Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Will do

The Faith of a Canaanite Woman

46 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Will do

 

From the Bible:

Matthew Chapter 15

Spoiler

The Faith of a Canaanite Woman

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.

 

 

Quote

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

 

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

 

Jesus clearly stated many times that the kingdom of heaven is open to all. Including "Jew and Gentile". So why then was it recorded that he said these things to her? These verses are inconsistent with the heart of the teachings of Jesus about the kimgdom. But there is an explanation I think, why it was recorded that way.

The disciples of Jesus at that point, were still inclined to be dismissive of anyone who wasn't Jewish. They were then rather nationalistic in their religious attitudes. So were the NT writers. And when they put this event down on paper, in my opinion, they just could not resist to characterize the personality of Jesus as being like them, prejudiced and intolerant. 

Mark Chapter 7

Spoiler

Jesus Honors a Syrophoenician Woman’s Faith

24 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre.[g] He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”

30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

 

Here too, Jesus is presented in the same manner. But as you will see from the UB, there's more to the story.

The woman was treated unkindly, because she had inconveniently imposed herself on them. Jesus needed rest and the Apostles were determined to not allow anything to disturb him. But when the woman refused to leave, the Apostles in their thoughtlessness, went about it with rudeness, hoping I guess, it would compel her to leave.

So later, when this all got written down, the rudeness was simply attributed to Jesus for the reasons already described above.

But there's also another thing about these Bible passages that stands out. When you read them, they don't flow very well and feel disjointed and rather fragmented. You can sense things are missing.  

 

 

From the UB:

Spoiler

The Syrian Woman

156:1.1

There lived near the home of Karuska, where the Master lodged, a Syrian woman who had heard much of Jesus as a great healer and teacher, and on this Sabbath afternoon she came over, bringing her little daughter. The child, about twelve years old, was afflicted with a grievous nervous disorder characterized by convulsions and other distressing manifestations.

156:1.2

Jesus had charged his associates to tell no one of his presence at the home of Karuska, explaining that he desired to have a rest. While they had obeyed their Master’s instructions, the servant of Karuska had gone over to the house of this Syrian woman, Norana, to inform her that Jesus lodged at the home of her mistress and had urged this anxious mother to bring her afflicted daughter for healing. This mother, of course, believed that her child was possessed by a demon, an unclean spirit.

156:1.3

When Norana arrived with her daughter, the Alpheus twins explained through an interpreter that the Master was resting and could not be disturbed; whereupon Norana replied that she and the child would remain right there until the Master had finished his rest. Peter also endeavored to reason with her and to persuade her to go home. He explained that Jesus was weary with much teaching and healing, and that he had come to Phoenicia for a period of quiet and rest. But it was futile; Norana would not leave. To Peter’s entreaties she replied only: “I will not depart until I have seen your Master. I know he can cast the demon out of my child, and I will not go until the healer has looked upon my daughter.”

156:1.4

Then Thomas sought to send the woman away but met only with failure. To him she said: “I have faith that your Master can cast out this demon which torments my child. I have heard of his mighty works in Galilee, and I believe in him. What has happened to you, his disciples, that you would send away those who come seeking your Master’s help?” And when she had thus spoken, Thomas withdrew.

156:1.5

Then came forward Simon Zelotes to remonstrate with Norana. Said Simon: “Woman, you are a Greek-speaking gentile. It is not right that you should expect the Master to take the bread intended for the children of the favored household and cast it to the dogs.” But Norana refused to take offense at Simon’s thrust. She replied only: “Yes, teacher, I understand your words. I am only a dog in the eyes of the Jews, but as concerns your Master, I am a believing dog. I am determined that he shall see my daughter, for I am persuaded that, if he shall but look upon her, he will heal her. And even you, my good man, would not dare to deprive the dogs of the privilege of obtaining the crumbs which chance to fall from the children’s table.”

156:1.6

At just this time the little girl was seized with a violent convulsion before them all, and the mother cried out: “There, you can see that my child is possessed by an evil spirit. If our need does not impress you, it would appeal to your Master, who I have been told loves all men and dares even to heal the gentiles when they believe. You are not worthy to be his disciples. I will not go until my child has been cured.”

