “elders” or “elders of the people” by whom Jesus said he must suffer many things (Luke 9:22) or the ones who took counsel against him to put him to death (Luke 22:66)? These ones certainly don't sound like they would have gone to Jesus asking him to heal someone.
"The term used here is κυναριον, not the more common term, κυων. To be sure, the latter term is often (typically?) used in sentences that give it a clear pejorative sense: to cite NT examples,Matt 7:6; Philip 3:2; Rev 22:15. But κυναριον (which is a diminutive form of the word, along with an alternate diminutive form, κυνιδιον) is never to my knowledge used in such a sentence. Instead, all uses are in sentences that rather clearly refer to household pets. (In other European languages as well, diminutives are used with a certain almost affectionate sense, e.g., “perrito” in Spanish).
This particular term is not used in the LXX and appears in the NT only in this Markan passage and its Matthean parallel (Matt 15:21-28). A check of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae shows further that in wider Greek usage it and the other diminutive form appear always and only in statements about family pets or household dogs: e.g., Philo,Spec.Leg.4.91, referring to household dogs (κυνιδιων) hanging around banqueting tables looking for scraps dropped to them, and Athenaeus,Deipnosophistae, Vol. 2,2 p. 78, line 19, referring to “Maltese lapdogs” (κυναρια Μελιταια), here also in a setting of dining.
Collins asserts (p. 367) that the diminutive form “probably does not have a diminutive connotation in the colloquial language of Mark,” and so “probably refers to the scavenging dogs of the street.” The only references she provides (n. 39) in support of her assertion are a couple of texts in the Greek ofJoseph and Asenath(10:14; 13:7), but neither text uses a diminutive form: In 10:14, the converted Asenath throws all her rich pagan food out the window “τοις κυσι βοραν” (“to the dogs” in the street), and in 13:7, Asenath refers back to this act of giving her roayl food “τοις κυσι”, both texts using plural forms of κυων.
Moreover, the dated-but-valuable lexicon drawing precisely on colloquial usage illustrated in papyri and other non-literary souces, J. H. Mouton and George Milligan,Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament(1930), p. 364, translates several non-biblical uses of κυναριον and κυνιδιον as “lapdogs”.
So, in point of fact, it looks like (contra Collins) Otto Michel’s little entry on κυναριον inTheological Dictionary of the New Testament,3:1104, is correct after all in judging that the choice of κυναριον in the Markan passage pictures Jesus as referring to “little dogs which could be tolerated in the house,” not wild scavengers in the street. I repeat: A search of references to the diminutive forms in the TLG gives no instance of usage to refer to “wild” dogs or street “scavengers”. So, it looks like the use of the term in the Gospel scene was deliberate, achoice, of a “marked” term (in linguistics parlance), intended to connote household pets, not the “unmarked” term κυων.
This sense of a domestic scene ought to be obvious simply in reading the passage. Jesus is pictured as responding to the woman’s request by saying, “Let the children be fedfirst,for it isn’t right to give the childrens’ food to the dogs.” The point of the statement is the temporal priority of the “children”, of course in this case, referring to Jesus directing his ministry to fellow Jews. The metaphor presumes a setting in which the household dogs are fed the leftovers after the family has eaten (not custom-produced dog-food). (I know the practice well, having grown up in a rural setting in which the household dogs ate what we ate, only after we had eaten.)
The woman’s clever reply confirms this, respectfully pointing out that “the dogsunder the tableeat from the portions of the children.” “Wild” dogs and “scavenger dogs of the street” aren’t typically allowed “under the table” and around the children! And anyone with both children and household dogs will know how it goes at mealtime: If allowed, the dogs hang about the children’s chairs, knowing that children love to “drop” morsels to their pets.
