jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (79 posts)

“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

  1. 0
    Rad Manposted 2 years ago

    “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” Dogs being non-Isrealites.

    “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’

    "Why do you call me good, there is One who is good, God"

    Paul never mentions the virgin birth nor did the first gospel. The earliest manuscripts of the first gospel makes no mention of Jesus appearing after his death.

    1. Jomine Jose profile image78
      Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      And to make matters worse the Nazoreans believed that Jesus lived during the time of Alexander the Maccabee.

    2. 0
      Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      If the Israelites were first chosen would they not be the first sought out to receive a new message? Don't you think, if Jesus existed and came back he'd first say hey to the Christians? Don't you think if he first came back to say hey to the Christians they'd be the first to reject him? And the ones who would never accept him?

      As to the gospels. These were written years after the fact. Stories for believers to share amongst themselves. We speculate which came first. We should also speculate what type of believer each was written for and the character of the person writing. Maybe, the virgin birth story wasn't a pivotal point in the minds of either the writer or the reader. Why include it? You have plenty of believers today who don't believe in a virgin birth, so why not then also?

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        First you must claim that a just loving God has a chosen people, which is absurd and then you must claim that when he walked on the earth he told people he was sent only for those people. Then you must claim he called all others dogs, and then told his followers to only help those chosen people. Then you must understand that he himself said he was not God. Then you must understand that Paul, who never meet Jesus and only meet the apostles never mentioned the virgin birth (which is a big part of the story) apparently it was popular among the Gods back then. Then you must understand that the first gospels written never mention the virgin birth or the resurrection. We then must understand that it was Paul who decided it was a religion for all because he wasn't getting enough converts from Jews even though it's know that some of he writings were forgeries.

        Sure, you and many can say they don't care about any of that, but they believe in a loving father. Good for them, but for those who adhere to the bible as the word of God, time to read it for what it is.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          So, basically, everyone has to agree with everything within your first paragraph? Good luck with that.

          It always fascinates me why atheists claim to be original thinkers who don't toe any official line, yet insist all other groups agree on everything the individual atheist is against. Probably because the individual atheist isn't thinking as originally as he/she might believe themselves to be.

          I get that none of it makes sense to you, through your understanding. What I don't get is why must everyone agree with your understanding?

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            No one has to agree with me at all, they are perfectly welcome to ignore the facts. In reality we have no idea what if anything Jesus may have done or said, all people can do is read the bible and decide if they think any or all of it is factual. To those who think some of it is factual I salute you, to those who think all of it is factual I ask how you rationalize the above scriptures?

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Does anyone owe you an explanation? If so, why? Sounds to me as if your primary goal is to promote conflict and discord. Would not the more positive endeavor be to understand a need to promote conflict and discord? In order to resolve the internal conflict which drives the need to promote external conflict?

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                No, I'm not looking for conflict, you must assume I'm like you. I'm simple asking questions and trying to understand, you on the other hand don't appear to attempt to resolve any problems. All you seem to do is judge character rather than addressing any of the issues.

                What I'm asking here is for someone to explain how they can rationalize those scriptures away? Are you going to try to do that or are you going to continue to tell me that I'm a bad person?

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I am not attempting to judge your character. You must understand that you have listed a great deal of assumptions made that must be agreed upon, per you. All I am saying is that prior to any meaningful dialogue all of those assumptions would have to be either agreed upon, or hammered out as to a mutual understanding of where the other person stood on each issue. There are so many of them that I would think it would be reasonable to assume the chances of addressing all and coming to an agreement would be slim.

                  So. Since you must already have known that, and are attempting to bypass that stage of agreement I am simply curious as to what drives that desire. If you don't know, that's OK. If you do know and don't want to share it, that's OK. Pretty much I was simply asking for clarification.

                  1. Jomine Jose profile image78
                    Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Which are those "assumptions" that need to be agreed upon?

                  2. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I just explained to you what drives me to ask these questions. Read my post from a few posts back. All I did was list a few things that are said in the bible, I made none of them up, you can look them up if you like. Those are things that are said in the bible, if you have something to say about them then please do, otherwise stop telling me I shouldn't ask those questions.