156:1.7

Jesus, who had heard all of this conversation through an open window, now came outside, much to their surprise, and said: “O woman, great is your faith, so great that I cannot withhold that which you desire; go your way in peace. Your daughter already has been made whole.” And the little girl was well from that hour. As Norana and the child took leave, Jesus entreated them to tell no one of this occurrence; and while his associates did comply with this request, the mother and the child ceased not to proclaim the fact of the little girl’s healing throughout all the countryside and even in Sidon, so much so that Jesus found it advisable to change his lodgings within a few days.

156:1.8

The next day, as Jesus taught his apostles, commenting on the cure of the daughter of the Syrian woman, he said: “And so it has been all the way along; you see for yourselves how the gentiles are able to exercise saving faith in the teachings of the gospel of the kingdom of heaven. Verily, verily, I tell you that the Father’s kingdom shall be taken by the gentiles if the children of Abraham are not minded to show faith enough to enter therein.”

 

So hopefully now, you can see why these things needed to get straightened out and why the UB exists alongside the Bible.

 

 

 

@eight bits @Sherapy @Liquid Gardens

 

Ok, I moved it into it's own thread. If you'd like to leave a comment, I'll be looking forward to it.

Also, for the next one, give me some feedback please if you think there's a better way to present things. 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem

All I see is a situation where someone read the conflicting and disjointed stories from the bible and rewrote it, adding different details to them, to make more sense.

Not surprising when the bible is so conflicting in so many different aspects.

Just because the UB's "version" of the story is more coherent than the bible's, doesn't mean it actually happened or it somehow replaces the bible's version of events.

All it shows is someone read a story riddled with plot holes and filled some of them in. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do

 

Well if you look at it from the standpoint that what the UB presents is accurate, it becomes clearer how the NT writers confused the things they wrote about.

They were working from second hand accounts reported from eyewitnesses. At least that's what is presumed. Even eyewitness testimony can be flighty, many times embellished one way or another depending on any number of things.

Then we can factor in the usual ingredient of the purposes of supporting an agenda. In this case, the objective of the founders of the institutionalized church versus the goal of establishing the invisible spiritual brotherhood that Jesus taught.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
19 minutes ago, Will do said:

 

Well if you look at it from the standpoint that what the UB presents is accurate, it becomes clearer how the NT writers confused the things they wrote about.

 

 

What if you adhere to the more realistic view that both of them amount to nonsense?:)

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
2 minutes ago, Will do said:

Well if you look at it from the standpoint that what the UB presents is accurate, it becomes clearer how the NT writers confused the things they wrote about.

I would never begin looking at a book from standpoint in which a conclusion is drawn first.

My method would be, let me read this objectively and draw my conclusions afterwards. 

There exists the same issue of fallibility with the bible. Those who read it, already considering it the unadulterated, divinely inspired word of god run into major issues. They already have a conclusion. 

I've read at least 3/4 of the UB and nothing about it impresses me. Nothing extraordinary, so far, has arose. It's just like any other of the thousands of fictional books I've read.

10 minutes ago, Will do said:

They were working from second hand accounts reported from eyewitnesses. At least that's what is presumed.

Who presumes what exactly? That the gospels were not written by the exact disciples the books are named after? I agree. That an anonymous author heard a story from a disciple or someone else who heard the story from a disciple? How far of a game of telephone are the gospels? I don't know.

It could be that it's an entirely fabricated event.

We have no real way of knowing.

The fact that someone took an ancient hearsay story and rewrote it to be more palatable and reasonable means nothing to me.

It lends no credence to the story that someone who liked certain aspects of a story and had an agenda of their own, cleaned up a shoddy draft of a story.

16 minutes ago, Will do said:

In this case, the objective of the founders of the institutionalized church versus the goal of establishing the invisible spiritual brotherhood that Jesus taught.

If Jesus wants to be buddies with me, I'm afraid the Invisibility Clause is off the table.

He's going to have to show up and do a live demonstration of his magical powers.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Most people have personal interpretations of the Bible. Often to dispell the nonsense and errors, I do feel that process often leads to personal spiritual outlooks.  This is just another one but in print and heavily influenced by several religions. A lot of 7th day Adventist influence too 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Will do said:

So hopefully now, you can see why these things needed to get straightened out and why the UB exists alongside the Bible.

What I see, and in the order I think they were written:

Mark tells a story in which this incident is a plot development.

Matthew doesn't worry so much about "plot," and doesn't much like the specific development, either (Jesus loses a word wrestling match, and admits it - I don't know which bothered Matthew more, the loss or the admission). So he expands the story. He adds new characters (the disciples, who weren't there in Mark), and new self-serving dialog ("Yo, nothing personal, but I'm just not here for that woman or her kind.").