Finally, we also have to ask ourselves how likely it is that the authors of Mark (writing for a Christian readership at least largely made up of converted gentiles) would have inserted a scene in which supposedly Jesus insults a gentile woman in the harsh terms imputed by some modern readers. She is “put in her place” as a gentile, but it’s a temporal place. The scene functions to explain that, although Jesus’ own ministry was confined to his Jewish people (apparently, a tradition that Mark couldn’t deny/ignore), the subsequent mission to gentiles was (Mark wants to imply) on the agenda, only it had to wait its time, and Jesus is pictured as anticipating that gentile-mission in responding positively to the woman’s respectful but clever response. For a bit further discussion of the likely intended function of the passage, see L. W. Hurtado,Mark: New International Biblical Commentary(Hendrickson, 1989), 115-16."
However, Joel Marcus says this in his commentary on Mark,
"The regular term for “dog” is kuōn, and kynaria is technically a diminutive, but this does not necessarily mean that Jesus is referring affectionately to the woman or her daughter as “little dogs” or “pups” \[…\] In Koine Greek the diminutive is often indistinguishable in meaning from the regular form (e.g. paidas/paidia = “children,” ploion/ploiarion = “boat”), and the normal term for “little dog” is not kynarion but kynidion \[…\] Kynarion can be employed with no diminutive force at all (e.g. Plutarch Aratus 7:3; see BAGD, 457). As Rhoads acknowledges, the diminutive form may be used here simply to match that of the word for “daughter,” thygatrion, in 7:25, which is also diminutive."
Then Matthew changes Mark's Syro-Phoenician to Canaanite. I try to read each gospel on its own terms to understand the perspective of that author(s) and his audience. When you stop trying to make it fit, it becomes a fascinating study of ancient texts and cultures. To force fit a glove is, well, stupider than stupid, to borrow a phrase.
But the different treatment of the centurion is striking! Some scholars argue it's a later interpolation, or Matthew and Luke are using a source outside of Mark.
I think another common Christian apologetic is the pericope teaches something about humility. The disparaged ethnic woman had to acknowledge herself as a dog I order to receive deliverance.
Not sure how poor little victor "taught" it, but I can imagine him tailoring a glove out of this passage to force fit onto knowing what's available, how to get it, and what to do with it once you've got it.
This sense of a domestic scene ought to be obvious simply in reading the passage. Jesus is pictured as responding to the woman’s request by saying, “Let the children be fedfirst,for it isn’t right to give the childrens’ food to the dogs.” The point of the statement is the temporal priority of the “children”, of course in this case, referring to Jesus directing his ministry to fellow Jews. The metaphor presumes a setting in which the household dogs are fed the leftovers after the family has eaten...
So when Jesus said it was not "meet" (right, proper, becoming) for him to heal the woman's daughter, it was simply because the time to do so hadn't come yet; consequently, if the woman had not replied in the way she did, Jesus would have kept on walking? How many other healings did Jesus not do because the people asking were not Jews - we'll never know because they were not recorded in the gospels. This one made it in because the woman was persistent, submitted to being unworthy and asked Jesus merely for the "crumbs" and therefore Jesus performed the miracle.
The woman’s clever reply confirms this, respectfully pointing out that “the dogsunder the tableeat from the portions of the children.”
This sentence really irks me. The writer makes it sound like she was this bright, competent, shrewd woman who outwitted Jesus. What I see here is a man who wants to trivialize the great pain and desperation of this woman who made a simple connection about Jesus' words concerning children eating before the dogs to the dogs eating the crumbs that fall from the children's table.
Finally, we also have to ask ourselves how likely it is that the authors of Mark (writing for a Christian readership at least largely made up of converted gentiles) would have inserted a scene in which supposedly Jesus insults a gentile woman in the harsh terms imputed by some modern readers.
Mark was supposed to be writing an accurate account of what happened at the time it occurred. I doubt authentic historians would allow the feelings of the people living in their day and time to affect how they record events of the past.
She is “put in her place” as a gentile, but it’s a temporal place. Sounds like something a patriarch would say concerning women in a system of society or government controlled by men.
The scene functions to explain that, although Jesus’ own ministry was confined to his Jewish people (apparently, a tradition that Mark couldn’t deny/ignore), the subsequent mission to gentiles was (Mark wants to imply) on the agenda, only it had to wait its time, and Jesus is pictured as anticipating that gentile-mission...
