Healthy Teaching on the Second Coming

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not agree with you on this, but it isn't an ugly truth for either liberal or conservatives
in my opinion. Its an ugly human truth that has us hating for no good reason.

Why do you call being a racist hateful?

If you point out that by race from highest to lowest IQ the order is...

East Asia, White, Hispanic, Black. The first fair close together, large gap then last two grouped together .

If you say this then tou area racist. Yet there is no hate, just scientific fact.

Originally posted by divegeester
Is see. Jesus also called people he disagreed with derogatory names, so is it ok with if I call you a massive twat?

He disagreed with? Or he knew were going to hell?

Notice how no one can actually deal with the texts given. All they can do is attempt to belittle.

It is almost as if this is an internet board.

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/did-jesus-teach-racism/#gs.DF2v2GY

Originally posted by apathist
https://danielmiessler.com/blog/did-jesus-teach-racism/#gs.DF2v2GY

A great observation by a non-christian, at least in part.

I disagree with his conclusion. At least he is willing to be honest about the text.

I am, as we speak, about to go on a vacation. Best not to check these boards before going on vacation from the Forum.

But since I checked. I comment.

And Jesus went from there and withdrew into the parts of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman came out from those borders and cried out, Saying, Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter suffers terribly from demon possession.

Jesus is driven by the rejection by the religious Jews. And the opportunity to contact the heavenly King came to the Gentiles. This is why Matthew includes this account.

The title "Lord" reveals His divinity. And the title "Son of David" speaks of His humanity. So why did Jesus ignore the woman's calling after Him --- "Son of David" ? But He did receive her calling Him "Lord".

"But He did not answer her a word. "

Jesus, explains to His disciples that His primary mission is to the Israelites.
The Canaanite woman does not have the ground to address Him as "Son of David". She, along with every other non-Israelite, regardless of nation, race, etc. is a Gentile "dog". That is an unclean animal in terms of the theocratic nation of Israel.

Only the Israelites have the standing to request from the King of Israel as "the Son of David." Jesus emphasizes this. What He refused to respond to was her addressing Him with the imploring to "the Son of David."

"But He answered and said [to His disciples] , I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (v.24)

Though the Lord Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, at this time He came to a Gentile region. And the Gentile could partake of His grace once sheep addressed Him as "Lord" understanding it is on that ground she receives grace. It is not on the gounds of His being the Israelite Messiah.

The dispensational significance of the account reveals that Christ came to the Jews first and that because of their unbelief, His salvation turned to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; Rom. 11:11).

Matthew's quite deliberate inclusion of the account, as many of his others, have a dispensational significance. Expounding the passage to justify some kind of racial supremacy of some Gentiles over other Gentiles is questionable imo. All the non-Jewish nations are considered here the unclean animals forbidden for diet.

Does the passage argue for racial supremacy of Israelites? Ie - Supreme Jews verses all Gentile "dogs". It does convey that Jesus understood completely His mission to the one and only genuinely theocratic nation that ever existed on earth - Israel. It is fact that Jesus is the Israelite Messiah.

But the end of the story Jesus is the food meant to get into all people. In the end He is either the bread on the table to be eaten by the Israelite children or the crumbs pushed off the table, landing on the ground for the Gentile little dogs.

Jesus, being rejected, is like the bread for the children knocked off of the children's table (signifying their rejection in unbelief) and landing in the region of the Gentiles for their taking Him in as the fallen crumbs under the table.

"But she came and worshipped Him, saying , Lord, help me!

But He answered and said, It is not good to take the children's bread [israel's Messiah] and throw it to the little dogs."

He remains forever the real Israelite Messiah. He does not discard them for the unclean Gentile non-Israelites as the "Son of David" for them.

"And she said, Yes, Lord ..."

She understands her place as a Gentile, "unclean" as a "little dog" in relation to the Jewish theocratic nation. But she also understand that He is the 'Lord" in His divinity as God of all.

" ... for even the little dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from the master's table.

Then Jesus answered and said to her, O woman, great is your faith! Be it done to you as you wish. And her daughter was healed from that hour."

cont below.
And then vacation for me!
(Yea right)

Glad to see that you agree with me that at this point Jesus is a racist. It was part of God's plan.


The problem with the term racist today is that it means many things to many people.

Is it evil if a person does not wish to marry outside one's race?

