Was Jesus racist ? mP: YES with scriptures

by mP 36 Replies latest jw friends

  • mP
    mP

    I am starting a new thread, as I have had several posts with Tec regarding this very matter. Hopefully we can include our thoughts again here to make things clearer for any that wish to read or contribute to the discussion.

    I will attempt to use scripture to demonstrate an event that shows that Jesus was a man and Jew who shared their prejudice and hatred against gentiles, using a number of scriptures.

    THE SAMARITAN WOMAN ASKING FOR HELP

    The same story appears to be recorded in several gospels, i will post them both below to make it easier to follow.

    http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mr/chapter_007.htm

    From there he rose up and went into the regions of Tyre and Si´don. And he entered into a house and did not want anyone to get to know it. Yet he could not escape notice; but immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard about him and came and prostrated herself at his feet. The woman was a Grecian, a Sy·ro·phoe·ni´cian nationally; and she kept asking him to expel the demon from her daughter. But he began by saying to her: “First let the children be satisfied, for it is not right to take the bread of the children and throw it to the little dogs.” In reply, however, she said to him: “Yes, sir, and yet the little dogs underneath the table eat of the crumbs of the little children.” At that he said to her: “Because of saying this, go; the demon has gone out of your daughter.”

    http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_015.htm

    Leaving there, Jesus now withdrew into the parts of Tyre and Si´don. And, look! a Phoe·ni´cian woman from those regions came out and cried aloud, saying: “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David. My daughter is badly demonized.” But he did not say a word in answer to her. So his disciples came up and began to request him: “Send her away; because she keeps crying out after us.” In answer he said: “I was not sent forth to any but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” When the woman came she began doing obeisance to him, saying: “Lord, help me!” In answer he said: “It is not right to take the bread of the children and throw it to little dogs.” She said: “Yes, Lord; but really the little dogs do eat of the crumbs falling from the table of their masters.” Then Jesus said in reply to her: “O woman, great is your faith; let it happen to you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed from that hour on.

    Regardless of the outcome, Jesus initial attitude is worrying and cannot be explained excecpt for the fact he is racist. His closing remark is also demeaning. He is sarcasstically stating that if a lesser unworthy Samaritan woman can have faith then it should be much easier for superior Jews.

    ONLY PREACH TO JEWS NOT GENTILES

    http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mt/chapter_010.htm

    These twelve Jesus sent forth, giving them these orders: “Do not go off into the road of the nations, and do not enter into a Sa·mar´i·tan city; but, instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As YOU go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.

    Jesus initial message was to preach only to Jews, we can see he even travelled out of Judea and stated he only wanted to limit his message to Jews and not gentiles.

    CURSES AGAINST THE JEWS

    I am not going to dispute that Jesus was also angry and condemned the Jews, we have many scriptures that demonstrate this. I dont think this is important as part of my original argument.

    OTHER >GOOD JESUS< SCRIPTURES

    I believe the problem is for apologists is they simply ignore this attitude and assume that when jesus is kind or good to someone they ignore that he is only doing it to them because they are Jewish. If the target is a gentile we get a different story with a different message. If you can show me other scriptures that show me to wrong on this matter feel free to post them here. Please quote.

    ABRAHAM - JEWS ARE THE CHOSEN ONES

    In past posts TEC said that the Jews are chosen or special because of Abrahams convenant. I am not going to argue that is recorded in the scriptures, and i accept this to be true. However that doesnt change the fact that my scriptures show Jesus was just a jew with their superiority complex. Maybe he thought he was better because of Abraham, that doesnt matter he still was racist.

    So TEC Please quote and include scriptures as necessary so we can have a productive conversation. I am not interested in dogma or ideas that are commonly held by Christians, all thoughts must be backed by scripture, because some believe only scripture is from god. Everything else is made up.

    Please consider this a restart.

    EDITED!

  • dgp
    dgp

    I'm not TEC, and I cannot reconstruct my sources, but my understanding is that yes, the Jews in general were very racist. Mind you, they only believed THEY were the Elected People and the rest could as well go to the sheol.

  • Berengaria
    Berengaria

    They believe that now, don't they?

  • mP
    mP

    @dgp

    I agree, im sure we could find quotes to back this assumption. It is important to note that jesus was the same, he is presented as just a jewish man albeit with some super powers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Rebellion

    The Great Revolt began in the year 66 CE, initially due to Greek and Jewish religious tensions, but later escalated due to anti-taxation protests and attacks upon Roman citizens

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealots

    Zealotry was originally a political movement in 1st century Second Temple Judaism which sought to incite the people of Iudaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the Holy land by force of arms, most notably during the Great Jewish Revolt (66-70). Zealotry was described by Josephus as one of the "four sects" at this time. The zealots have been described as one of the first examples of the use of terrorism . [1]

    ...