What is the mission to the gentiles Larry Hurtado is writing about here? Is it the one where Gentiles would continue converting to Judaism like in the past once they believed on Christ? Or is he writing about the Jews and Gentiles becoming one in the body of Christ according to the doctrine of the great mystery taught by Paul? The problem is Jesus did not know about this mystery during his earthly ministry unless, of course, one believes he was God. Mark, however, would have known about it when he wrote his gospel because Paul's letters would have been circulating throughout the churches at that time. Did this influence his writings?
...in responding positively to the woman’s respectful but clever response.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
5
6
35
Popular Days
Dec 5
13
Nov 30
12
Dec 4
9
Nov 28
6
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 12 posts
modcat5 5 posts
Nathan_Jr 6 posts
Charity 35 posts
Popular Days
Dec 5 2024
13 posts
Nov 30 2024
12 posts
Dec 4 2024
9 posts
Nov 28 2024
6 posts
Popular Posts
Nathan_Jr
Yeah, I don’t think you were intentionally trying to deceive or entrap, but your tone could be seen as contentious and disingenuous. It’s the tone and style. Believers don’t want to engage with it, I
Nathan_Jr
Well, Mark didn’t make the same claim that Luke made about an accurate account. Ancient “historians” did history differently than historians do it today. I don’t think they were as concerned with accu
WordWolf
[WordWolf in boldface and brackets] "Concerning your reference to wolves above, you did not suggest in this case that the word should go untranslated but that it should just be translated “jackal
Posted Images
Charity
6 Times Jesus Wasn't all Peace and Love
In the video above by Kristi Burke, six passages from the bible are talked about in order to show the other side of the belief that Jesus was all about peace and love. One passage is Matthew 10:34-39. It says, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38And he that takes not his cross, and follows after me, is not worthy of me. 39He that finds his life shall lose it: and he that loses his life for my sake shall find it.
Here are some of her quotes in italics:
"Jesus knew his message was radical. He knew that his message would not be accepted by the masses. He was essentially creating his own apocalyptic cult that was branching off of Judaism, and he knew that it would not be well received by those around him – Jew and Gentile alike. So, of course, he knew that they would be persecuted for their beliefs, for following him, for doing something very different and radical."
According to the Old Testament, God began the great "us vs them" scenario when he called the children of Israel to be his chosen people. Jesus seems to have continued this theme in his ministry.
"To Jesus and his followers, this really seemed to be more of a battle, a spiritual and earthly battle. They were waiting for the kingdom to come here on earth, and they had to accomplish all that would be accomplished including war and persecution and bloodshed before all of that could be done."
Again, similar to the history of constant wars against other nations in the OT, Jesus purpose for coming was not to bring peace, but a sword.
"You would think that the message of the creator of the universe come to earth [sic] to bring it would find a way to bring people together, but instead, it almost seems that Jesus’ coming was an attempt to make that all boil to the surface so that those who wanted to be his disciples and follow him can walk away, can shut everyone off and walk away, leave their family behind."
This was encouraged by twi and even expected if you were participating in their different programs like the WOW, Fellow Laborer, Corps, etc. programs. How many other religious groups/cults have said something similar to this?
"At the end of it, he is saying, 'He that finds his life shall lose it: and he that loses his life for my sake will find it.' That’s a dangerous message. He is encouraging people to become martyrs. That is cult-leader behavior – somebody telling you, you might die for me, and I want you to die for me. I want you to be persecuted for me. You’re going to be blessed in the afterlife – don’t worry, I’ll take care of you afterwards, but in this life, you need to be willing to leave your dad and leave your mom, to become enemies with everyone you love and know and follow me even unto death."
"Cult-leader behavior" as seen in the Jonestown's story from penworks' post above about the International Cult Awareness Day. Was this not the same mindset as Matthew 10:34-39?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
In the Old Testament, God supposedly needed to call out a group to be His people known as the Israelites. The bible then goes on to tell of the many wars between Israel and other nations. Sometimes, God was on Israel’s side and the other nations were defeated; other times, God was not on Israel’s side because of their disobedience, and the other nations won.
