Something Bad That Jesus Did?

[Ben_Masada]

Jesus may have seemed to do bad things. But it must be remembered that he was God incarnate. Yes, he tested the one woman’s faith, showing that it wasn’t just the jews that would gain salvation through Him.

Ben: You have just said that God does bad things by saying that Jesus was God. Then did he explain to the disciples that he was only testing that woman’s faith? Perhaps to you he did because you are the one with the idea. And regarding being just for the Jews or not, the word ONLY for the House of Israel in down in the text.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Jesus may have seemed to do bad things. But it must be remembered that He was God incarnate. The Word made flesh. Yes, he tested the one woman’s faith, showing that it wasn’t just the jews that would gain salvation through Him.

You have just stated that God does bad things by saying that Jesus was God incarnate.

About testing the woman’s faith, did he explain later to the Apostles that his behaviour towards that woman was a test of her faith? No, he didn’t. Did he tell her that the whole thing was but a test of her faith? No, he didn’t. Perhaps he told you somehow, because you are the one with the explanation. Nice try though.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Aw, let Ben be. Although I doubt the premise,
“Yesterday I was asked if I could think of anything bad that Jesus could have ever done. I thought for a while and the following came to my mind: :newidea:”,
he’s only raising questions that others have on their minds.

Congratulations NotWorthy, I mean, YesWorthy by a lot. I found your approach very wise indeed. You really hit the nail on the head.

Therefore, Shalom to you from Yerushalaim.

Ben:

 

[zach_dunn]

If the Apostles really said that Jesus had the words of everlasting life, why would Jesus forbid them not to take those words of everlasting life to the Gentiles, and much less to the Samaritans? It’s in Matthew 10:6. Can you explain it to me? I would appreciate.

Ben:

Jesus does have the words to everlasting life, and, in fact, he tells the Apostles to teach the Gentiles and the world by saying “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 28:19). He orders his Apostles to teach the Gentiles along with everyone else. It was just during Jesus’ ministry that Jesus and the Apostles focused on the Jews, Jesus had to teach the Apostles a lot so they were ready to teach all the nations and since the Jews are gods chosen people, they focused on them.

This is kind of a side note but, have any of you heard people claim that Christianity is like the fullness of Judaism because we accept Jesus as the Messiah? I’ve heard this a couple of times and it makes sense but I’m not sure what to think of it.

Pax,
Zach

 

[Ben_Masada]

Yes, Jesus is using this to teach His disciples. He intended all along to help this woman, but wanted to show His Disciples what happens when we come to Jesus in Faith.

Jesus had always taught, “I came first for the Jews, and then the Gentiles”.

BTW, I believe this is one of the only times I’ve seen a woman stand “toe to toe” with Jesus and not come out looking like a fool.

Very good NotWorthy, I am ready to commit if you show me one single passage in the NT where Jesus is saying that he had come first for the Jews, and then the Gentiles.
Just one will be enough. But if you can’t, why try to rewrite the NT? Things like that, I call vinegar; and with vinegar you will never catch flies. I suggest to use honey. You will be more successful.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

It’s interesting that you of all people would find that to be the “bad” thing that Jesus did!

Jesus as the Messiah, did come specifically to the JEWS! While He was in his public ministry he even instructed his disciples to avoid the Samaritan towns. Ultimately, of course, His Apostles were appointed the task of taking the Gospel to the Gentiles. The Gentiles were always within God’s plan, but not generally in Jesus’ ministry. There were exceptions of course, as you have pointed out. But there was no back pedaling or spin in his remark about her strong Faith as you seem to imply.

Basically you’re complaining that Jesus Christ was not really Christian enough for you!

That’s interesting that you bring to our attention that indeed the Gentiles were always within God’s plan, but not in Jesus’. It reminds me of Isaiah 42:6, where we have that Israel was given for light unto the Gentiles. Then, comes this member of Israel - Jesus - forbidding to take the Light unto the Gentiles. It’s kind of odd to me, for lack of a better word.

Now, with regards to Jesus being Christian enough for me or for anyone else, he was never “Christ” until about 30 years later when
Paul started preaching about him as such. (Acts 11:26) And all references to him as such in the gospels, the explanation is found in the fact that the gospels were written from 50+ years after he had been gone. Prefaces to the Gospels given by the very Catholic Church in the New American version of the Bible attest to what I am saying.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

This just goes to show that we do need Church tradition to explain the Bible. Here’s someone who read the story, but didn’t understand the kind of story it was.

This is a “clever answer” story. Jesus, like a lot of rabbis, loved to teach by asking questions or getting people to make comebacks. He knew that this woman was clever and would be able to make clever comebacks, so Jesus got her to argue with him.

There are other “clever answer” stories in the Bible, but Jesus usually ends them by trumping the clever or right answer to make the person realize that he needs to do what he says, or to do more than that.

