Yet another reason not to be a CATHOLIC! …………..

[Baruch]

Regardless, both are in the NT ... conveniently ignored by the faithful.

[Solomon Zorn]

They're not in the place cited, Baruch.

Just to give it a fair context:

Matthew 15:21-28

21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”

23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

Mathew 10:34-37

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-lawâ€"
36     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

[reasonist]

My bad, and apologies. Always in a rush...

Should read Luke 12:51 and Matthew 15:24 NLT

[Baruch]

SA ... thanks for the con-text ... they let the cons text from prison these days? ;-)

A bit more context ... the miraculous healing of the Syro-phoenician woman's child is meant to contrast with that done with a similar woman's son, by Elijah.  Elijah couldn't do it at a distance however.  And of course "dog" is the standard slur used in the ME for any foreigner.  Dogs are totally non-kosher there.  Also the saying "don't cast your pearls before swine" ... swine being another slur for a foreigner ... among Semites (who don't eat pork).

The second context is people's messianic expectations.  And any gynosophist expectations.  Jesus isn't the messiah you expect ... a warrior like Joshua or Judah Maccabee.  But he isn't all meditative like a gynosophist (a Hindu sadhu or monk).  Holy men from India were a familiar sight from 300 years before Jesus.  They had been wandering West within 100 years after Alexander got to india.  The idea that Jesus as messiah, disturbs the "beit shalom" of the Jewish household ... is very subversive, and enough cause for the Jewish authorities to kill him.  Tribal unity was and is everything (much to the chagrin of Gentiles, who never ever behave in a tribal manner).  Jesus associating with sinners, would only have disturbed the Saddhucees and Pharisees, who were a clerical and lay elite respectively.

[Gerard]

Maybe he was truly the son of God then.  God needs to constantly hear that he is something special and throws a fit and lights you on fire if you don't tell him enough.

But I think I'll still hold of on accepting the "You get to live forever after you die!" claim.  Something about that, I'm not quite sure what, just seems a little off...

The story line there is that all the outsiders realise who Jesus is, while his Disciples don't have a clue. The bottom line is that Jesus is either the Messiah or even God himself (depending on the Gospel you read).

Gerard

[Gerard]

I have to break it to you random, or Randy, you will go to hell unless you are a Jew.

Matthew 16:24 "I was sent ONLY to help God's lost sheep - the people of Israel."

So only a tiny part of God's 'creation' was chosen. 14 million Jews on this planet, out of 7 billion 'creations'. Plus, a little patch of desert was given to them by their imaginary friend. The only place in the ME without oil. Of course this makes all perfect sense - for the flock.

Luke 13:57  "I have come to divide people against each other."

So step aside believers. You are holding us up, we want to move on, explore, invent and discover without interference. You have held us back for 2 millenia but now we have science and with it comes information. Information that exposes religion for what it is. A feeble attempt of our ancestors to explain natural phenomena; a primitive, stone age superstition from the infancy of our species. It's time we shed this ugly vice and start using reason and logic instead of blind faith and self deception.

Somewhere in John (I was never any good at quoting chapter and verse) Jesus explains: Before Abraham was, I am. Now "I am" is the way Jahweh introduced himself to Moses at the burning bush incident. He clearly indicates there that he is God. He also says something like, when you have seen me you have seen the Father. Same thing. Stuff like that is nowhere to be found in the other Gospels though....... Bart Ehrman seems to think that Jesus never regarded himself as God, but just as the Messiah, and that different words were attributed to him for different purposes.

Gerard

[Jack89]

As a lay Catholic, here's my take on these Bible quotes:

Matthew 15:21-28.  Faith overcomes tribal/social boundaries.  I expect Jesus is teaching his disciples a lesson here.

Matthew 10:34-37.  If you have to choose to be a good person over following the example of bad relatives, do it.  Cut loose from toxic familial relationships.