My question is why was the nation of Israel even necessary? Scholars say the reason was two-fold: it was for the children of Israel, through their laws, priests, prophets, etc., to teach other nations about the one true god, Yahweh, and also to declare that through them, God’s promised Messiah would come to redeem mankind.
Sounds good, but in reality, what resulted were millenniums of division, suffering, death, genocide, etc. This division was carried down to the time of Jesus (while the suffering, death and genocide because of war continued after Jesus and periodically right up to the present time).
Mark 7:25-29 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet: 26The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. 27But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. 28And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs. 29And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter. 30And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.
Jesus is calling a non-Jewish woman a dog – someone, who according to God’s plan, was not deserving of his help because “the children must be filled first.” Only out of desperation for her suffering child does she submit to this degrading term and respond in such a way that pleases Jesus enough to give her the crumbs she needed. No mention is made of her “faith.”
However, Matthew 15 (which was written a decade or more after Mark) attempts to redeem this record in Mark by adding the following: in verse 22, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David,” and in verse 28, a reply from Jesus “Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt.”
As a result, the focus of the record is mostly on her faith in Jesus as the son of David and not so much on Jesus’ calling her a dog because she was an outsider. How does this story show Jesus as the way of peace and love?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
No rulings.
We've been asked to step in on this thread and at the moment I don't have time to do so. Gonna try to have a read of the thread, then look at the report, then decide if there are any rule violations.
Please do not take this action as any judgment of the thread or the complaint. Thank you for your patience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Ok, the report was that this is in the wrong forum.
I agree.
There's a bit more to the report that needs to be addressed, but the upshot is, THIS thread belongs in the atheist subforum.
Leaving it here overnight for discussion and/or dissent.
Raf.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
On the About the Way forum, there were posters who defended twi, and their contributions made for some of the more lengthier threads as both sides shared/argued their POV's.
I do understand the concern about starting this thread because I am an atheist. My decision to post here was because I wanted to hear what people who follow the scriptures thought about my questions concerning some of them and for them to bring up scriptures of their own for discussion.
I do not want to argue whether the scriptures are authentic (word of men vs inspired by God) or whether Jesus, the apostles, Paul, etc. were historical or fictional characters - just on what the passages say. I also want to learn more about thinking critically rather than merely from emotions.
Finally, I figure this sub-forum Doctrinal would probably be viewed by more people who have faith in the Bible than the Atheist sub-forum would.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Seeking clarity:
You are posting here because you WANT Christians to discuss what they believe the Bible teaches about the subject of your thread?
You understand that by posting here, you are voluntarily limiting your capacity to criticize those views in detail? (A mention might be ok, but anything more would be violating the gentleman's agreement that governs these subforums).
Would anyone else like to weigh in?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I understand Charity wants engagement with believers on apparent mixed messages within the text. However, the tone and language aren't inviting, rather, they are seemingly hostile.
"In the Old Testament, God supposedly needed to call out a group to be His people known as the Israelites."
Charity, though I think yours are legitimate questions, I don't think this is the correct forum. You could start over and rephrase, but you've already outed yourself, however unintentionally.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
I have to say i agree with Nathan.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Moved the thread and retitled it to make it an explicit invitation to Christians.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
There's an inherent conflict in this thread, namely, "thinking critically" (natural knowledge) vs. "thinking spiritually" (faith).
As a believer I must not and do not want to brush God aside for the sake of intellectualism. I'm not saying that being an intellectual is a bad thing; what I mean is I think that intellectuals have a very hard time wrapping their heads around God because they try to over-intellectualize God and you can't do that because his ways are far above that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Thank you for your reply modcat5. I'm sorry I didn't get back to you right away on this. I've been busy with some things that have come up and which will continue to need my attention for a bit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I appreciate your comment oldiesman. As a reminder though, I did wrap my head around God through faith for a very long time. There were times when it was not hard to do at all - the bible would call it having a strong faith. What happened was that I decided to give my questions concerning the contradictory biblical teachings about prayer and the rationale for a rapture which will leave millions of others to go through a great tribulation the attention they deserved. My posts throughout the Deconversion thread on the Atheism sub-forum speak of this time along with other questions which kept coming up along the way.