In this case, Jesus was evidently so pleased by the woman and her answer that he felt no need to use her answer to tell her that she wasn’t living right or doing enough. He set her up as a good example, instead.

Sorry Mintaka, but there are more speculations in this post of yours than in all posts of mine in this forum. Beautiful post, don’t take me wrong, but speculations nevertheless. Moreover, let me tell you, I loved it.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

You should be banned from these forums for blasphemous remarks like that.

You must be kidding! I can prove to you, any time you want, that I rather honor the name of Jesus in much better terms than you do. Jesus was my fellow Jewish brother. What I am trying here is to claim him as one of our own. The real Jesus of Nazareth and not what Paul made him to be.

Ben:

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I am ready to commit if you show me one single passage in the NT where Jesus is saying that he had come first for the Jews, and then the Gentiles.
Just one will be enough.

Actually, there are a LOT of passages in the New Testament about this. However, this is a teaching that Jesus gave fully to His disciples (including St. Paul) after His death and resurrection. St. Paul, indeed, was instructed by Jesus privately (as he tells us in his epistles) as he (Paul) was specifically chosen to be the apostle to the Gentiles. However, all through the Acts of the Apostles we see that it is written that in the 40 days Jesus was on earth after His death and resurrection, and before His ascension into Heaven, he spoke and explained His teachings to the apostles (who in turn went on to explain both in writing and orally–what we know as Sacred Tradition). . .and furthermore, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into ‘all truth’. It is all ‘there’ but things needed to be developed from ‘bare bones’ etc. as people reached greater understanding.

If you, Ben, are going to accept as a working premise that the gospels record the words of Jesus (but not all He said and did, scripture is explicit that it does not in fact list every word and deed of Jesus), then you also have to accept that Acts, and the epistles, likewise record apostolic teaching . . .and the apostles are teaching what they received from Jesus.

That means that even if you don’t read in King James (or New American, or whatever) English that “Jesus stood up and said, Remember, I have come to Israel first and then the Gentiles, so queue up”. . . if you do read further on the words of St. Peter and St. Paul in Acts, or Romans, Hebrews, etc., and find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc., this teaching, then this was indeed a teaching Jesus gave but did not necessarily cause to be ‘written down’ in ‘His own words’.

Now if you’re not going to accept that, you have to give a reasonable reason that you’ll accept only something ‘said’ in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but not in Acts of the Apostles or any epistles.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I can’t believe my eyes when I read this above. Where is the sense of scholarship in Catholic believers? How can Catholics be that fragile?

You’re talking to a scripture scholar, Ben. I just strongly disagree with your hermeneutical premises and methods.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Actually, there are a LOT of passages in the New Testament about this. However, this is a teaching that Jesus gave fully to His disciples (including St. Paul) after His death and resurrection. St. Paul, indeed, was instructed by Jesus privately (as he tells us in his epistles) as he (Paul) was specifically chosen to be the apostle to the Gentiles. However, all through the Acts of the Apostles we see that it is written that in the 40 days Jesus was on earth after His death and resurrection, and before His ascension into Heaven, he spoke and explained His teachings to the apostles (who in turn went on to explain both in writing and orally–what we know as Sacred Tradition). . .and furthermore, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into ‘all truth’. It is all ‘there’ but things needed to be developed from ‘bare bones’ etc. as people reached greater understanding.

If you, Ben, are going to accept as a working premise that the gospels record the words of Jesus (but not all He said and did, scripture is explicit that it does not in fact list every word and deed of Jesus), then you also have to accept that Acts, and the epistles, likewise record apostolic teaching . . .and the apostles are teaching what they received from Jesus.

That means that even if you don’t read in King James (or New American, or whatever) English that “Jesus stood up and said, Remember, I have come to Israel first and then the Gentiles, so queue up”. . . if you do read further on the words of St. Peter and St. Paul in Acts, or Romans, Hebrews, etc., and find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc., this teaching, then this was indeed a teaching Jesus gave but did not necessarily cause to be ‘written down’ in ‘His own words’.

Now if you’re not going to accept that, you have to give a reasonable reason that you’ll accept only something ‘said’ in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but not in Acts of the Apostles or any epistles.

Sorry my friend, but you failed either to give me what I asked or to understand my proposition. I said “One single quotation of Jesus saying that he had come for the Jews first and then for the Gentiles.” Now, I am going to give you one of his, saying that he came ONLY for the Jews. Read Matthew 15:24. Not that I agree with him, because I have from Isaiah 42:6 that we,
Israel have been Divinily given as light unto the nations; all the Gentiles.

