Something Bad Jesus Did

[Ben Masada]

Something Bad Jesus Did


Once, I was asked if there was anything bad Jesus did in his life. My answer was: Yes, there was something Jesus did, which I wish he had not done, because it does not represent well the People he belonged to.

Once a Gentile Canaanite mother was crying after him, asking for her daughter to be cured, and Jesus would not give a damn about her. His disciples told him to do something for that woman or discard her, because she was making them go crazy with her non-stop crying.

What did Jesus say? I haven't come for Gentiles but ONLY for the House of Israel. Then, kept on going and the woman kept on crying and following him.

When he couldn't take any longer, he stopped and asked her: Hey, listen, what do you want from me? To cure my daughter, Master. No way, I cannot take of the food of the children and throw it unto the dogs.

He meant the Jews for the children, and the Gentiles for the dogs. But only after the woman understood and recognized her condition of dog, by saying that the dogs also feed from the crumbles that fall from the table of the children, Jesus realized that he would never get rid of that woman. So, he changed his mind and cured her daughter. Then, to erase a little the impression left on her for being forced to recognize her doggy condition, he mentioned something about her strong faith and left.

That was terrible, if we can imagine what that poor woman went through till she got what she wanted. The text is in Matthew 15:21-28.

Ben

[NiceCupOfTea]

well yes it sounds a bit mean, but its not the whole story though is it.

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by NiceCupOfTea

well yes it sounds a bit mean, but its not the whole story though is it.

Wow! You got to be the first on this one. It does call for a nice cup of tea. Now, if you read the text, I am afraid that's pretty much what Jesus allowed himself to reveal about the wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles. I simply find it too weird.
Ben

[radarmark]

Two more "killing the fig tree" (Matthew 21:18-22, Mark 11:12-14 and 11:20-25) and Mark 5:1-20 "casting the spirits into swine". In the first Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing him fruit. In the second he vasts demons into swine who then drown themselves. Neither particularly ethical (from my point of view).

[wil]

Hmmm hard to argue with literalists....

We'll start with one...and let ya think a little about radars before we go on to more...

Did Jesus heal her?

No.

Did he teach us all a lesson? By the responses, I guess not.

Reread the scripture. Jesus did not heal her, did not agree to heal her daughter... She did. Her faith did. The children of Israel, the sons and daughters of G!d, the chosen ones, are the ones that listen, and the ones that learn.

The dogs are those with ears yet do not hear, with eyes but do not see, that read but do not understand.

Read the story again, not Ben's bastardized interpretation/version, but the link he provided, and tell me if he healed her, or taught her and us a lesson.

Jesus Heals the Gentile Woman’s Daughter
Mark 7:24–30
21rThen Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, sSon of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.”
23 But He answered her not a word.
And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.”
24 But He answered and said, t“I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
25 Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!”
26 But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little udogs.”
27 And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”
28 Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, vgreat is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

[Servetus]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

Something Bad Jesus Did


Once, I was asked if there was anything bad Jesus did in his life. My answer was: Yes, there was something Jesus did, which I wish he had not done, because it does not represent well the People he belonged to.

Once a Gentile Canaanite mother was crying after him, asking for her daughter to be cured, and Jesus would not give a damn about her. His disciples told him to do something for that woman or discard her, because she was making them go crazy with her non-stop crying.

What did Jesus say? I haven't come for Gentiles but ONLY for the House of Israel. Then, kept on going and the woman kept on crying and following him.

When he couldn't take any longer, he stopped and asked her: Hey, listen, what do you want from me? To cure my daughter, Master. No way, I cannot take of the food of the children and throw it unto the dogs.

He meant the Jews for the children, and the Gentiles for the dogs. But only after the woman understood and recognized her condition of dog, by saying that the dogs also feed from the crumbles that fall from the table of the children, Jesus realized that he would never get rid of that woman. So, he changed his mind and cured her daughter. Then, to erase a little the impression left on her for being forced to recognize her doggy condition, he mentioned something about her strong faith and left.

That was terrible, if we can imagine what that poor woman went through till she got what she wanted. The text is in Matthew 15:21-28.