So now, I have a very hard time wrapping my head around the concept of faith which has resulted in a difference between our belief systems. The word conflict though can add a negative combative quality to this difference, and I will admit that my words and feelings have shown this quality at times. I want to work on this which was part of my purpose for starting the About the Way of Jesus thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I have no problem with his although I am rethinking what I wanted to achieve from creating the About the Way of Jesus thread in the first place. I'll post on it again once I've thought it through some more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Your new title though does bring up the annoying aspect of solicitation such as
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I don’t think this is what you intended to mean by “outed yourself” Nathan, but there was no purposeful hidden reason behind why I started the About the Way of Jesus thread. I didn’t intentionally want to deceive or entrap posters to comment on the thread so I could go ballistic on their viewpoints.
What you have noted about there being apparent mixed messages in my text, however, is a valid point. After seven months of starting threads about my deconversion, I am still learning how to have a clear, consistent, respectful and unbiased way of expressing my POVs when discussing the bible while at the same time, I am still learning more about what those views are. I want to eventually get there, and that is what I meant in my post above.
If anyone posts to this thread in the future, I will endeavour to reply in such a way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Yeah, I don’t think you were intentionally trying to deceive or entrap, but your tone could be seen as contentious and disingenuous. It’s the tone and style. Believers don’t want to engage with it, I suspect.
The text I was referring to is the Bible, not your text. And that text, the Bible, unequivocally has mixed messages and contradictions and errors. The harder the line on harmony, the more the contradictions arise.
I still have lots of questions about theology. Genuine, honest questions. I try to compose my questions as plainly as possible. Answers to these questions are limited only to the number of people who answer - theologies vary widely.
Most of my questions are ignored, but I’m always grateful to those who answer as plainly and as honestly as I ask.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I appreciate how you approach discussions here – always have. And thank you for your honest input. I'll pay closer attention to my tone and a few other things as well.
There have been 322 views so far on this thread, over 25,000 on the Deconversion thread and 1,500 on the Sin and the Need for Perfect Love thread. Yet, only a handful of different people have replied. Not unusual, I know, but it sure would be interesting to hear from more of them - if only one short reply back as to their thoughts about the topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
To explore the Bible passage quoted in my previous post, I've looked up the Greek words for "dogs" and "meet." Strong's Lexicon defines each one on the Bible Hub website as follows:
"Dogs" is kunarion = little dog, puppy. It is the diminutive form of kuōn which is also translated as "dog" but has a different meaning from kunarion. (See below)
Strong’s Lexicon on Bible Hub explains the usage of the diminutive form only as “indicating affection or endearment, and is used metaphorically in a context that contrasts the status of Jews and Gentiles in the biblical narrative. However, another usage is consistently shown in these other places.
A diminutive form is a word or suffix that indicates something is small or little. Diminutives can also convey a sense of endearment or intimacy, or sometimes to belittle someone or something. (AI Overview)
A diminutive is a word obtained by modifying a root word to convey a slighter degree of its root meaning, either to convey the smallness of the object or quality named, or to convey a sense of intimacy or endearment, and sometimes to derogatorily belittle something or someone. (Wikipedia)
Diminutive = indicating small size and sometimes the state or quality of being familiarly known, lovable, pitiable, or contemptible (Merriam-Webster)
Traditionally, the term 'diminutive' has been used to refer to words which denote smallness and possibly also expressing an attitude. The expressed attitude can be either positive or negative, i.e. either affectionate or derogatory, depending on the specific interplay of linguistic and situational factors in a given context. (ThoughtCo)
~~~~~
"kuōn" = dog, universally despised in the East; literally, a dog, scavenging canine; (figuratively) a spiritual predator who feeds off others. It is used in this derogatory manner in Matt 7:6; Luke 16:21; Phil 3:2; 2 Pet 2:22; Rev 22:15
Jesus did not use "kuōn" for dogs in Mark; he used kunarion. But which usage is the correct one for kunarion - the affectionate or derogatory one?
