|
|
 |
|
Getting Real : Faith No More
Was Jesus a racist? | from electric - Thursday, October 27, 2005
accessed 1215 times Seems to me that Jesus was a racist.. so much for his everlasting love. Matthew 15
22And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth 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, 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.
Okay..
1) He didn't even respond to her cry for help at first
2) He refuses to help because she isn't an Israelite.
3) He calls her a dog
4) Then because of her faith he shows the "compassion" he should have done right from the start.
Sounds racist to me. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Hot Samaritan Babe
Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 17:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually I don’t think Jesus was racist. According to the gospels, in this regard Jesus was just like every other man. She was probably either too ugly or poor for him to pay her any notice. It's not the Canaanite reference you should look at, but the dog.
He was quite alright with hanging out at the well with a Samaritan woman who was hot enough to land five husbands, obviously all looking for a trophy wife, since she was wealthy enough after all of that to be with a man who was not her husband. Apparently she had the choice in lovers that time around.
Was Jesus a gold-digger, or did he just like his women to be experienced? Since he went on about having nowhere to lay his head, I am thinking perhaps the former.
(reply to this comment)
|  From vix
Tuesday, May 01, 2007, 17:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Erudite, incisive, I like it. And you managed to avoid one of my personal pet peeves (the use of 'racist' as a noun, in respect of a person), I like that even more! Who are you? Tell me, do! Are you really a hot Samaritan babe??
Only problem is now I have to go to sleep with Faithy's diabolical vocals playing in my mind...
*Curses the pain!
(reply to this comment) |
| | from exegete
Tuesday, May 01, 2007 - 11:31
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Do you believe this story from the Matthew's gospel is a literal, verbatim account of an interaction that Jesus had with a gentile? In other words, are we watching a videotape here, or are we reading a story that's being told by Matthew to a particular audience for a particular purpose? If you accept the latter question as the premise for interpretation, then you begin to get answers as to why this story found in Matthew's gospel but not in the other three. The question is not, "Was Jesus a racist?" but "Why is Matthew telling this story in exactly this way, going so far are as to show Jesus refering to the woman as a "dog" after initially ignoring her pleas?"
What's the point of this story?
Matthew's gospel was written for a church of Jewish converts to Christianity. This story acknowledges existing prejudices & attitudes among the Jewish Christians (for whom the gospel was written) toward the gentile converts. In that context, Jesus (a Jewish rabbi) is saying--Look, the gentiles may have been second class citizens in God's kingdom under the old covenant, but by faith they have found a place at our table under the new covenant. We don't have enough evidence to determine whether the historical Jesus was a racist. What we can determine is that the group of people for whom Matthew's gospel was written were racist. These are the same people who argued that gentile converts should be circumcized in order to be ritually pure enough to break bread with them in the community of faith.
(reply to this comment)
| From Oddman
Tuesday, May 01, 2007, 20:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
An interesting angle. I like it. But..... do you have enough evidence to determine the historical Jesus was NOT racist? Wait, do you have enough (any?) evidence to determine any fact about the 'historical' Jesus? Do we have enough (any) evidence to determine even the existence of a historical Jesus, racist or otherwise? The story of Jesus, much like that or Joseph Smith and Moroni, relies heavily on the so-called testimony of people who purportedly, knew a man who allegedly was the son of some god. And we just accept that he existed?(reply to this comment) |
| | From exegete
Thursday, May 03, 2007, 13:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, there is the story of the Good Samaritan from which we might infer something about Jesus' attitudes toward non-Jews. This approach assumes that Jesus actually told the story to his disciples as a lesson. It also assumes Jesus was an historic person who taught using the story-forms common among Jewish rabbis in the 1st century. The historian Josephus, who lived from 37 AD to 100 AD, appears to have thought Jesus was an historic figure, although Josephus' "independent" and "non-Christian" account of Jesus is loaded with controversy.