Jesus as the Son of David came to His people the theocratic nation of Israel.
They pushed Him out with their unbelief.
Like the bread placed on the table for the children, he was pushed off the table and lands on the ground.

The ground or floor where the crumbs of bread fell stands for the Gentile region. There the Gentile believes into Him as Lord. And their hunger for God to get into them is satisfied. The crumbs become their food.

We may think of the whole crucifixion of Christ as His being pushed off the table also. But then the Jewish Messiah becomes the "food" to the Gentiles. His salvation goes to those Gentiles.

In the New Testament church, Paul says, there CANNOT be racial stratification. He does not say there should not be. He does not say that it is not nice to maintain racial stratifications. He says that is it not possible.

If you want the New Testament church in reality you cannot have racial stratification.
If you want racial stratification then you cannot have the genuine New Testament church.
The two are mutually exclusive.

It is not a matter of being nice but of realizing that it is impossible to have racial stratification in the Lord's church as the Body of Christ.

" For as many as of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

There cannot be Jew nor Greek,
there cannot be slave nor freeman,
there cannot be male and female;
for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:27-29)

Notice - "there cannot be Jew and Greek". In the New Testament church there is no possibility to have racial or ethnic stratification even between Jew and Gentile, much less between Gentile and Gentile.

If you want strife, division, covetousness between races then you cannot have the church life in reality. You have to choose which one you want.

Again in Colossians, in "the new man" old creation stratifications of hatred and tension cannot exist if you want the New Testament church.

"And have put on the new man, which is being renewed unto full knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,

Where there CANNOT be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man,

but Christ is all and in all." (Col. 3:10,11)

Today the Christian has to decide what he or she wants. Do you want to see how much you can get away with? Or do you want to have God's perfect will as the church?
I don't want to see what I can get away with as a Christian. I want to have "the new man" created in Christ Jesus as His church.

By the way, the barbarians were more cultured than the Scythains. But Paul teaches that neither can practice any kind of supremacy. Rather all should and must come into the reality of Christ being in all and all.
[quote] [b] "

Originally posted by Eladar
Glad to see that you agree with me that at this point Jesus is a racist. It was part of God's plan.


The problem with the term racist today is that it means many things to many people.

Is it evil if a person does not wish to marry outside one's race?

Then I guess I am glad you agree with the word of God that in the church there CANNOT BE the practice of any kind of racial or ethnic supremacy or attitude of either innate superiority or innate inferiority.

Don't argue against the New Testament that there CAN be where it says there CANNOT be.

See you all maybe in a few days.

The Lord be with your spirits brothers.

Originally posted by sonship
Then I guess I am glad you agree with the word of God that in the church there CANNOT BE the practice of any kind of racial or ethnic supremacy or attitude of either innate superiority or innate inferiority.

Don't argue against the New Testament that there CAN be where it says there CANNOT be.

Is a person who is smarter superior to the stupid person?

Is the person who has a work ethic superior to the slothful?

Originally posted by Eladar
He disagreed with? Or he knew were going to hell?

Notice how no one can actually deal with the texts given. All they can do is attempt to belittle.

It is almost as if this is an internet board.

Well I guess God is a racist too, is that correct?

Originally posted by divegeester
Well I guess God is a racist too, is that correct?

Jesus spoke in accordance with God.

Why were the Jews to kill all living? They weren't Jews. From your point of view it must be seen as a racist genocide instructed by God.

Originally posted by Eladar
If you point out that by race from highest to lowest IQ the order is...

East Asia, White, Hispanic, Black. The first fair close together, large gap then last two grouped together .

IQ tests don't actually measure intelligence. Also, the ordering in your list is due to culture and opportunity.

So your choice to offer that list - without qualification (other that pleading 'scientific' ) - does seem racist to me.

Originally posted by apathist
IQ tests don't actually measure intelligence. Also, the ordering in your list is due to culture and opportunity.

So your choice to offer that list - without qualification (other that pleading 'scientific' ) - does seem racist to me.

Thanks for sharing your testimony about your ideological belief in the subject.

Of course if you'd like to see the science on it, you will fund that academic success and iq ate highly correlated. You will also find that it is not sumply tied to outside influence. Most of it is genetic.

Originally posted by Eladar
Thanks for sharing your testimony about your ideological belief in the subject.

Of course if you'd like to see the science on it, you will fund that academic success and iq ate highly correlated. You will also find that it is not sumply tied to outside influence. Most of it is genetic.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school