    The Zealots objected to Roman rule and violently sought to eradicate it by generally targeting Romans and Greeks. Zealots who engaged in violence against other Jews were called the Sicarii . [9] They raided Jewish habitations and killed Jews they considered apostate and collaborators, while also urging Jews to fight Romans and other Jews for the cause. Josephus paints a very bleak picture of their activities as they instituted what he characterized as a murderous "reign of terror" prior to the Jewish Temple's destruction.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicarii

    "When Albinus reached the city of Jerusalem, [3] he bent every effort and made every provision to ensure peace in the land by exterminating most of the Sicarii." Josephus, Jewish Antiquities (xx.208)

    The Sicarii used stealth tactics to obtain their objective. Under their cloaks they concealed sicae, or small daggers, from which they received their name. At popular assemblies, particularly during the pilgrimage to the Temple Mount, they stabbed their enemies (Romans or Roman sympathizers,Herodians, and wealthy Jews comfortable with Roman rule), lamenting ostentatiously after the deed to blend into the crowd to escape detection. Literally, Sicarii meant "dagger-men". [4]

    TERRORIST APOSTLES

    Thats right many of Jesus apostles were terrorists,

    JUDAS ISCARIOT

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicarii

    Judas Iscariot

    In the name of Judas Iscariot, the apostle who betrayed Jesus, the epithet "Iscariot" is read by some scholars as a Hellenized transformation, by the simplest metathesis, of sicarius. The suffix "-ote" denotes membership or belonging to – in this case to the sicarii. This meaning is lost when the Greek Gospels are translated into modern Hebrew: the Hebrew meaning relates much more closely to the presumed Aramaic of the period which is the actual language in which Judas Iscariot had his name. In Hebrew, Judas is rendered as "Ish-Kerayot," making him a Jew from the townships or " ... from the district". "Judas" (like the Hebrew "Judah") refers to Judean identity, either membership in the state of Judea of the Graeco-Roman period or the Jewish people more generally. Many scholars accept this meaning, pointing out that it indicates that Judas was from the start "the representative Jew" who betrayed Jesus in the Gospel dramatization of events, and we may not have in him an actual person or perhaps only do not know his actual name. It would have been odd to give a person a defamatory name (in the Greek or Latin Gospels) that was not in the native tongue Aramaic, when there were words in that tongue that could mean the same. However, Robert Eisenman (Eisenman p 179) is amongst those scholars today who persist in identifying him instead as "Judas the Sicarios". He offers as justification that most of the consonants and vowels tally – in Josephus, Sicarioi/Sicarion; in the New Testament Iscariot.

    JOHN

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_John

    John the Apostle was the son of Zebedee and the younger brother of James, son of Zebedee (Saint James the Greater). Tradition, based on Sacred Scripture, considers Salome their mother. James and John were the cousins of Jesus and their mother Salome was the younger sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Zebedee and his sons fished in the Lake of Genesareth . James and John first were disciples of Saint John the Baptist , their second cousin. Jesus then called Saint Peter and Saint Andrew , and these two sons of Zebedee to follow Him. James and John did so and thus rank high among the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. James and John both held prominent positions for not only being the first of the disciples to be called but also because of their relationship to Jesus among the Apostles. Jesus referred to the pair collectively as "Boanerges" (translated "sons of thunder") [ Mk 3:17 ] Being that their nature was of calm and gentle manner, but when their patience was pushed to its limits. Their anger became wild, fierce and thunderous when they spoke out in anger like an untamed storm.

    PETER

    Carried a sword!

    SIMON THE ZEALOT

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_the_Zealot

  • mP
    mP

    @beregaria

    Yes, one cant but help if the mess that is the division and hatred in Israel between the Jews and Palestinians is not fueled by the thoughts present in the OT. Im going to assert the answer is YES.

  • Shawn10538
    Shawn10538

    Trying to draw any consistent morality from the Bible, New Teswtament or Old is an exercise in self delusion. I still haven't met a single person in my life, among Bible believers, who didn't believe in the Bible because:

    1. The Bible says to believe in the Bible

    2. God said to believe in the Bible

    3. Start from the presumption that the Bible is a. true, b. God's word

    4. The Bible is God's word

    5. All the crazy things the Bible says, contradictory morality and the like, for example Jesus' racism, must mean there is something wrong with YOU as a person, nothing wrong with the Bible. you're just not looking at it through GOD's Eyes.

    6. Whatever the Bible says is true and right and infallible and perfect. Infallible being the strongest possible word to use to describe the Bible, it being one or two steps BEYOND perfection.

    If a lot of these presumptions sound alike then you see what I mean. It is just circular logic so you can't help but go around in circles and be redundant.

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    I had an argument in a church Bible Study regarding this. My conclusion is that Jesus was fully human and a captive to his times. If he were to be a present day American, I would expect little racism. We were studying the Samaritan woman at the well. She begs for healing. He refuses b/c she is Samaritan. I find this very not like Jesus in other places. Next, he quickly changes his mind and heals her. Jesus does the right thing. She should have been healed upon immediately asking. I'm used to broad ranging brutal discussions. Now I live in the exurbs. They get very nervous around me. If one portion of a scripture is suspect, they act as though they will lose all faith. My continuing recommendations of The Last Temptation of Christ, where I expressly state it is a fiction. One needs a good grounding scripture to know when it deviates from the Bibical account. Anyway, I voiced my concerns and said why did he change his mind? I was told to be quiet.

