Originally posted by @eladarShe expressed faith and respect, which you apparently fail at.
She was simply willing to be called a dog. She was not being proud. She wanted a miracle and didn't care about being called a dog as long as she could get the miracle.
And Jesus recognized her faith. Would he have rewarded her if she only showed him insults, as you consistently do in this forum?
Originally posted by @eladarWrong race until the work of God was complete. If you grasped what was going on you'd
Yes, I would have been a dog bevause I am the wrong race.
stop this race bating of yours. God was out to save the world, He created a race to bring
Jesus into the world. He does not like or dislike one race of people over another, but He
did use the Jews to bring Jesus into the world to save the whole world.
Originally posted by @kellyjayWhat is sinful is always sinful. If it wasn't sinful for Jesus then, it is not sinful today.
Wrong race until the work of God was complete. If you grasped what was going on you'd
stop this race bating of yours. God was out to save the world, He created a race to bring
Jesus into the world. He does not like or dislike one race of people over another, but He
did use the Jews to bring Jesus into the world to save the whole world.
Jesus' fulfillment of the Law did not change the definition of sin.
Originally posted by @sonship
What is really the lesson being taught here as Jesus speaks to a Gentile women.[b] " But He answered and said, It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs."
Is the main lesson here that one ethnic group of people is justified by Jesus in despising another ethnic group as "dogs" - ie. far below the ...[text shortened]...
I don't think this section Matthew 15:21-28 has that as its intended point.
Engage.[/b]Proves we are not all Gods children but she became and she already was really one of Gods real children.
1 edit
Originally posted by @eladarWhether you like it or not, the difference here is that what Jesus did was in no way sin, while what you continue to do and attempt to justify, with what you think is a loophole, is.
What is sinful is always sinful. If it wasn't sinful for Jesus then, it is not sinful today.
Jesus' fulfillment of the Law did not change the definition of sin.
Originally posted by @suzianneThat is correct, the racial slur was not a sin. This is because such comments are not inherently sinful.
Whether you like it or not, the difference here is that what Jesus did was in no way sin, while what you continue to do and attempt to justify, with what you think is a loophole, is.
Originally posted by @eladarWhether you like it or not, the difference here is that what Jesus did was in no way sin, while what you continue to do and attempt to justify, with what you think is a loophole, is.
That is correct, the racial slur was not a sin. This is because such comments are not inherently sinful.