A reasonable argument can be made for the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth as a 1st century Jewish rabbi. There's a Science of the Bible segment on the topic of Jesus' historicity available on the National Geographic channel. Science of the Bible evaluates a variety of stories and Biblical claims through the filter of archeological evidence, forensic science, and historical sources. Whether or not the historical Jesus was a supernatural, divine being begotten of a virgin mother is another question altogether; This question can't be answered using scientific method.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Lance
Tuesday, May 01, 2007, 18:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
A truely diplomatic answer. But that just begs the question: If the gospel according to Matthew were written according to Mathews interpretation of Jesus, then what makes all the other gospels just another interpretation of a so-called prophet? Doesn't this sound more like exploitation? What about Paul being a sexist? Who was Jesus really? (reply to this comment) |
| | From exegete
Thursday, May 03, 2007, 14:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am arguing that each of the four gospels' accounts of Jesus represent an interpretation of the question, Who was Jesus of Nazareth? Textual analysis demonstrates how the first three gospels (synoptics) share a common source document, known as Q. But each of these gospels differ in important details, some of which are contradictory. This is because the content of each gospel was shaped and framed to address the concerns of the specific audience (faith community) for whom the gospel was originally written. A primarily Jewish audience had a different set of questions about the meaning of "messiah" and "christ" than those of a primarily gentile community (e.g., Luke). My personal favorite is Mark's gospel, the earliest and most basic. The original manuscripts of Mark's gospel end by simply saying Jesus was not found laying in the tomb and the witnesses to this event (all women) were afraid and ran away. (Scholarly editions of the Bible end Mark's gospel at chapter 16, verse 8. The claims made in Mk. 16:9-20 have been shown to be a later addition to the original texts.) John's gospel had a largely pagan audience, completely different oral & written sources, and a boatload of non-Jewish (primarily Platonist) philosophical premises. John's gospel makes the most extravagant claims about Jesus' divinity. John's Jesus doesn't teach like a 1st century Jewish rabbi, and John does the most overt Jew-bashing of the four gospels.
I don't know if I'd call the way the gospels were written exploitation. Perception is reality, and you need to look at how people of faith in the 1st century constructed their reality in the context of their cultural assumptions and racial experiences.
Paul's sexism is another topic altogether, but there are a number of scholars who have examined this question. Once again, you have to ask, Who is the original audience?, and What was the intent of the author in writing to that audience?
Finally, "Who was Jesus?" is a question that can be answered two basic ways. First: Who was the historical Jesus? Not much is known, but there is evidence that supports his human existence as a 1st century rabbi. Second: Who is the Christ of faith? You can read the New Testament for a pre-scientific answer to that question, or you can read existentialist theologians for guidance on finding a post-modern answer. (reply to this comment) |
| | from Jesus Crust
Monday, April 30, 2007 - 17:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
RACIST???
I say unto thee, I am many things; King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Yea I did even work at Walt-Mart recently as a greeter, but a racist I am not. Damn thee, thou little ingrate. I leave thee alone for a few thousand years and thou selleth me down the river like Pontious Pilot!! Young man, thou art mighty close to a smiting.
Be thou warned!!
(reply to this comment)
| From vix
Tuesday, May 01, 2007, 10:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Unless Pontius was a commander of an ultra-secret fleet of planes that eluded mention in the annals of history, I don't think you should get away with such a glaring mistake as confusing 'Pilate' with 'pilot'. Furthermore, notice it's 'Pontius'. You should watch less telly, it's messing with your memory.
P.S. WTF is wrong with the people of movingon? How come no one else took it upon themselves to correct this?? Does no one CARE anymore???
Meh, I'm hungry. How about some loaves and fishes JC, and make it snappy!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vix
Tuesday, May 01, 2007, 11:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Pffft, saviour (notice the 'u') my ass! I distinctly remember imploring you (on more than one occasion, no less!) to save me from stretchmarks, and where were you when I needed you, huh? HUH???
You owe me BIGTIME!
P.S. You're wrong again, back then it was spelt 'Pontius Pilatus'. Perhaps you were too busy with the wine and the harlots to take much notice of the apparent drudgery of literacy.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jesus Crust
Tuesday, May 01, 2007, 12:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yea, they were some smokin hot harlots after a few cups of wine. I once turned my spit to wine and did become drunk after sucking on 36 lemons. This was not chronicled in the gospels as the evening ended in me streaking through the market place. I am beholden to thee for the stretch marks and for this oversight I have inspired scientists to make creams for such ailments. Incase none have yet been made that actually work, wait thee longer.
Ps.
I maintain that it was “Pontious Pilot”. Argue all thou likes, I was there. Go, and correct me no more.
Go.....(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
(
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]