              2. Jomine Jose profile image78
                Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Then why did you answer?  Don't you know that there is no compulsion in hubpages to reply to forum posts.  He has asked a question,  people who are willing can answer and as per hubpage rules it should be in relation to the question or topic in discussion.

            2. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Cute.

              So, you and only you are right, eh? Doesn't that make you, you know, God?

              1. Jomine Jose profile image78
                Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                No, RadMan does exist.

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh! Oh! I've been cut to the quick! You quick-witted rascal you! Bravo!

                  You, of course, completely missed the point, but you made a funny!

                  1. Jomine Jose profile image78
                    Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Didn't miss, but it was not worth my while. The first person who realize a fact is never god.

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Where exactly did I say I was the only one that is right? There are some facts about scripture that we either ignore or accept as truth. That is a fact. For example what ISIS is doing to adopting Sharia law exactly as it was written because they are told it's direct instructions from Allah. Iran and Saudi Arabia does the same while countries like Turkey have secular laws. Is it rational to assume Allah would want those who attempt to leave Islam or those who like me don't believe in any God killed? Is it rational that God would ask people to kill disobedient children and permiscuous girls?

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay, but what you actually said (and I quoted,) does not suggest that level or even that kind of analysis. What you said was, I quote,"No one has to agree with me at all, they are perfectly welcome to ignore the facts."

                  You ask what you said, that was what you said.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, the facts. There are things written in the bible that like "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel". It's a fact that that was written, I have no idea if it was ever said.

              3. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Glad you are back BTW. It just wasn't the same without you.

        2. Jerami profile image78
          Jeramiposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          First you must claim that a just loving God has a chosen people,
          -----
          me
          The way I understand what is written is  ...     One day God was looking around at all that was going on on earth and said,  I need to show myself to these people.  I will pick one of these nationalities of people and I will make a covenant with them I will be their protector and they will follow my laws, in this way I will show myself to the world.
              The Hebrews weren't  "Chosen"   for any outstanding characteristic,  They were simply picked like a grab bag from a barrel.
              These laws which came into existence under this covenant didn't apply to any other group of people.
          And those other peoples were not Judged by these laws for they were not under the covenant.
            ==========================   
          radman
          which is absurd and then you must claim that when he walked on the earth he told people he was sent only for those people.
          ---
          me  ...
          Why would that be absurd?    It seems to me that he came but for the lawbreakers of the covenant.  He came with a pardon for them.   We did not come for those who were not under the law.
          ======================     

          Then you must understand that he himself said he was not God.
          ---
          me
          That is how I understand it.   And I think he said that we were all sons of God.  He said he is not saying anything that the father has not told him to say.  He and the father are one (one minded ??)
          =================

          Then you must understand that Paul, who never meet Jesus and only meet the apostles never mentioned the virgin birth (which is a big part of the story) apparently it was popular among the Gods back then. Then you must understand that the first gospels written never mention the virgin birth or the resurrection. We then must understand that it was Paul who decided it was a religion for all because he wasn't getting enough converts from Jews even though it's know that some of he writings were forgeries.

          Sure, you and many can say they don't care about any of that, but they believe in a loving father. Good for them, but for those who adhere to the bible as the word of God, time to read it for what it is.

          ---
          I don't think it matters as much about what Paud said or what he didn't say.  ???    I think that if we read the letters which are written in read ,  and agree with those, and become as if one minded with them, we would then be following Christ for real.
               If I posted here ... your next comment would be ...  OK ,   so why don't I sell all of my belongings and give them to the poor?   
             I think he said that one time and that was to an arrogant and pompous rich man.
             
          He never said for the poor people to sell their stuff and give it away.  However, about 25 years later people were selling their stuff and giving it to a community fund which was to finance their exit out of Jerusalem, and building communal societies out in the desert.  But that is a different story.
             Those people were fleeing Jerusalem as they believed Jesus to be  instructing them to do in    Matthew 24: 15-20.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            See how that works, we take the very words which so many hang on and make the disappear.

 
working