Hi Ben,

As I read it, and I only did it briefly at that, I think that, in this case, Jesus’ biographer captured a still shot, a moment in time, in which, developmentally speaking, Jesus himself might have been trying to decide whether to become a Talmudist or a Christian. "In Christ," it was later radically said, there is “neither Jew nor Gentile,” but, although I’ve heard some rumors, I am not quite sure if that is true in Rabbinic Talmudism (if such an 'ism' there be). At any rate, it sounds to me as though Jesus might have been wavering between two clearly opposing opinions and was here being too, well, provincial. To me, it is interesting to note (in contrast to your interpretation) that it was seemingly with a good bit of wit (and a quick and clever rejoinder) that the Gentile woman was soon able to win Jesus over and the story ends rather happily, with a healing and, metaphorically speaking, the Gentile pit-bull converted into a loving and harmless poodle.

Anyway, this is just my initial impression, and please do know, in advance, that I understand how seriously flawed parts of my own argument are. However, given that it is off season at Wimbledon, I could not resist batting a ball across the net.

Best regards,

Serv

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

Now, if you read the text, I am afraid that's pretty much what Jesus allowed himself to reveal about the wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles. I simply find it too weird.

Is it really that weird?

I think Jesus' movement can be likened to today's Chabad. The attitudes that Jesus and his followers would have had to Gentiles would have been similar to those Lubavitchers have. I think many of us have fallen for the erroneous idea that Jesus is a super-nice guy that is always good, always nice to everyone. We idealise Jesus and make him out to be someone too good to be true. But Jesus was a human being and he would have been just as vulnerable to the sociological influences around him as any Jew.......which is why I will now list the similarities between Jesus' followers and Chabad:

Before his death, Jesus focused mainly on his own people. What Jesus did was much like a program of Jewish outreach, bringing Jews together as Chabad does today. Just like Menachem Schneerson, Jesus was a miracle worker and he sought to improve life in the Jewish community (Matthew 10:7-10) -- which Chabad seeks to do. Just like today's Chabadniks, the Nazarenes initially spread Jesus' teachings only among his/their own people.

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. Matthew 10:5-6

As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep. Matthew 10:7-10

Just like Schneerson, Jesus' followers believed he was the messiah and that was how his movement gained so many followers (much like how Chabad became so popular). Again, just like his modern counterpart, his followers believed he wasn't really dead, but alive somewhere but out of sight (Schneerson I was told was never buried) and that one day he would return as king of the Jews. They also both believed that the arrival of the messianic kingdom was imminent in their generation (both the ancient Nazarenes and modern-day Chabadniks).

After his "death and resurrection," Jesus changed the goal from Jewish outreach to converting Gentiles. It's just like Chabad's efforts to get non-Jews to actively adhere to the Seven Noahide Laws and creating Hasidic Gentiles. Jesus would have been much like a Hasidic Rebbe himself (he was a miracle worker and Hasidic Rebbes are supposed to perform miracles). He probably knew kabbalah and practiced mysticism. If Jesus and Schneerson switched places, history probably wouldn't change. They're like identical parts from a factory.

In Matthew 10:5-10 and Matthew 15:21-28 Jesus was doing what Tovia Singer and that guy on bejewish.org (I don't know his name) do -- Jewish outreach.

[NiceCupOfTea]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada

Wow! You got to be the first on this one. It does call for a nice cup of tea. Now, if you read the text, I am afraid that's pretty much what Jesus allowed himself to reveal about the wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles. I simply find it too weird.
Ben

well the Bible is a super weird book really.

in the Christianity that I have been exposed to we believe that because of what Jesus did on the cross that we Gentiles are grafted into the root through Christ and can enter into a love relationship with God.

[NiceCupOfTea]

Originally Posted by radarmark

Two more "killing the fig tree" (Matthew 21:18-22, Mark 11:12-14 and 11:20-25) and Mark 5:1-20 "casting the spirits into swine". In the first Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing him fruit. In the second he vasts demons into swine who then drown themselves. Neither particularly ethical (from my point of view).

yeah poor pigs and their owners must have been devastated, they could have all died of starvation with the loss of their livestock

[Thomas]

Hi All —
If you read the texts in the context of their setting, not as a set of isolated incidents, but as a narrative, then a metanarrative begins to emerge.