~~~~~
"meet" is kalos = good, beautiful, noble, excellent, honorable. According to the Thayer's Greek Lexicon, its usage In verse 27 where Jesus said, ...for it is not meet to take the children's bread..." is "right, proper, becoming." IOW, Jesus was saying it was not right, proper or becoming to take the children's bread and give it to the dogs. Because of this, the usage of "dogs" appears to be the derogatory one.
How else might this passage be understood? Is there a more correct way?
Edited by CharityChange the last sentence
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
In Mark 7:27, Jesus said to the Greek woman who kept asking him to heal her daughter of a devil spirit, "Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet (right, proper, becoming) to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs."
But, in Matthew 8:5-13, Jesus made no similar statement when a certain centurion (or in the case of Luke 7:1-10, the elders of the Jews sent on behalf of the centurion) came to Jesus beseeching him to heal the centurion’s servant. In each record, Jesus agreed immediately to go and heal him.
As a centurion in charge of a hundred Roman soldiers, he, like the Greek woman, would not have been a Jew. So why did Jesus respond differently when it came to the centurion?
Was it because in Luke’s record, the elders of the Jews told Jesus the centurion was worthy of this request because “he loves our nation, and he has built us a synagogue” (vs 5)? What is there to learn from this information when it comes to Jesus’ willingness to heal or not?
Another question is who were these elders of the Jews? Were they the same as the “elders” or “elders of the people” by whom Jesus said he must suffer many things (Luke 9:22) or the ones who took counsel against him to put him to death (Luke 22:66)? These ones certainly don't sound like they would have gone to Jesus asking him to heal someone.
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Yep. To call another a dog in ANE was an insult. Cleanliness is like holiness. Dogs are filthy animals.
But some read it less as an insult and more as a temporal distinction. To the Jews first, then to the ἔθνος.
From Larry Hurtado's blog https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/dogs-doggies-and-exegesis/
"The term used here is κυναριον, not the more common term, κυων. To be sure, the latter term is often (typically?) used in sentences that give it a clear pejorative sense: to cite NT examples,Matt 7:6; Philip 3:2; Rev 22:15. But κυναριον (which is a diminutive form of the word, along with an alternate diminutive form, κυνιδιον) is never to my knowledge used in such a sentence. Instead, all uses are in sentences that rather clearly refer to household pets. (In other European languages as well, diminutives are used with a certain almost affectionate sense, e.g., “perrito” in Spanish).
This particular term is not used in the LXX and appears in the NT only in this Markan passage and its Matthean parallel (Matt 15:21-28). A check of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae shows further that in wider Greek usage it and the other diminutive form appear always and only in statements about family pets or household dogs: e.g., Philo, Spec.Leg. 4.91, referring to household dogs (κυνιδιων) hanging around banqueting tables looking for scraps dropped to them, and Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, Vol. 2,2 p. 78, line 19, referring to “Maltese lapdogs” (κυναρια Μελιταια), here also in a setting of dining.
Collins asserts (p. 367) that the diminutive form “probably does not have a diminutive connotation in the colloquial language of Mark,” and so “probably refers to the scavenging dogs of the street.” The only references she provides (n. 39) in support of her assertion are a couple of texts in the Greek of Joseph and Asenath (10:14; 13:7), but neither text uses a diminutive form: In 10:14, the converted Asenath throws all her rich pagan food out the window “τοις κυσι βοραν” (“to the dogs” in the street), and in 13:7, Asenath refers back to this act of giving her roayl food “τοις κυσι”, both texts using plural forms of κυων.
Moreover, the dated-but-valuable lexicon drawing precisely on colloquial usage illustrated in papyri and other non-literary souces, J. H. Mouton and George Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament (1930), p. 364, translates several non-biblical uses of κυναριον and κυνιδιον as “lapdogs”.