One thing to keep in mind here is that Catholics don't subscribe to Sola Scriptura doctrine and don't teach that the Bible should be interpreted literally.  To paraphrase Bishop Robert Barron, the Bible is a library of books that use metaphors, allegory, and sometimes historical fact to convey a message.  You've got sagas, poetry, mythology, letters from disciples, and so on, written in different times and places.  To get the most out of the Bible you have to take this into consideration, and also look at the very long critical interpretive history around it. 

Anyway, to avoid a wall-o-text post, Catholic doctrine is based both on scripture and tradition.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is the text to look at if you want to know what Catholics believe. 

[Gerard]

As a lay Catholic, here's my take on these Bible quotes:

Matthew 15:21-28.  Faith overcomes tribal/social boundaries.  I expect Jesus is teaching his disciples a lesson here.

Matthew 10:34-37.  If you have to choose to be a good person over following the example of bad relatives, do it.  Cut loose from toxic familial relationships.

One thing to keep in mind here is that Catholics don't subscribe to Sola Scriptura doctrine and don't teach that the Bible should be interpreted literally.  To paraphrase Bishop Robert Barron, the Bible is a library of books that use metaphors, allegory, and sometimes historical fact to convey a message.  You've got sagas, poetry, mythology, letters from disciples, and so on, written in different times and places.  To get the most out of the Bible you have to take this into consideration, and also look at the very long critical interpretive history around it. 

Anyway, to avoid a wall-o-text post, Catholic doctrine is based both on scripture and tradition.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is the text to look at if you want to know what Catholics believe. 

In any practical sense that I can think of that basically goes for other Christian denominations as well. Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy is embraced by almost all Christian denominations, save the Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons and Unitarians for the Nicene Orthodoxy and the Oriental Orthodox (not to be confused with Eastern Orthodox) for Chalecedonian Christology. Both doctrines decidedly have their origin in tradition rather than in scripture.

Gerard

[Jack89]

In any practical sense that I can think of that basically goes for other Christian denominations as well. Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy is embraced by almost all Christian denominations, save the Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons and Unitarians for the Nicene Orthodoxy and the Oriental Orthodox (not to be confused with Eastern Orthodox) for Chalecedonian Christology. Both doctrines decidedly have their origin in tradition rather than in scripture.

Gerard

I'm sure you know more about the one's you've mentioned than I do, but many Protestant Christians, I'm guessing most, hold to sola scriptura and see the Bible as the ultimate authority for their doctrine.  Catholics don't, they see Apostolic tradition other than the Bible as equally valid, which was my point.  Scripture is seen as part of that tradition.  I also didn't mention natural law, divine revelation and the authority of the magisterium as part of the mix as well.  All of that plays a part in Catholic theology. 

I suppose what I was getting at is that if you (generally speaking) want to specifically criticize the Catholic faith, there's more to it than picking apart the little details of scripture.  Like I said, the CCC details what Catholics believe. 

[reasonist]

As a lay Catholic, here's my take on these Bible quotes:

Matthew 15:21-28.  Faith overcomes tribal/social boundaries.  I expect Jesus is teaching his disciples a lesson here.

Matthew 10:34-37.  If you have to choose to be a good person over following the example of bad relatives, do it.  Cut loose from toxic familial relationships.

One thing to keep in mind here is that Catholics don't subscribe to Sola Scriptura doctrine and don't teach that the Bible should be interpreted literally.  To paraphrase Bishop Robert Barron, the Bible is a library of books that use metaphors, allegory, and sometimes historical fact to convey a message.  You've got sagas, poetry, mythology, letters from disciples, and so on, written in different times and places.  To get the most out of the Bible you have to take this into consideration, and also look at the very long critical interpretive history around it.   

But which parts are to be taken literally and which are metaphors? It is then a completely arbitrary decision and therefore loses it's legitimacy as a divinely inspired scripture.

[Blackleaf]

I'm sure you know more about the one's you've mentioned than I do, but many Protestant Christians, I'm guessing most, hold to sola scriptura and see the Bible as the ultimate authority for their doctrine.  Catholics don't, they see Apostolic tradition other than the Bible as equally valid, which was my point.  Scripture is seen as part of that tradition.  I also didn't mention natural law, divine revelation and the authority of the magisterium as part of the mix as well.  All of that plays a part in Catholic theology. 