The woman from Canaan was a lesson for the disciples. They said send her away ... and then He, with her, taught them a lesson. Note that she answers Christ from the strength of her faith, whereas they are silent witnesses to the episode. And her child is healed ... an early indicator to his disciples that He might not be quite the man they think He is.

So he didn't change His mind, cop-out of a difficult situation, or succumb to an annoying stranger — that really is a very naive interpretation.

Pause for a moment. The Scriptures were written by followers of the Way, not journalists from the National Enquirer / News International ... it's hardly likely that the Scripture Scribe sat down and thought 'what can we put in that shows Jesus in a really bad light?' ... think about it.

The cursing of the fig tree, for example, folds in with the cleansing of the temple — this was the Court of the Gentiles, the area of the Temple where Gentiles could come and pray to the God of Israel. It had been turned into a marketplace, so the Gentile could find no sustenance there.

So what Christ is reacting against is that the People of Israel are called by God, not to be apart from the world, but to be witnesses to God in the heart of the world, to show the whole world God as immanently present to all people.

The cursing of the fig signifies the condemnation of the corrupted priesthood/temple which give all the appearance of providing sustenance, but in fact offer nothing but bitterness.

It's what Christ experiences in the hardened heart. It is the Cross on which He hangs, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

As ever, if one wants to understand a Christian text, wider to seek instruction from the Tradition that produced the text, rather than make guesses and assumptions.

God bless,

Thomas

[Lunitik]

Originally Posted by Thomas

As ever, if one wants to understand a Christian text, (wiser) to seek instruction from the Tradition that produced the text, rather than make guesses and assumptions.

A subtle but very revealing statement, Thomas.

Of course, we know that Jesus never wrote the scripture, but now you bring it to the surface - like all traditions, things are said for a purpose... they are not intended to be factual but rather to express something of truth.

It is always the case, but too many take Christian texts as facts, they do not look and see WHY this is being said. It is important to look beneath the surface, very little of the scriptures are certifiable fact yet they are absolutely true. There is a huge difference, fact is mediocre and of the mind, truth is profound and of the heart. Whosoever reads a religious text looking at it like an ordinary history book will simply miss, they have not even understood the first thing.

John says this directly, he says "the words we speak are spiritual words, do not listen with fleshly ears but the ears of the spirit" (paraphrase) yet still people miss, thinking that believing a nonsense shows their faith is strong. Look a little deeper and you can see that which ordinarily cannot be said, but never simply accept the surface statement, it is never the thing.

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by radarmark

Two more "killing the fig tree" (Matthew 21:18-22, Mark 11:12-14 and 11:20-25) and Mark 5:1-20 "casting the spirits into swine". In the first Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing him fruit. In the second he vasts demons into swine who then drown themselves. Neither particularly ethical (from my point of view).

Yes, if you take the case in a literal basis. That's a kind of parable without the specific statement that what Jesus was saying or doing was a parable. The text says that it was not a season for figs. (Mark 11:13) Here in Israel, when the season is not for figs, the figtree is thick with branches and leaves but without any fruits. Then, according to the text, Jesus got upset and cursed the tree, so that next day it had withered to its roots. (Mark 11:20) It makes no sense that Jesus would curse a tree for not bearing fruits out of season. It meant perhaps a lot of saying and none of deeds.

And for the casting of demons into swine, never happened. Perhaps also a parable. Swine were, by law, forbidden to trafic around loose in the city or in the fields. Even today, the State prohibition stands. There are places where they are raised but in close environments like kibbutzim. A high penalty is charged if any swine is found loose rooming around. If this is true today in an almost secular Jewish country, imagine 2000 years ago.
Ben

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by wil

Hmmm hard to argue with literalists....

We'll start with one...and let ya think a little about radars before we go on to more...

Did Jesus heal her?

No.

Did he teach us all a lesson? By the responses, I guess not.

Reread the scripture. Jesus did not heal her, did not agree to heal her daughter... She did. Her faith did. The children of Israel, the sons and daughters of G!d, the chosen ones, are the ones that listen, and the ones that learn.

The dogs are those with ears yet do not hear, with eyes but do not see, that read but do not understand.