Ben:

 

[cheeto1]

You must be kidding! I can prove to you, any time you want, that I rather honor the name of Jesus in much better terms than you do. Jesus was my fellow Jewish brother. What I am trying here is to claim him as one of our own. The real Jesus of Nazareth and not what Paul made him to be.
Ben:

Sir, it is an honor to meet one of God’s chosen people.
If you please, who do you say that Jesus is?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

That’s interesting that you bring to our attention that indeed the Gentiles were always within God’s plan, but not in Jesus’. It reminds me of Isaiah 42:6, where we have that Israel was given for light unto the Gentiles. Then, comes this member of Israel - Jesus - forbidding to take the Light unto the Gentiles. It’s kind of odd to me, for lack of a better word.

Now, with regards to Jesus being Christian enough for me or for anyone else, he was never “Christ” until about 30 years later when
Paul started preaching about him as such. (Acts 11:26) And all references to him as such in the gospels, the explanation is found in the fact that the gospels were written from 50+ years after he had been gone. Prefaces to the Gospels given by the very Catholic Church in the New American version of the Bible attest to what I am saying.

Ben:

So you are somehow gladdened that Jesus appears to be either in ignorance of, or in disagreement with Isaiah 42:6. This if I am following your reasoning is some sort of evidence that Jesus did not consider himself to be the Messiah. At least your final remarks about St. Paul being the originator of the Jesus-the-Messiah pretension seems to bear this out.

But you are forgetting that to those 2nd Temple Jews, the whole basis of Jesus’ authority and attraction was as the Messiah. It was the elephant in the living room. No one had to say it, it was always just beneath the surface. But in fact it was said by nearly everyone in the Gospels, although not perhaps by Jesus in so many words. The 2nd Temple Jews were actually too fixated on his Messiahship, and not enough on his actual revelation, which was that he was the Son of God come to earth to establish His Divine and spiritual Kingdom! That was his driving message; Repent, the Kingdom of God is at hand!

The only reason you see St. Paul referring more to Jesus as the Messiah, is for the benefit of the Gentiles. But in 2nd Temple Palestine, it was taken for granted.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Sir, it is an honor to meet one of God’s chosen people.
If you please, who do you say that Jesus is?

Jesus is dead. And we should honor his memory
by not using his name to hurt other people. It has been in the name of Jesus that Christianity has destroyed thousands of our
People. And I mean mine and Jesus’.

Now, if your question was, who do I say that Jesus was, I would
say that he was a Rabbi and Teacher who, among others of his time, according to a certain custom, gathered disciples in the mystical number of twelve to teach Torah and the Prophets. There were many of those groups at the time. Jesus was singled out because he was the one Paul happened to pick.

Moreover, Jesus was the legitimate and biological son of Joseph and Mary. Any other strange account would be inserting Greek Mythology into Judaism. Thinking of Jesus this way, I give no one the chance to think of Jesus in a disrespective manner. I am sure you know what I am talking about. Thinking of Jesus in the Christian fashion, you can’t imagine what Agnostics say about him.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

So you are somehow gladdened that Jesus appears to be either in ignorance of, or in disagreement with Isaiah 42:6.

Ben; No sir, that’s not my impression of Jesus. This must be one of the contradictions of the NT. The real Jesus of Nazareth was well aware of Isaiah 42:6 as he, speeching to the Jews in his “Sermon of the Mount” said, “You are the light of the world.” (Mat. 5:14)

This if I am following your reasoning is some sort of evidence that Jesus did not consider himself to be the Messiah.

Ben: Now yes, you are correct. Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah or son of God. Why do I believe so?
Listen to this: When Jesus was gone, his Apostles organized the Sect of the Nazarenes, whose headquarters was in Jerusalem, and they were coexisting peacefully with the regular Jews just like any other of the sects of Judaism. About 30 years later, Paul
showed up in Jerusalem preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. Within 15 days only the
local Jews were on an uproar to kill him for preaching heresy in Jerusalem. How about the Nazarenes? What were they preaching about Jesus to even make converts among the Pharisees? It’s obvious, isn’t it? I think you must have got the idea.

At least your final remarks about St. Paul being the originator of the Jesus-the-Messiah pretension seems to bear this out.

Ben: Based on the evidence in Acts 11:26, mind you.

But you are forgetting that to those 2nd Temple Jews, the whole basis of Jesus’ authority and attraction was as the Messiah.

Ben: If I have forgotten something, remind me with the proper Biblical quotation and I’ll get back to you.

But in fact it was said by nearly everyone in the Gospels, although not perhaps by Jesus in so many words.

Ben: Yes, in the gospels written 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. Very convenient, don’t you think so?

The 2nd Temple Jews were actually too fixated on his Messiahship, and not enough on his actual revelation, which was that he was the Son of God come to earth to establish His Divine and spiritual Kingdom! That was his driving message; Repent, the Kingdom of God is at hand!

Ben: The only Jew I can account of with that fixation was Paul, about 30 years after Jesus had been gone.

The only reason you see St. Paul referring more to Jesus as the Messiah, is for the benefit of the Gentiles. But in 2nd Temple Palestine, it was taken for granted.