I suppose what I was getting at is that if you (generally speaking) want to specifically criticize the Catholic faith, there's more to it than picking apart the little details of scripture.  Like I said, the CCC details what Catholics believe.

In my experience with Protestants, most people do not believe that the Bible is infallible or 100% literal. Most don't even read the Bible outside of church, which says a lot about how much confidence they put into its words. There are some denominations that do teach that the Bible is infallible and literal. Southern Baptists and United Pentecostals are among them.

[Jack89]

But which parts are to be taken literally and which are metaphors? It is then a completely arbitrary decision and therefore loses it's legitimacy as a divinely inspired scripture.

That's the problem with Sola Scriptura and why there are 30,000 plus Protestant Christian denominations.

The Catholic Church has the Magisterium, which consists of the Pope and Bishops, as the authority to clarify such matters.  If you want clarification they'll help square you away.  It keeps Catholics on the same sheet of music, so to speak. 

[Jack89]

In my experience with Protestants, most people do not believe that the Bible is infallible or 100% literal. Most don't even read the Bible outside of church, which says a lot about how much confidence they put into its words. There are some denominations that do teach that the Bible is infallible and literal. Southern Baptists and United Pentecostals are among them.

You get into a lot of gray area when you talk about what people actually believe so you have to look at their religious doctrine to get a baseline.  Sola Scriptura was the one of major doctrines that came out of the Protestant Reformation.  Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecost, Calvinists, you name it, all stem from that. 

[Blackleaf]

That's the problem with Sola Scriptura and why there are 30,000 plus Protestant Christian denominations.

The Catholic Church has the Magisterium, which consists of the Pope and Bishops, as the authority to clarify such matters.  If you want clarification they'll help square you away.  It keeps Catholics on the same sheet of music, so to speak.

I like how you cite the 30,000 Protestant denominations like the number of them somehow makes them wrong, while yours alone is right. There are different denominations within the Catholic tradition as well, which is why "Roman Catholic" is a term for specificity. But you're acting like Protestants are of an entirely different religion. Those 30,000 denominations are Christian denominations, and Roman Catholicism is one of those denominations. A Baptist could easily flip that logic and claim that that there are over 30,000 denominations because those other Christians don't take the Bible as literally as they do, or else they'd all be united as one denomination. It doesn't prove anything.

Also, the real reason why there are so many denominations is because of the tendency of Christians to fill in the gaps that the Bible leaves open. This is something that you've even admitted to, that the Bible itself is not sufficient enough, but that you rely on tradition as well. What makes your tradition more valid than any other tradition?

Another reason for why so many denominations exist is that some actually create gaps just to fill them up with tradition. The Catholic church does this too. One easily identifiable example is with Mary, who Catholics claim to have died a virgin despite the Bible clearly saying that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Why would she die a virgin anyway when she was a married woman? Is she supposed to be more holy because she never slept with her husband?

[Gerard]

I'm sure you know more about the one's you've mentioned than I do, but many Protestant Christians, I'm guessing most, hold to sola scriptura and see the Bible as the ultimate authority for their doctrine.  Catholics don't, they see Apostolic tradition other than the Bible as equally valid, which was my point.  Scripture is seen as part of that tradition.  I also didn't mention natural law, divine revelation and the authority of the magisterium as part of the mix as well.  All of that plays a part in Catholic theology. 

I suppose what I was getting at is that if you (generally speaking) want to specifically criticize the Catholic faith, there's more to it than picking apart the little details of scripture.  Like I said, the CCC details what Catholics believe. 

My point is that while many Protestant denominations profess "Sola Scriptura", their doctrines are in fact based on much of the same traditions Catholics believe in. Specially when it comes to the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon that I mentioned, which are part of every Protestant doctrine. Many Calvinists also have a particular appreciation for the works of (St.) Augustine of Hippo. I don't know of any Protestant denomination for instance that doesn't support the Nicene creed of the Triune God, which they all recite and is definitely not "Scriptura" or the Christology professed by the Council of Chalcedon, which isn't either.

Gerard