Read the story again, not Ben's bastardized interpretation/version, but the link he provided, and tell me if he healed her, or taught her and us a lesson.

Wow! Very good Will! I hope the other Christians will follow your lead and stop believing in miracles.
Ben

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by Servetus

Hi Ben,

As I read it, and I only did it briefly at that, I think that, in this case, Jesus’ biographer captured a still shot, a moment in time, in which, developmentally speaking, Jesus himself might have been trying to decide whether to become a Talmudist or a Christian. "In Christ," it was later radically said, there is “neither Jew nor Gentile,” but, although I’ve heard some rumors, I am not quite sure if that is true in Rabbinic Talmudism (if such an 'ism' there be). At any rate, it sounds to me as though Jesus might have been wavering between two clearly opposing opinions and was here being too, well, provincial. To me, it is interesting to note (in contrast to your interpretation) that it was seemingly with a good bit of wit (and a quick and clever rejoinder) that the Gentile woman was soon able to win Jesus over and the story ends rather happily, with a healing and, metaphorically speaking, the Gentile pit-bull converted into a loving and harmless poodle.

Anyway, this is just my initial impression, and please do know, in advance, that I understand how seriously flawed parts of my own argument are. However, given that it is off season at Wimbledon, I could not resist batting a ball across the net.

Best regards,

Serv

Hey Serv, that was cute, almost akin to funny. But there is some probability of a lesson to learn. If the event really happened, it is quite probable that the lady could have converted to Judaism. Judaism, I say, Christianity would need another 30 years to show up in scene. (Acts 11:26) If Jesus was trying to become a Talmudist, it is perfectly acceptable; it was all around, but a Christian? It did not exist yet. Paul had not yet fallen off his horse.
Ben

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Is it really that weird?

I think Jesus' movement can be likened to today's Chabad. The attitudes that Jesus and his followers would have had to Gentiles would have been similar to those Lubavitchers have. I think many of us have fallen for the erroneous idea that Jesus is a super-nice guy that is always good, always nice to everyone. We idealise Jesus and make him out to be someone too good to be true. But Jesus was a human being and he would have been just as vulnerable to the sociological influences around him as any Jew.......which is why I will now list the similarities between Jesus' followers and Chabad:

Before his death, Jesus focused mainly on his own people. What Jesus did was much like a program of Jewish outreach, bringing Jews together as Chabad does today. Just like Menachem Schneerson, Jesus was a miracle worker and he sought to improve life in the Jewish community (Matthew 10:7-10) -- which Chabad seeks to do. Just like today's Chabadniks, the Nazarenes initially spread Jesus' teachings only among his/their own people.

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. Matthew 10:5-6

As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep. Matthew 10:7-10

Just like Schneerson, Jesus' followers believed he was the messiah and that was how his movement gained so many followers (much like how Chabad became so popular). Again, just like his modern counterpart, his followers believed he wasn't really dead, but alive somewhere but out of sight (Schneerson I was told was never buried) and that one day he would return as king of the Jews. They also both believed that the arrival of the messianic kingdom was imminent in their generation (both the ancient Nazarenes and modern-day Chabadniks).

After his "death and resurrection," Jesus changed the goal from Jewish outreach to converting Gentiles. It's just like Chabad's efforts to get non-Jews to actively adhere to the Seven Noahide Laws and creating Hasidic Gentiles. Jesus would have been much like a Hasidic Rebbe himself (he was a miracle worker and Hasidic Rebbes are supposed to perform miracles). He probably knew kabbalah and practiced mysticism. If Jesus and Schneerson switched places, history probably wouldn't change. They're like identical parts from a factory.

In Matthew 10:5-10 and Matthew 15:21-28 Jesus was doing what Tovia Singer and that guy on bejewish.org (I don't know his name) do -- Jewish outreach.

Do you know something Salmeister? I almost agree with you in totum. I do compare the Chabadnicks to Christians. At least, as the individual Messiah is concerned. I would even go as far as to compare the Reb Schneerson to Jesus, as we consider the fact that neither of them ever declared to have been the Messiah. The anointing of Schneerson had been made by the Chabadnicks, and of Jesus by Paul. Indeed, the similarity is staggering.
Ben