Charity

You might have misunderstood me. I was only speaking of Hampson ignoring the problem - not you. The "elephant in the room" is that the word "dog" is in the Greek text for Matthew 15:26-27, and Hampson's solution to ignore them or have translations delete them from the bible seems to be promoting willful ignorance (IOW - burying one's head in the sand). Do you think this is a good enough way to deal with these scriptures?

I find it interesting that Michael Hampson focuses solely on the misogynistic implication of calling the woman a dog. He thinks that nine-tenth of its harshness would be reduced if it was a male who had come to Jesus in this account. I mostly agree with this, and the fact that Jesus never said anything of the sort to the Roman centurion who wanted Jesus to heal his servant gives some credence to Hampson’s point of view here. His conclusion is that “the word kynarioi is untranslatable” and writes, ”And that is why there is no place in the English rendering of Matthew 15.21-28 for the d-word: because the d-word has a misogynistic nuance in English that is not there in the original Greek.” (Not sure how he knows this as there are no original mss.) His solution is simply to cut out the phrases where “dog” is used when teaching these verses, and what remains (to quote him) “is enough” to make known Jesus' point. What is left then is "Jesus said, ‘It is not right to take food away from the children.’ She said, ‘Yes, Lord, but surely there will be crumbs that fall from the table.’" He goes further though to say that "any translation that still uses that word is – well, frankly, for virtually all purposes, and certainly for reading aloud in church, just wrong" and that doing so is a "serious error in translation, with terrible consequences." However, I don't think ignoring "the elephant in the room" strengthens anyone's conviction to know and understand "the truth."

What if you choose wrong? If one is counting on "once saved/always saved" but is not faithful in their walk with Christ, finding out this doctrine was wrong in the afterlife will be a pretty big problem. If one is counting on the requirement that you must remain faithful in your walk to get into heaven, what happens if you weren't faithful the week before you died because you were having some doubts? Will that person be saved?

What I think now is that this problem is compounded by the concept of "faith." We put our trust in either an ancient text that can be interpreted hundreds of ways or in a person who claims to teach the truth based on his/her own interpretation. Evidence for whether beliefs are true or not means nothing. Critical thinking about spiritual matters is considered inferior, unhelpful and often demonic. Answered prayers are always a hit and miss, yet this reality is so often ignored or rationalized. Feeling good can come simply from believing in a belief. On top of this, you have to wonder where education in our schools is going these days. How much does social media kill our desire to know what's truth?

vpw has been proven to be one of them, but there have been so many before him, there are many that are still preaching and prophesying today, and there will always continue to be more. How can we believe that Jesus is the head of the church when millions of his members have been abused in every manner possible? That's why when Christians say Jesus is cleaning house whenever a charlatan is exposed thereby forcing the creep to resign (e.g., Mike Bickle, LCM), I think of the phrase "emptying an ocean with a teaspoon." (Btw, it's not uncommon for the creep to resurface in some other church somewhere else.) Why do believers have such low expectations of their gods and saviors other than to say it will all come out in the afterlife? I still think that the afterlife is the greatest cover story for a fictional and inept god that there is, but it sure gets people hooked on their religion.

Okay, but if the bible is not clear on the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" or the doctrine that one must remain faithful to Christ to have eternal life, how do you know what to believe?

I think It is a very interesting piece of writing that has good ideas for discussion. I'll bring one up when I get the chance. Thanks again for sharing it. Even the link for The Times clergy survey at the end brings up relevant points right from the start (which is all I've read at this point).

Nah, it was making the 4 letters with your arms that was a hoot.

Thanks for the laugh

It is questionable as to why the gospels were not written until years after Paul wrote his major letters to the church in which he defined what Christianity was all about. And yes, having questions and looking for their answers is a good thing.

Thanks WordWolf - I'll look at what he has to say.

The first part of the AI Overview says, "The woman is persistent in her request to have her daughter healed. She is unafraid to bother Jesus and trusts in his goodness and sense of humor." I agree that she was unafraid to bother Jesus most likely because she was in desperate need of help for her daughter. Her pleading with Jesus to show her mercy may mean she trusts that he will do so, but it could also imply that she is hoping he will do so. My question is where in the story is there any sense of humor displayed? It's kind of a weird thing to suggest. Matthew's account gives more details than Mark's. The words in brackets come from the Greek definitions of the words they follow. Matthew 15:21Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. 22And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried (often conveying strong emotion or urgency) unto him, saying, Have mercy (compassion) on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously (severely, cruelly) vexed (possessed) with a devil. 23But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth (often conveying strong emotion or urgency) after us. 24But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25Then came she and worshipped him (fell at his feet), saying, Lord, help me. 26But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. 27And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. 28Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. The AI Overview of Jesus's response is: "Jesus's words can seem harsh, but he is testing the woman's faith and commitment to her request." I don't think it was a test since the text doesn't say that it was. So, what did she do to make Jesus say she had great faith? It wasn't her persistent crying out as she followed him or that she called him Lord and the son of David or that she clearly made known her need because after all that, he answered her not a word and then proceeded to give her a reason why her daughter should not be healed. It also wasn't that she fell at his feet and again asked for help because he just doubled down on his reason after that. It was only after she came up with a common-sense loophole to Jesus' reason - mind you, it was one that required her to play the role of a dog - that he was impressed enough to heal her daughter. Who would have guessed that this was what it would take? That's my problem with the idea of needing to have faith - I've come to find it a guessing game as to what you should do or say, and it all doesn't matter anyway because prayers are answered by God at random.

That's true. Yet, Peter does write in chapter 2 of God's judgment, both past and future, against the followers of these prophets and teachers, as well as the "ungodly" and "unjust" (verses 2, 4-9, 20-22). I'm certain atheists would fit in there somewhere. I don't believe in a judgment period since the existence of an afterlife cannot be proven to exist, so the verses in 2 Peter 2 don't worry me. But, it is still the fear of God's horrendous wrath expected to come on the "unsaved" that is harmful, especially in the light of the following: Is the doctrine "once saved/always saved" accurate? TWI taught it was, but many (including at least a couple of ex-way leaders) now teach that one must remain faithful in order to be part of the gathering together of Christ for his church. I would think that God would make sure his word was absolutely clear about this issue, but unfortunately, it is not.

Thanks oldiesman, I'll look into it.

I don’t miss out on the love of God when I read verses like these. 2 Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. It's a "game of life" that is based on fear. And, am I now supposed to be like those described in the verses below just because I dared to ask questions that led to my deconversion? 2 Peter 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; 13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; 14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: 15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; It's a ridiculous form of gaslighting.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Your new title though does bring up the annoying aspect of solicitation such as

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.

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.

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.

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.