What if Jesus called you a DOG??

[This]

Here is an interesting article I read that addresses some of the Mega Churches portrayal of Jesus being a meek wimp. This articles illustrates the blunt side of Jesus that is seldom preached these days:

What if Jesus called you a DOG?

How'd you feel if Jesus called you a dog? I can tell you right now that about 80% of you would BE OFFENDED and call Him "unchristian".

How do I know? Because I've been called "unsaved", "unchristian", "hateful", "false teacher" and "false prophet" more times than I can count simply for being direct and telling people the truth. Most Christians CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. Most Christians CAN'T STAND DIRECTNESS and BOLDNESS.

They're USED TO the two-facedness and hypocrisy that goes on in most congregations and religious circles. Thus, they RESENT anyone who DOESN'T play the "religious game" by their man-made religious "rules". Organized religion has "sold" them A FALSE IMAGE OF Jesus.

Man-invented Kristianism has sold them a Jesus who is ALWAYS "meek and mild", a virtual doormat, who always spoke in hushed tones, never raised His voice, and always used "nice" language. But the "meek and mild" Jesus THAT RELIGION PROMOTES - and that most Christians have bought -- is NOT the Jesus found in the Gospels. The Gospels reveal a Jesus that, while loving and compassionate toward sinners, was also DIRECT AND BLUNT.

A DYNAMIC Jesus, who taught to love even our enemies and "turn the other cheek", but who also GOT ANGRY at the religious traffickers of His day overturned their tables, made A WHIP out of ropes, and THREW THEM OUT of His temple. But religion NEVER SPEAKS ABOUT THAT Jesus. They want a Jesus that conforms to the CORRUPT IMAGE FABRICATED BY THEIR CORRUPT MINDS.

But Jesus won't conform to THE MOLD they would confine Him to. He is THE SAME yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8). He was bold and abrasive with the religious hypocrites OF HIS TIME calling them, among other things, "brood of vipers", "hypocrites", "blind guides", "unclean" and "children of hell" (Matthew 23:16-33). He called Herod (a cunning religious hypocrite if there ever was one) "a fox" (Luke 13:32). And, trust me, He WASN'T paying him a compliment.

And He spoke BLUNTLY to the Syrophoenician woman (a gentile) who came seeking deliverance for her demon-possessed daughter, saying: "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). Even after the woman KNELT BEFORE Him and BEGGED for His help, He RUDELY replied: "It is not right to take the children's bread and TOSS IT TO THE DOGS" (Matthew 15:26).

Read it for yourselves, religious hypocrites. It's only been in your Bibles for 2,000 YEARS!!! Doesn't sound very "meek and mild" to me...

80% of you would have been SHOCKED to hear "that language" coming from "a Christian".

80% of you would have GONE AWAY OFFENDED WITHOUT receiving your miracle:

HOW DARE He call me "a dog"!!! WHO does He think He is???

But this woman was no religious wimp:

She was NOT offended. She was DETERMINED. She was TENACIOUS. Unlike most of you, she HAD FAITH, not religion.

She didn't mind hearing the truth, EVEN IF IT WASN'T TO HER LIKING. And she GOT HER MIRACLE. "Yes, Lord," she replied, "but EVEN DOGS eat THE CRUMBS that fall from their masters' table." Jesus Himself COULDN'T refute THAT argument. Glory to Him forever...

Matthew 15:28 gives us the happy conclusion: Then Jesus answered, "Woman, YOU HAVE GREAT FAITH! Your request is granted." And HER DAUGHTER WAS HEALED FROM THAT VERY HOUR. EVEN JESUS was IMPRESSED.

If 80% of you had any brains, you'd realize it's those who tell you the Truth, BLUNTLY AND DIRECTLY -- even when they know you don't like it and don't want to hear it -- that are GENUINE, know what they're talking about, CAN help you, and look after your soul.

The ones you should be wary of are those who ALWAYS tell you WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR.

[Forgiven]

If 80% of you had any brains, you'd realize it's those who tell you the Truth, BLUNTLY AND DIRECTLY -- even when they know you don't like it and don't want to hear it -- that are GENUINE, know what they're talking about, CAN help you, and look after your soul.

Ouch!

[mattfivefour]

I disagree that Jesus was rude. He simply stated what current Jewish teaching was regarding Gentiles, and the Syrophoenician woman understood that and had an answer. Jesus was testing the woman, not being rude to her. Her response—the response He knew she would give—was provoked for the purpose of demonstrating her faith and showing that faith is the way to God. To suggest that Jesus was rude and thus implicitly saying that the woman responded to His rudeness by essentially putting Him in His place with her answer is false. It totally misses the point of Scripture there.