And it's not a plot development anymore, it's a stand-alone story about faith. It's become a devotional story, one among many of similar "message." No need to read the whole Gospel to understand the story. Faith will overcome all obstacles, in this case, even racial and ethnic prejudice. Halleleuia.

Mark had plenty to say about faith, even to another parent of another possession victim seeking an exorcism (9:17-27). That story also had an "argument" in it, and Jesus mopped the floor with the complaining father (as Jesus does with every other verbal sparring partner except the Gentile woman). This mother-seeking-an-exorcism story had a different point for Mark.

Long story short, Jesus would have given his left nut if any one of his Twelve could have come back with a reply that showed spontaneous and accurate understanding of some figurative expression of his. And at this point in the story, Jesus has a decision to make: does he go to Jerusalem with his rag-tag dirty dozen of willing but not especially able helpers, or maybe instead find some new talent first?

And UB? "Setting the record straight" is a license for extending even beyond Matthew in sanitizing Mark's story and ramping up its devotional features.

I can see the value in any reader explaining what's on the page in Matthew for the consderation of other readers of Matthew (or maybe some UB readers won't even read Matthew now that it's been interpreted for them). I don't see the value in rewriting Matthew, however. I'm not enthusiastic that Matthew rewrote Mark, either. However, Matthew doesn't deny that he's rewriting what he received, to make his preferred points about the religious matters that come up.

Matthew doesn't say anything about historical accuracy, one way or the other. Neither does Mark. UB does. That bothers me.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, eight bits said:

What I see, and in the order I think they were written:

Mark tells a story in which this incident is a plot development.

Matthew doesn't worry so much about "plot," and doesn't much like the specific development, either (Jesus loses a word wrestling match, and admits it - I don't know which bothered Matthew more, the loss or the admission). So he expands the story. He adds new characters (the disciples, who weren't there in Mark), and new self-serving dialog ("Yo, nothing personal, but I'm just not here for that woman or her kind.").

And it's not a plot development anymore, it's a stand-alone story about faith. It's become a devotional story, one among many of similar "message." No need to read the whole Gospel to understand the story. Faith will overcome all obstacles, in this case, even racial and ethnic prejudice. Halleleuia.

Mark had plenty to say about faith, even to another parent of another possession victim seeking an exorcism (9:17-27). That story also had an "argument" in it, and Jesus mopped the floor with the complaining father (as Jesus does with every other verbal sparring partner except the Gentile woman). This mother-seeking-an-exorcism story had a different point for Mark.

Long story short, Jesus would have given his left nut if any one of his Twelve could have come back with a reply that showed spontaneous and accurate understanding of some figurative expression of his. And at this point in the story, Jesus has a decision to make: does he go to Jerusalem with his rag-tag dirty dozen of willing but not especially able helpers, or maybe instead find some new talent first?

And UB? "Setting the record straight" is a license for extending even beyond Matthew in sanitizing Mark's story and ramping up its devotional features.

I can see the value in any reader explaining what's on the page in Matthew for the consderation of other readers of Matthew (or maybe some UB readers won't even read Matthew now that it's been interpreted for them). I don't see the value in rewriting Matthew, however. I'm not enthusiastic that Matthew rewrote Mark, either. However, Matthew doesn't deny that he's rewriting what he received, to make his preferred points about the religious matters that come up.

Matthew doesn't say anything about historical accuracy, one way or the other. Neither does Mark. UB does. That bothers me.

Damn, your good. :clap::nw:

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Will do said:

 

From the Bible:

Matthew Chapter 15

  Hide contents

The Faith of a Canaanite Woman

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.

 

 

 

Jesus clearly stated many times that the kingdom of heaven is open to all. Including "Jew and Gentile". So why then was it recorded that he said these things to her? These verses are inconsistent with the heart of the teachings of Jesus about the kimgdom. But there is an explanation I think, why it was recorded that way.

The disciples of Jesus at that point, were still inclined to be dismissive of anyone who wasn't Jewish. They were then rather nationalistic in their religious attitudes. So were the NT writers. And when they put this event down on paper, in my opinion, they just could not resist to characterize the personality of Jesus as being like them, prejudiced and intolerant. 

Mark Chapter 7

  Reveal hidden contents

Jesus Honors a Syrophoenician Woman’s Faith

24 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre.[g] He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”

30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

 

Here too, Jesus is presented in the same manner. But as you will see from the UB, there's more to the story.