    Can't we acknowledge that some scriptures are very troublesome? Jesus not wanting to heal a woman b/c she is a Samaritan. True, the two groups did not interact and hated each other. He is Jesus, however. Isaac being God's play thing to test Abraham is the most troubling. How can anyone who reads that call God or Abraham moral? The blood lust for other groups of people. The never-ending kill, kill, kill. Constantly casting whole groups as enemies. The Jews and Romans in the New Testament.

    My point was made. I never returned to the faux Bible study. How do we selectively choose which scripture we like? Jesus as groovy is without color or power. End of editorial message. Post script. One has not fully lived until you exit a cult and join a nice church only to be told to shut up by a school marm. I just fantasized about The Last Tempation of Christ and Jesus' escapades with Mary Madalene and Mary of Mary and Martha. I also concentrated on the showdown with Paul when Jesus tells him he never did what Paul preaches. Yeah, Katzenzakis and Scorcese.

  • tec
    tec

    So TEC Please quote and include scriptures as necessary so we can have a productive conversation. I am not interested in dogma or ideas that are commonly held by Christians, all thoughts must be backed by scripture, because some believe only scripture is from god.

    Everything else is made up.

    Didn't you say that Jesus and his apostles were angry that the gentile woman (not samaritan) were angry about her following and calling out to him? That isn't backed by scripture. That falls under your 'everything else is made up' category.

    Just wanted to point that out, so you might consider that your opinion here is based on something you think, and not something that is written, as you are asking me to follow that structure as well.

    We had a pretty good sized discussion going on over there on the other thread, and I'm not sure I want to start it from scratch and rehash all the same stuff.

    So I'll just go ahead with the key points:

    Christ went to the the lost sheep of ISRAEL because the covenant/promise/contract was between God and Israel, based on Abraham. From the other thread:

    Faith of Abraham:

    Genesis 12: 1-4 The LORD has said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you intoa great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and however curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." So Abram left, as the LORD had told him.

    Genesis 15: 6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

    Romans 4:13 -16 It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring recieved the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who love by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring - not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham.

    There is nothing to support that God was racist, and Christ as well. But there are a lot of scriptures to support that that Christ came in fulfillment of the promise. Be that because of faith (as shown above, and believed by Paul); or because of righteousness (which came from showing faith), or from obedience. It was a covenant and a promise to a man and his descendants based on these things.

    Now a couple of questions of my own:

    If this was about racism, then how is it that anyone of any race (strangers, not Israel) could join them and share in the promises of the covenant? As well, how is it that we are shown that people of every tribe and every nation are invited into the kingdom?

    Also from the other thread:

    Oh some of them (jews) might have thought that they were better than the people around them... but Christ did not act on racism. Rather on a covenant established between God and Abraham, and again between God and Israel. Another point I would like your opinion on, is why Christ said to go and preach to all the earth? Was that just to state "Nanananana, Jews rule, gentiles drool?" Or was it to invite them in. Just as in revelations, where it says, "After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language..."

    Just as he also says at the end of Luke, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on tehe third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning with Jerusalem."

    Peace,

    tammy

  • mP
    mP

    @BandOnTheRun

    I had an argument in a church Bible Study regarding this. My conclusion is that Jesus was fully human and a captive to his times. If he were to be a present day American, I would expect little racism. We were studying the Samaritan woman at the well. She begs for healing. He refuses b/c she is Samaritan. I find this very not like Jesus in other places. Next, he quickly changes his mind and heals her. Jesus does the right thing.

    MP

    I think the main reason, is this is one of the few times Jesus interacts with a non Jew. We just dont see the world in the same light they do, we wouldnt distinguish a difference between Jews and Samaritans but they did. In the past it was colour etc.

  • mP
    mP

    @Tec

    Didn't you say that Jesus and his apostles were angry that the gentile woman (not samaritan) were angry about her following and calling out to him? That isn't backed by scripture. That falls under your 'everything else is made up' category.

    MP:

    Im not sure if i said calling out to him, but the scripture does say she was attempting to get his attention. If i did say that and it causes confusion then I apology for recalling the text incorrectly, hey i make mistakes and dont claim to be perfect.

    Either way it makes absolutely no difference in judging what jesus said or did.

    @TEC

    Christ went to the the lost sheep of ISRAEL because the covenant/promise/contract was between God and Israel, based on Abraham. From the other thread:

    @MP

    Im not going to argue that this convenant existed, i agree you are absolutely correct that this agreement did exist. However that doesnt mean Jesus had to be rude and racist to the Samaritan woman.

    I will continue answering the other q you give in a separate post here...

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit