Your last posts seem obsessed with the spectre of fraud. For you, fraud must be a matter of deep concern. There is no more a blatant fraud than Dawkins’ assertion that the existence of God is a matter for Science and that his answer is “no.” Being an evolutionary biologist, Dawkins must be aware that Science does not concern itself with matters philosophical or religious, yet he presumes to cite Science as an authority supporting his religious beliefs (or, rather, disbeliefs, it might be more accurate to say). To pretend otherwise flies in the face of what every Science Hawk on this forum has ever declared.
McGrath, who holds a PhD both in Biochemistry and in Theology, on the other hand has the integrity to acknowledge and write about the difficulty of translation and does not pretend perfection. He makes it a point to report that the KJV is not Holy Scripture but is, instead, an English translation of Holy Scripture, and that all translations are, to some degree, “forced.” Or, that every difference in translation can be called an “error” by one faction or another. McGrath makes no bones about the various conflicts motivated by sectarian and political calculations which have made understanding Holy Scripture the more difficult (an understanding shared by many Christians, but ignored by their critics because it reduces the number of their – the critics’ – opportunity to cry ‘ERROR!’).
Despite the skepticism of our friend James C. Bennett and his certainty that I am afflicted with faux humility, I am truly a simple man, not sophisticated in matters of biblical scholarship (among other things). So I rely on the efforts of scholars like Alister McGrath in such matters. Simply put, I think he, and others like him, far more accurate (and honest) than Dawkins or you. McGrath writes in benevolence with the view to promote understanding. Dawkins writes in malice with a view to promote denigration.
A woman of Canaan comes to Jesus, worshiping him and asking Him for help (Matthew 15:22-28), and all you get from the passage is Christ calling the woman a dog.
Oh yeah! we may be sure that Jesus and Christianity will get a fair and true hearing from you.
Your profound analysis is little more than a diversion directing our attention away from Christ’s words, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” directly contradicting your assertion that Matthew records Jesus explicitly stating He was sent for the "lost sheep of Israel only."
Read Jewish critique of Christian scriptures and see why.
There is no more a blatant fraud than Dawkins’ assertion that the existence of God is a matter for Science and that his answer is “no.”
Where does he say that? I don't remember him ever saying anything like that.
Being an evolutionary biologist, Dawkins must be aware that Science does not concern itself with matters philosophical or religious, yet he presumes to cite Science as an authority supporting his religious beliefs (or, rather, disbeliefs, it might be more accurate to say).
I disagree. I would like you to show me where he uses science to disprove God.
He makes it a point to report that the KJV is not Holy Scripture but is, instead, an English translation of Holy Scripture, and that all translations are, to some degree, “forced.”
While that is true, Bible scholars disagree on a variety of issues based on the readings in the original languages.
Simply put, I think he, and others like him, far more accurate (and honest) than Dawkins or you
For someone who admits being "a simple man, not sophisticated in matters of biblical scholarship" it is a mystery based on what (other than a whim) do you come to that conclusion. It certainly couldn't be a sophisticated or scholarly reason, right because you are "a simple man, not sophisticated in matters of biblical scholarship."
A woman of Canaan comes to Jesus, worshiping him and asking Him for help (Matthew 15:22-28), and all you get from the passage is Christ calling the woman a dog.
She could not possibly be worshipping him since the descendent (aka son) of David would not have been considered divine. She doesn't call him the Sin of God. The term kyrios (master) is a secular as well as a divine title, but since she is addressing a descendent of a human, the tile would have been secular. This is in line with the Jewish belief that the meshiyah (aka "messiah"), which means anointed (in Greek christos), would be a man, not a god.
But, let's look at the sequence of verses: she comes to him saying her daughter is sick, and the next verse says "But he answered her not a word." (15:23).
After his disciples try to intervene (send her away) Jesus reiterates "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (15:24)
Then comes verse (15:25) "Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me."
The word proskyneo means to kiss the hand of a superior, to prostrate yourself in submission to a master (secular or divine, angelic or even demon). But since we already know that she called him the Son of David and not a god, the term "worshipped" is not divine worship, as the Christians insist.
At which point he calls her a dog. (15:26)
And she replies (15:27) "Truly (or verily), master, dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table.
To which (15:28) Jesus responds "O woman, great [is] thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour."
What faith? That he is someone who can heal her daughter? But he should have known that all along. Right? So, why all the drama and name calling?
Obviously, the story is skewed in such a way that leads one to believe she though he was divine, when there is nothing in the verses to indicate he is. You don't have to be a god to be able to heal someone.
Your profound analysis is little more than a diversion directing our attention away from Christ’s words, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” directly contradicting your assertion that Matthew records Jesus explicitly stating He was sent for the "lost sheep of Israel only."
What? It's the same thing. “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” (NIV 2011, 15:24). In the historical sense the Jewish messiah was to be sent to bring back the dispersed members of the failed kingdom (house) of Israel, the so-called Northern Kingdom, rather than the Southern Kingdom, aka the house of Judah. That's why Jeremiah 33 speaks of the new covenant for the house of Israel.
I think you better stop now, because I don't want to be accused later of "ruining" someone's faith.