The woman was treated unkindly, because she had inconveniently imposed herself on them. Jesus needed rest and the Apostles were determined to not allow anything to disturb him. But when the woman refused to leave, the Apostles in their thoughtlessness, went about it with rudeness, hoping I guess, it would compel her to leave.

So later, when this all got written down, the rudeness was simply attributed to Jesus for the reasons already described above.

But there's also another thing about these Bible passages that stands out. When you read them, they don't flow very well and feel disjointed and rather fragmented. You can sense things are missing.  

 

 

From the UB:

  Reveal hidden contents

The Syrian Woman

156:1.1

There lived near the home of Karuska, where the Master lodged, a Syrian woman who had heard much of Jesus as a great healer and teacher, and on this Sabbath afternoon she came over, bringing her little daughter. The child, about twelve years old, was afflicted with a grievous nervous disorder characterized by convulsions and other distressing manifestations.

156:1.2

Jesus had charged his associates to tell no one of his presence at the home of Karuska, explaining that he desired to have a rest. While they had obeyed their Master’s instructions, the servant of Karuska had gone over to the house of this Syrian woman, Norana, to inform her that Jesus lodged at the home of her mistress and had urged this anxious mother to bring her afflicted daughter for healing. This mother, of course, believed that her child was possessed by a demon, an unclean spirit.

156:1.3

When Norana arrived with her daughter, the Alpheus twins explained through an interpreter that the Master was resting and could not be disturbed; whereupon Norana replied that she and the child would remain right there until the Master had finished his rest. Peter also endeavored to reason with her and to persuade her to go home. He explained that Jesus was weary with much teaching and healing, and that he had come to Phoenicia for a period of quiet and rest. But it was futile; Norana would not leave. To Peter’s entreaties she replied only: “I will not depart until I have seen your Master. I know he can cast the demon out of my child, and I will not go until the healer has looked upon my daughter.”

156:1.4

Then Thomas sought to send the woman away but met only with failure. To him she said: “I have faith that your Master can cast out this demon which torments my child. I have heard of his mighty works in Galilee, and I believe in him. What has happened to you, his disciples, that you would send away those who come seeking your Master’s help?” And when she had thus spoken, Thomas withdrew.

156:1.5

Then came forward Simon Zelotes to remonstrate with Norana. Said Simon: “Woman, you are a Greek-speaking gentile. It is not right that you should expect the Master to take the bread intended for the children of the favored household and cast it to the dogs.” But Norana refused to take offense at Simon’s thrust. She replied only: “Yes, teacher, I understand your words. I am only a dog in the eyes of the Jews, but as concerns your Master, I am a believing dog. I am determined that he shall see my daughter, for I am persuaded that, if he shall but look upon her, he will heal her. And even you, my good man, would not dare to deprive the dogs of the privilege of obtaining the crumbs which chance to fall from the children’s table.”

156:1.6

At just this time the little girl was seized with a violent convulsion before them all, and the mother cried out: “There, you can see that my child is possessed by an evil spirit. If our need does not impress you, it would appeal to your Master, who I have been told loves all men and dares even to heal the gentiles when they believe. You are not worthy to be his disciples. I will not go until my child has been cured.”

156:1.7

Jesus, who had heard all of this conversation through an open window, now came outside, much to their surprise, and said: “O woman, great is your faith, so great that I cannot withhold that which you desire; go your way in peace. Your daughter already has been made whole.” And the little girl was well from that hour. As Norana and the child took leave, Jesus entreated them to tell no one of this occurrence; and while his associates did comply with this request, the mother and the child ceased not to proclaim the fact of the little girl’s healing throughout all the countryside and even in Sidon, so much so that Jesus found it advisable to change his lodgings within a few days.

156:1.8

The next day, as Jesus taught his apostles, commenting on the cure of the daughter of the Syrian woman, he said: “And so it has been all the way along; you see for yourselves how the gentiles are able to exercise saving faith in the teachings of the gospel of the kingdom of heaven. Verily, verily, I tell you that the Father’s kingdom shall be taken by the gentiles if the children of Abraham are not minded to show faith enough to enter therein.”

 

So hopefully now, you can see why these things needed to get straightened out and why the UB exists alongside the Bible.

 

 

 

@eight bits @Sherapy @Liquid Gardens

 

Ok, I moved it into it's own thread. If you'd like to leave a comment, I'll be looking forward to it.