Yes, Jesus expressed anger at the religious leaders who were actually preventing the people of God from finding and serving Him. And rightly so. However, when He called Herod a fox it was not as an insult but as a characterization of his slyness, thus letting all know that He was on to him.

Careless exegesis like that of the author is actually not exegesis at all, but eisegesis. He had a theory and went looking for support in Scripture. In doing so he defames Jesus. Jesus was God and God is love and love is "never rude". (1 Corinthians 13:5 ... the words "behave itself unseemly" being the KJV translation of the Greek ​aschemoneo which means "behave dishonorably": thus its frequent modern translation as "rude". As Findlay puts it: "Love imparts a delicacy of feeling beyond the rules of politeness." In other words, "Love", first of all, "is never rude.")

It would seem from what the article's author has written in capital letters that he prides himself on—indeed views them as Christian virtues—being "direct" and "bold". Unfortunately his opinion regarding "directness" and "boldness" is not scriptural. Directness and boldness in the Biblical context refers to honesty, not to harshness of presentation. Indeed God tells us directly and repeatedly—1 Timothy 6:11; 2 Timothy 2:24-25; Titus 3:2; Colossians 3:12-13; Galatians 6:1 (the operative Greek words in these verses being either epios and prautes both of which mean "mild" and "gentle")—that the man of God must be gentle. Unfortunately, some people cannot separate fleshly directness and boldness, which is manifested in rudeness and harshness, from spiritual directness and boldness, which is manifested in kindness, gentleness and compassion. I would suspect that the "Most Christians CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. Most Christians CAN'T STAND DIRECTNESS and BOLDNESS" of which the author speaks is actually evidence not of the fact that the Christians cannot handle "truth ... directness and boldness" but that they cannot handle the author's rudeness and harshness. Their objection is more likely the rejection of his manner than of his message.

All in all, the author's attempts at self-justification of his rude behavior falls flat when viewed in the light of Scripture.

We should all note, however, that this author is far from alone. There are many people who demonstrate exactly that man's attitude. And in so doing they manifest that they may have salvation through faith in Christ, but they have not yet known God. If they have "been a Christian" for years and are still at that stage of immaturity it can bring us to wonder whether in fact the Holy Spirit is indwelling them, because we see either no fruit, or bad fruit ... and as our Savior said, bad fruit only comes from bad trees, a good tree cannot bear bad fruit. (Matthew 7:17-18; 12:33; Luke 6:43)

[LivnForChrist]

I find the article offensive. It is demeaning to the Christian. Jesus
can get away with name calling because, well...he's God. But for someone to
write that if 80% of you had a brain??? That's a little over the top if you ask me.

[mattfivefour]

The entire article is "over the top". In fact it is error.

And so is the majority of the site. I commend you for searching out the source of the article, sis, but we had previously decided among the admin/mod team not to allow that link on this site. The site is so full of error (some of it blatant, some of it subtle like the article above, some of it far more subtle than that) that there is no redeeming value in pointing people to it.

[LivnForChrist]

This guy couldn't tell me anything anyway.There is a lot of error on his site.
He thinks the anti-christ will be Alexander the great resurrected.

[FaithInChrist]

A relationship with Christ is personal. It is something that must develop in your own soul, through prayer and immersing yourself in scripture, testing everything through the word of God.

Then is it our responsibility to be a light of goodness and to reflect the grace that God gives us. We are to build a house on the hill with our lives, so that all will see and yearn to have the love and peace that we share with our God.

Our love should flow into the hearts of sinners, to start to soften their hardened hearts. That is our commission.

Calling our fellow Christians brainless does nothing to promote our message, in fact, this article is laced with hatred toward supposed brethren. Let God correct behavior he finds lacking in His children. Or if you must correct someone, correct brethren with love, not hate.

[This]

I agree that this person's style is too harsh. I personally prefer a "MattFiveFour" style myself - humble yet well-informed.

Nonetheless, it was an interesting way to describe the "other side" of Jesus. And, by the way, I agree that Jesus was not being rude as so well explained by, guess who, MattFiveFour!!

Some will say that there are better sources of information than this site (GraceThruFaith being one of many), but not all of his messages are this harsh and they can be quite informative. I agree that anyone entering it must have GREAT discernment and knowledge of the New Testament.

As per usual, great feedback from the wonderful members of this website!!

[OnceWasLost]

Too bad the element of truth in the article is overshadowed by the over the top writing style.