So, in point of fact, it looks like (contra Collins) Otto Michel’s little entry on κυναριον in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 3:1104, is correct after all in judging that the choice of κυναριον in the Markan passage pictures Jesus as referring to “little dogs which could be tolerated in the house,” not wild scavengers in the street. I repeat: A search of references to the diminutive forms in the TLG gives no instance of usage to refer to “wild” dogs or street “scavengers”. So, it looks like the use of the term in the Gospel scene was deliberate, a choice, of a “marked” term (in linguistics parlance), intended to connote household pets, not the “unmarked” term κυων.
This sense of a domestic scene ought to be obvious simply in reading the passage. Jesus is pictured as responding to the woman’s request by saying, “Let the children be fed first, for it isn’t right to give the childrens’ food to the dogs.” The point of the statement is the temporal priority of the “children”, of course in this case, referring to Jesus directing his ministry to fellow Jews. The metaphor presumes a setting in which the household dogs are fed the leftovers after the family has eaten (not custom-produced dog-food). (I know the practice well, having grown up in a rural setting in which the household dogs ate what we ate, only after we had eaten.)
The woman’s clever reply confirms this, respectfully pointing out that “the dogs under the table eat from the portions of the children.” “Wild” dogs and “scavenger dogs of the street” aren’t typically allowed “under the table” and around the children! And anyone with both children and household dogs will know how it goes at mealtime: If allowed, the dogs hang about the children’s chairs, knowing that children love to “drop” morsels to their pets.
Finally, we also have to ask ourselves how likely it is that the authors of Mark (writing for a Christian readership at least largely made up of converted gentiles) would have inserted a scene in which supposedly Jesus insults a gentile woman in the harsh terms imputed by some modern readers. She is “put in her place” as a gentile, but it’s a temporal place. The scene functions to explain that, although Jesus’ own ministry was confined to his Jewish people (apparently, a tradition that Mark couldn’t deny/ignore), the subsequent mission to gentiles was (Mark wants to imply) on the agenda, only it had to wait its time, and Jesus is pictured as anticipating that gentile-mission in responding positively to the woman’s respectful but clever response. For a bit further discussion of the likely intended function of the passage, see L. W. Hurtado, Mark: New International Biblical Commentary (Hendrickson, 1989), 115-16."
However, Joel Marcus says this in his commentary on Mark,
"The regular term for “dog” is kuōn, and kynaria is technically a diminutive, but this does not necessarily mean that Jesus is referring affectionately to the woman or her daughter as “little dogs” or “pups” \[…\] In Koine Greek the diminutive is often indistinguishable in meaning from the regular form (e.g. paidas/paidia = “children,” ploion/ploiarion = “boat”), and the normal term for “little dog” is not kynarion but kynidion \[…\] Kynarion can be employed with no diminutive force at all (e.g. Plutarch Aratus 7:3; see BAGD, 457). As Rhoads acknowledges, the diminutive form may be used here simply to match that of the word for “daughter,” thygatrion, in 7:25, which is also diminutive."
Then Matthew changes Mark's Syro-Phoenician to Canaanite. I try to read each gospel on its own terms to understand the perspective of that author(s) and his audience. When you stop trying to make it fit, it becomes a fascinating study of ancient texts and cultures. To force fit a glove is, well, stupider than stupid, to borrow a phrase.
But the different treatment of the centurion is striking! Some scholars argue it's a later interpolation, or Matthew and Luke are using a source outside of Mark.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I think another common Christian apologetic is the pericope teaches something about humility. The disparaged ethnic woman had to acknowledge herself as a dog I order to receive deliverance.
Not sure how poor little victor "taught" it, but I can imagine him tailoring a glove out of this passage to force fit onto knowing what's available, how to get it, and what to do with it once you've got it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I thought this AI page did a pretty good job of explaining it:
analysis of mark 7:25-29 - Google Search
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Thanks oldiesman, I'll look into it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.