Also, for the next one, give me some feedback please if you think there's a better way to present things. 

 

 

For me, the woman is the stand out, her faith saved her daughter. 

In Matthew, and in Mark, a retelling of Matthew with no bells and whistles.
 

I can’t say I am impressed with Jesus or his bro’s, they didn’t want to bother with the woman at all. 
 

The UB version to me is a much more involved version of getting rid of the woman and her sick daughter, it didn’t help me see Jesus as this compassionate amazing person Will is suggesting. Geez, a person who is willing to die for anyone’s sins having an issue with healing and then doesn’t want to be over extended seems harsh and not very god like. 
 

I think Jesus dropped the ball here, it was arrogant and intolerant the way they had her grovel while her child needed help. 

I think the bigger person was the woman.  

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
40 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I think the bigger person was the woman.  

Yes, I think there's an irony in Matthew's rewrite, compounded in UB's re-rewrite. The rewrites diminish Jesus's character.

By any standard of human decency, Jesus is way off-base when he first encounters the woman. Her request is facially reasonable, and no skin off his nose.

But Mark allows Jesus to redeem himself, and admit his mistake. The "devotional" versions have no redemption, no moment of Jesus learning anything. Rewrite-Jesus is doing the woman a favor. In Mark's version, he's paying her what she's earned for becoming the rabbi's rabbi.

And damned if he doesn't wish there was some way to recruit her for his team.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

It's a story and the purpose is that of it's author and is, no doubt, an interpolation. It's shows an aspect of the one heralded as the Savior of the Jews, not above sharing his gift with a "Canaanite", a Greek, or a Phoenician, the woman's ethnicity is subject to debate. The point is, she's not ethnically Jewish, a Gentile of an Empire of Gentiles, many of whom were, none-the-less, already Proselyte Jews, but most weren't. Christianity was spreading around the Empire and was in the process of being converted to an all-inclusive, cosmopolitan teaching by Paul and his disciples. "Ask and it shall be given you. Seek and you will find. Knock and the door will be opened to you." Like the story of the Centurion and his sick servant, this was also added to the Jesus mythos to confirm that all were welcome to join in The Kingdom of Heaven.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear Wessel

As somebody else mentioned it seemed that the UB's version filled in "plot holes" of the original; essentially, I think the UB is just serving the purpose of filling in gaps.

Even if you manage to polish a turd it's still a turd.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

It's not the first time the Bible was rewritten. Charly Russell beat the UB authors to the punch.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's a story and the purpose is that of it's author and is, no doubt, an interpolation. It's shows an aspect of the one heralded as the Savior of the Jews, not above sharing his gift with a "Canaanite", a Greek, or a Phoenician, the woman's ethnicity is subject to debate. The point is, she's not ethnically Jewish, a Gentile of an Empire of Gentiles, many of whom were, none-the-less, already Proselyte Jews, but most weren't. Christianity was spreading around the Empire and was in the process of being converted to an all-inclusive, cosmopolitan teaching by Paul and his disciples. "Ask and it shall be given you. Seek and you will find. Knock and the door will be opened to you." Like the story of the Centurion and his sick servant, this was also added to the Jesus mythos to confirm that all were welcome to join in The Kingdom of Heaven.

In this particular group of compare and contrast, I am not feeling the Jesus is a perfect human god vibe, the seek and you shall find or knock and a door will open, this lady made her own door. 

Hands down the wise one was the woman. I was moved by her, Jesus came at her and she clapped back as they say and paled in comparison. 
 

In my humble opinion anyway, she was a class act. “Dude should be like the lady”
 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

That's why the camel knees and the seeker after smooth things never saw eye to eye... 

Quote
What stuck out in the introduction is that James got a nickname during his ministry. They called him Old Camel Knees because he spent so much time praying-- so much time that his knees hardened like those of a camel. It's not the most flattering nickname but it's certainly bold.Jun 10, 2015

~

Quote
by MA Collins · 2017 · Cited by 2 · Related articles
12 May 2017 · Collins, M. A. (2017). Text, Intertext, and Conceptual Identity: The Case of Ephraim and the Seekers of Smooth Things.

~

Things got so bad that it started a thousand years and more of blood baths... 

~

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
54 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's not the first time the Bible was rewritten. Charly Russell beat the UB authors to the punch.

Charles Taze Russell ripped off a lot from Cyrus Scofield. 

 

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

Matthew doesn't say anything about historical accuracy, one way or the other. Neither does Mark. UB does. That bothers me.

Because it's a work of fiction that constantly has to reinforce it's "fact" so people will believe it. Sadler was a psychologist and understood if you repeat a planted idea it will grow. 

1. Nobody would of been speaking Koine. Just Aramaic. 

2. Karuska is a Kalmyk named probably borrowed from one of the Siberian refugees in Adventist care. (The Quakers planted one group in Medford, N.j., one in Philadelphia, one in Chicago) and Sadler liked it.

3. Norana is a Turkic name (see above)

I still think a Q Matthew preceded Luke. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Most people have personal interpretations of the Bible. Often to dispell the nonsense and errors, I do feel that process often leads to personal spiritual outlooks.  This is just another one but in print and heavily influenced by several religions. A lot of 7th day Adventist influence too 

Urantia was composed by a Adventist. Which is where the concept of Jesus as Micheal came from.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
2 hours ago, eight bits said:

Yes, I think there's an irony in Matthew's rewrite, compounded in UB's re-rewrite. The rewrites diminish Jesus's character.

By any standard of human decency, Jesus is way off-base when he first encounters the woman. Her request is facially reasonable, and no skin off his nose.

But Mark allows Jesus to redeem himself, and admit his mistake. The "devotional" versions have no redemption, no moment of Jesus learning anything. Rewrite-Jesus is doing the woman a favor. In Mark's version, he's paying her what she's earned for becoming the rabbi's rabbi.

I agree Jesus was off-base but I don't think I'm seeing the diminishing of Jesus' character in the re-writes, at least from what Will has quoted.  I'm totally missing where Jesus admitted any mistake in Mark as opposed to Matthew, the only difference I'm mainly seeing is Jesus' reply of 'for such a reply, you may go; your daughter is healed' and 'woman you have great faith!  your daughter is healed'; they don't seem that different except Jesus sounds more grouchy in Mark.  "For such a reply" doesn't explain what it was about the reply and seems to me to be consistent with Mathew, fleshed out both situations could be 'for such a reply that demonstrates such great faith!' making his response roughly identical.  The UB seems to just shift all the negative stuff to the disciples instead of Jesus which would seem to wall off impacts on Jesus' character; only in that retelling it seems does Jesus not whip out the prickish 'bread tossed to the dogs' bigotry, it's Simon instead and Jesus provides correction.

 

4 hours ago, Sherapy said:

I can’t say I am impressed with Jesus or his bro’s, they didn’t want to bother with the woman at all. 


The UB version to me is a much more involved version of getting rid of the woman and her sick daughter, it didn’t help me see Jesus as this compassionate amazing person Will is suggesting. Geez, a person who is willing to die for anyone’s sins having an issue with healing and then doesn’t want to be over extended seems harsh and not very god like. 


I think Jesus dropped the ball here, it was arrogant and intolerant the way they had her grovel while her child needed help. 

Agreed, I'm usually disappointed with the versions of Jesus I read about in the gospels at points, he comes off as arrogant and haughty and totally not-god-like in parts.  I get a much more appealing conception of him from Jesus Christ Superstar and from my own ideas/standards of what a truly good and holy being would say and how he'd behave.  Just looking at the typical depictions of him evoke a more positive character for me:

Savior.jpeg

Leaving aside the absurd over-Caucasianizing of his ethnicity here, this image suggests supreme compassion and love and wisdom, of noble sacrifice and that he understands your suffering for he has experienced it and despite that suffering 'everything's alright', as Jesus' character.  I'm disappointed then when the gospels depict him acting in ways counter to this; I think I could write a better Jesus morality-wise, one that would have given a giant shrug to moneychangers in the temple for example, one that would have responded to disciples noting that many poor could be fed for the price of the perfume with which he's being anointed with at least a, 'ya know, you guys do have a point...', instead of the wave off he seems to have given them.

As far as the UB rewrite, I analogize it to King Arthur.  My understanding is that there are a few sketchy core elements of the King Arthur story, but that story has been filled in with all kinds of additional details by many authors throughout history; Disney's The Sword in the Stone has significant differences compared to the Excalibur movie, and both probably differ from what is contained in the 'original' myths.  I think it's fine to do this to some extent, I always thought the various flavors/translations of the Bible available do this to some extent, take ancient stories and add to them to make them easier to understand for more modern audiences, and to the degree the UB does this I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.  I would agree though with 8 that the insistence that it is true history is off-base and even less supported than the original gospels.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do

 

Below is a link to a resource that cross-references between the Bible and the UB. 

You can either enter a reference from the Bible and find where it is in the UB, or use it the other way.

If you use a phone like I do, when the page comes up scroll down a bit and you'll find the two links to do this. It's pretty handy.

 

https://urantiabook.worldsecuresystems.com/urantiabook/paramony/index.html

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
4 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

"For such a reply" doesn't explain what it was about the reply

Unlike the other canonical gospels, Mark is intended to be heard (how ancients "read" anything) as a single recital, in order, from beginning to end. As usual in such works, context within the work often determines meaning more than digressive explanation at the time of the action.

This is only one of few (two?) times Mark's Jesus complements anybody for something they've said, and at the other memorable time (12:28-34) there's no disagreement between Jesus and the other speaker. Jesus in Mark, as in other gospels, is often generous in crediting the beneficiary's faith or belief as the means for their deliverance from illness or demonic assault. This is only time deliverance is attributed to the beneficiary's speech. Also, this woman exhibits faith from the outset; if her faith were enough, then she'd have had her child's deliverance for the asking (or not even asking, as the woman in 5:25-30 is healed).

It is, therefore, a material change for Jesus to refrain from any comment about her speech and change the focus to her faith - which never changes during the episode even though Jesus' behavior does change during the episode (in Matthew).

Yes, Jesus is often grouchy in Mark. He is beset by fools and he doesn't suffer fools gladly. This woman, however, is no fool. She stands out within the 100 or so characters in Mark (about 60 of whom are "speaking parts").

36 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

for such a reply that demonstrates such great faith!

No, the reply demonstrates understanding of Jesus' microparable about the children's bread, and her reply then makes a new microparable from it. On the spot. This is rabbinical discourse at its finest. Jesus' merry men never manage it, barely understanding the parables after they've been explained to them. This woman belts Jesus' first pitch to her out of the park. She's good. Robert Redford in The Natural.

43 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I think I could write a better Jesus morality-wise

I'll bet you could. Mark may not be trying to sell you anything except tickets to the performance. "Flawless" hero stories close on opening night.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Sherapy said:

In this particular group of compare and contrast, I am not feeling the Jesus is a perfect human god vibe, the seek and you shall find or knock and a door will open, this lady made her own door. 

Hands down the wise one was the woman. I was moved by her, Jesus came at her and she clapped back as they say and paled in comparison. 
 

In my humble opinion anyway, she was a class act. “Dude should be like the lady”
 

 

Exactly. The author not only had here knock, he had her kick the door in. Just like the Centurion, she shows uncommon Faith and the certainty in the power wielded by this Prophet from Galilee. These additions remind me of when Hollywood adds women or other ethnicities to movie adaptions of books that didn't have them in the original work. They add an extra dimension to the story and are inclusive of the wider audience. Without them, Christianity would have been a hard sell, merely a heresy of Judaism.

The Syncretic Gospels all have a multiplicity of authors, being copied by hand through the centuries until set in stone by the Church. Authorship is unknown and by the time they were written down, oral tradition of the story of Jesus was, more-or-less, firmly established. No doubt earlier written reference material was lost, especially after the several Jewish Revolts thoroughly gutted the story's heartland. 

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
3 hours ago, eight bits said:

Jesus in Mark, as in other gospels, is often generous in crediting the beneficiary's faith or belief as the means for their deliverance from illness or demonic assault. This is only time deliverance is attributed to the beneficiary's speech.

This seems (to a less-than-layman like myself) like a distinction without a difference though.  To my knowledge Jesus doesn't ascertain anyone's faith via telepathy, people demonstrate it to him through their actions or their speech.  Technically deliverance was attributed to something more general than speech or faith, 'a reply', and we seem to be left to determine what it was about the reply that provided deliverance.

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

No, the reply demonstrates understanding of Jesus' microparable about the children's bread, and her reply then makes a new microparable from it.

I'm not sure what 'no' refers to.  Continuing the above, the part of the reply that provided deliverance may well be that it demonstrates great faith, I'm not sure what possible context could disprove that.  I don't see anything that says that Jesus acknowledges that her point is even valid, he may grant her wish again because it is an expression of faith even if her point about crumbs is not valid.