Ben: Sorry, but you don’t seem to be too bright for two reasons: First, 98 percent of Paul’s missionary activities were among the Jews. I am sure that 2 percent can hardly name one as activily involved with Gentiles. And second, there was no such a place as Palestine at that time, and there is no such a place today. I wonder why Catholics refrain from using the legitimate name of Israel or Judea for then and today. Could it be because the Vatican still does not recognize the State of Israel?

Ben:

 

[NotWorthy]

Ben: Now yes, you are correct. Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah or son of God. Why do I believe so?
Listen to this: When Jesus was gone, his Apostles organized the Sect of the Nazarenes, whose headquarters was in Jerusalem, and they were coexisting peacefully with the regular Jews just like any other of the sects of Judaism.

Except for that little incident with St. Stephen - “Stone-Gate”, if you will. And, of course, the persecution of Christians in surrounding areas after that. While the early-early Christians considered themselves Jews (because they in fact are Jews!), the Jews who failed to get on the ship before it left didn’t like the teachings of the New Covenant Church.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Ben: If I have forgotten something, remind me with the proper Biblical quotation and I’ll get back to you.

Maybe you can do the same for me with regard to the Apostles forming the sect of the Nazarenes.

 

[cheeto1]

Jesus is dead. And we should honor his memory
by not using his name to hurt other people. It has been in the name of Jesus that Christianity has destroyed thousands of our
People. And I mean mine and Jesus’.

Now, if your question was, who do I say that Jesus was, I would
say that he was a Rabbi and Teacher who, among others of his time, according to a certain custom, gathered disciples in the mystical number of twelve to teach Torah and the Prophets. There were many of those groups at the time. Jesus was singled out because he was the one Paul happened to pick.

Moreover, Jesus was the legitimate and biological son of Joseph and Mary. Any other strange account would be inserting Greek Mythology into Judaism. Thinking of Jesus this way, I give no one the chance to think of Jesus in a disrespective manner. I am sure you know what I am talking about. Thinking of Jesus in the Christian fashion, you can’t imagine what Agnostics say about him.

Ben:

You have said so much. Are you one who believes Jesus’
body was stolen? In Mark 14:61 Jesus is asked if He is the
Messiah. He replies: I am; and you will see the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the
clouds of heaven.

How is it that the high priest was so upset by this that he
tore his robe and wanted Him crucified, yet you say that you
respect Him. How do you respect someone who would tell
such a lie? How do you respect such a great deceiver? Would
He not be evil?

Also: Are you waiting for the Messiah?

Thank you for reading this sir, I wish you well.

 

[Ben_Masada]

You have said so much. Are you one who believes Jesus’
body was stolen?

Ben: Stolen is not a nice word, but I do believe that Jesus’ was removed by Joseph of Arimathea during that night of Friday to Saturday when there was no one around, and the tomb area was deserted.

In Mark 14:61 Jesus is asked if He is the
Messiah. He replies: I am; and you will see the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the
clouds of heaven.

Ben: The gospel of Mark was written in the year 75 CE. Therefore, 45 years after Jesus had been gone. All references to Jesus as the Messiah are farfetched. And that answer put in Jesus lips is not Jewish at all. Jesus was Jewish.

How is it that the high priest was so upset by this that he
tore his robe and wanted Him crucified, yet you say that you
respect Him.

Ben: He didn’t. The High Priest knew that’s against the Law for a High Priest to tear his rob. Besides, the High Priest would never ask if Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, because there is no Jew on earth to put those two titles togethe. The Messiah is not supposed to be also son of God.

How do you respect someone who would tell
such a lie? How do you respect such a great deceiver? Would
He not be evil?

Ben: Jesus did not lie. Liars are those who claim that Jesus was what he never claimed to be. Jesus was not a deceiver. Deceivers are those who use his name to make a living out of the naives of this world. Jesus was not evil. Evil does not exist. Evil is made or done when we use our freewill to go out of our way.

Also: Are you waiting for the Messiah?

Ben: No, I am not. Do you believe that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah? I am sure you do. So do I. Now, if you read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21 and 45:4, you will see, if faith allows you, that Isaiah identifies that Servant with
Israel by name. Therefore, to answer your question, the Messiah is back. There is no longer reason to wait for him.

Thank you for reading this sir, I wish you well.

Ben: Shalom to you too from Jerusalem.

Ben:

 

[NotWorthy]

Ben: No, I am not. Do you believe that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah? I am sure you do. So do I. Now, if you read Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21 and 45:4, you will see, if faith allows you, that Isaiah identifies that Servant with
Israel by name. Therefore, to answer your question, the Messiah is back. There is no longer reason to wait for him.

So, the state of Israel, created by the United Nations in the… what, 50’s?.. That’s the Messiah?