I'm glad this was the focus of this thread, I agree that this woman is far more interesting character than my surface reading however long ago.  I'm just not seeing the admission of a 'mistake', and am not getting the character diminishing between Mark and Mathew.  If he made a mistake in Mark he seems to have made it in Mathew, the only indication I see that he's made a mistake is that he changed his mind, but he does that in both.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do
Posted (edited)

 

I agree with you @Liquid Gardens. I am very much enjoying this deep dive into the Bible. It sure is intriguing. So are everyone's comments!

 

 

Edited by Will do
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

something more general than speech or faith, 'a reply',

Actually, the Greek is dia touton ton logon (because of this saying, emphasis in the touton ton combination) - I don't see how Jesus could have been more specific. (Nor could I for that matter, having said the occasion was unique for Jesus to attribute his motive to the beneficiary's speech  - there's only one "speech" in question here). Logos appears often in the NT, in context, one relevant use is by Jesus for his own teachings when he explained the parable of the sower back in chapter 4, using the word repeatedly throughout verses 14-20.

This is not "interpretation," it's black letters on the page: the woman crafted a logon, and it was that logon that motivated Jesus to grant her request - a request which immediately before she spoke her logon, he had pointedly denied, with expressed prejudice.

If we want to be "general" about this, then I anticipate one thing is going to come up again and again: I resist "harmonization" of the Gospels, particularly trying to shoehorn Mark into the devotional mold exemplified by Matthew and Luke. Yes, Matthew's Jesus rewards her faith (not at first, though, and Jesus changes his mind, why? Is it indeed because he knows that he was one-upped, by a "dog" no less, but won't admit it - or thinks she's willing to s**t on her own people along with him - and curing her child will shut her up or reward her defection? Meh, better the UB way. Jesus never gave the woman any trouble in the first place; as soon as he found out what was going on, he came right outside and cleared the problem up.)

This is Rashomon stuff: three very different versions of the "same" incident. You really think there are only two distinct stories here? The canon's way, common to Mark and Matthew alike, and the new UB way?

Do you at least see why I differ?

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Continuing the above, the part of the reply that provided deliverance may well be that it demonstrates great faith,

When did the woman not exhibit faith, in any of the three versions? Jesus changes his mind in both canonical versions. He says why in both canonical versions, something different in each. Mark's Jesus is adequately articulate. If he wants to congratulate somebody for showing faith, he knows how to do that, and does on other occasions.

The character problem in the moment (in Mark and Matthew) is to motivate the instant 180-degree change in response to her request. That must be because something changed in that instant. Her faith doesn't change. The only thing that changes is that she accomplishes a feat that not one of the other 99 characters in the piece (Mark) ever manages.

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

even if her point about crumbs is not valid.

How is it not valid? I see dogs do that all the time (I could tell stories, what with it being about dogs and all, but I suspect you'll take my word for that).

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

If he made a mistake in Mark he seems to have made it in Mathew,

That's the frontier of my ignorance. I don't know whether Matthew thought it was a mistake; he may have agreed that Gentiles (or those who were not at least "God fearers") were permissibly likened to dogs. Mark, in contrast, writes from a consistent Gentile perspective. About him personally, I know nothing, but anybody can see that he is addressing a Gentile audience. I don't think he'd write with approval about somebody calling his audience dogs (even if Jacques Brel did pretty much call his audience pigs - a different time :P ).

Edited by eight bits
never attribute to malice what can be explained by ineptitude
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Exactly. The author not only had here knock, he had her kick the door in. Just like the Centurion, she shows uncommon Faith and the certainty in the power wielded by this Prophet from Galilee. These additions remind me of when Hollywood adds women or other ethnicities to movie adaptions of books that didn't have them in the original work. They add an extra dimension to the story and are inclusive of the wider audience. Without them, Christianity would have been a hard sell, merely a heresy of Judaism.

The Syncretic Gospels all have a multiplicity of authors, being copied by hand through the centuries until set in stone by the Church. Authorship is unknown and by the time they were written down, oral tradition of the story of Jesus was, more-or-less, firmly established. No doubt earlier written reference material was lost, especially after the several Jewish Revolts thoroughly gutted the story's heartland. 

For me, the story would spotlight the Jesus character had he been the one to say what the woman did that “dogs eat crumbs from the children’s table too” Not unlike the situation of those without sin cast the first stone situation. Jesus was Jesusly as one would expect. 

I agree with LG, that one expects a person who is an living breathing example of compassion, understanding, kindness, etc. etc. 

Yet, you do bring in a good point that having an audience does matter in getting a religion off the ground, 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.