* Modern churches do focus on topics that refuse to show the full scope of The Gospel.
* Jesus spoke about hell and judgement to come due to man's unrighteousness. A message that the church is primarily charged with speaking as prompted by the Holy Spirit John 16:7-11
* A pick and choose message that appeals to the hearer does a grave disservice to those in the pews.
* It is the "pastors" who lack the courage to call sin what it is, and to warn people of it's eternal consequence.

All of these and many other indicators of the dead end times church were long ago warned of by Paul, Peter and John among others. For all the faults of the modern gutless message givers er..... "pastors" there is as great a danger also presented by the angry, shouting, demeaning and self righteous bloggers out there.

[IamPJ]

I didn't care for the article either....

[Sean Osborne]

He thinks the anti-christ will be Alexander the great resurrected.

Well, eschatologically speaking, he is close, but he does not quite win the proverbial cigar on that one either.

The angel Gabriel specified the ethnic lineage of the Antichrist when he informed Daniel (see Daniel 8) about the "male goat" "from the west" which had "a notable horn between his eyes." Gabriel goes on to explain to Daniel that this ram's very large horn would be broken into four notable horns. The ram Gabriel spoke of was clearly Alexander the Great and his Empire which upon his death was divided into four warring Greek-Macedonian kingdoms (ruled by four dynastic families of Diadochi or Macedonian-Greek generals) in Europe, the Middle East and Southwest Asia. The angel Gabriel (see Daniel 8:11-12) then makes a direct comparison between this Greek "male goat" and the future Antichrist, saying:

"He even exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host; and by him the daily sacrifices were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. Because of transgression, an army was given over to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifices; and he cast truth down to the ground. He did all this and prospered."

(Interestingly, and as a side-note: Daniel 8:13-14 informs us that the Temple will be standing and sacrifices ongoing during the 70th Week for a total of 2,300 days, which equates to a Biblical 6.3888 360-day long years or 6 years, 3 months and a couple of days.)

Gabriel absolutely confirms this Greek ethnic identity in Daniel 10:20.

In Daniel 11 Gabriel prophecies about the precursor of the Antichrist, who as we all know, was the Macedonian-Greek emperor of the Seleucid Empire, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. In Daniel 11, verses 29 through 45, there is absolutely no distinguishing - zip, nada, none - in the prophetic narrative between Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the future Antichrist. They are both spoken of in the exact same context without so much as a hint of difference between them.


Antiochus IV Epiphanes, emperor of the Seleucid Empire, "king of the North"

Also of keen interest are the words of God Himself in Revelation 2:12-13 where he quotes Jesus saying that Pergamos "is where satan's throne is" and "where Satan dwells." Pergamos is an ancient Greek city on the southern part of the ancient Greek island of Cyprus (beginning in 1400 BC to the present), a modern-day member of the European Union.

[mattfivefour]

I have a couple of questions. Was the "prince of Persia" of Daniel 10:13 a man, like the "kings of Persia" of the same verse? Or was he a demonic being who controlled Persia? And, if so, is it the same "prince of Persia" whom Gabriel is going to fight with again in Daniel 10:20? In which case, then, does the "prince of Greece", spoken of in the same breath with the "prince of Persia" then also speak of a demonic being?

[Sean Osborne]

I have a couple of questions. Was the "prince of Persia" of Daniel 10:13 a man, like the "kings of Persia" of the same verse? Or was he a demonic being who controlled Persia? And, if so, is it the same "prince of Persia" whom Gabriel is going to fight with again in Daniel 10:20? In which case, then, does the "prince of Greece", spoken of in the same breath with the "prince of Persia" then also speak of a demonic being?

Yes. No human being could have withstood the angel Gabriel for 21 days, so the "prince of Paras (Persia)" that Gabriel referred to was a demonic being, a fallen angel. Gabriel along with the archangel Michael then returned to finish the fight with that "prince of Paras (Persia)" which was a victory that enabled the rise and coming of the "prince of Yavan" (i.e. Grecia or Greece). Both empires were enabled by demonic entities.

Matt, understanding this is the key to understanding the extremely significant prophetic riddle found in Revelation 17:8

The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Abaddon/Apollyon. Apollo. Satan. He was worshipped by the ancient Greeks and Romans as a Titan god of light and the sun. Where have we heard this description before? 2 Corinthians 11:14

According to the Revelation of Jesus Christ he's coming back; will be again during the 70th Week.

btw... I apologize for the unintended thread hijack going on here.

[mattfivefour]

That is exactly my own understanding, Sean. I just wanted to be clear that we were of the same view. So the "prince of Greece" being a demonic being, does he ft some point fully possess a human being and thus that man becomes the Antichrist? Or will the Antichrist actually be that demonic being masquerading in human form?

[cspat64]

For me, He is God so He can call me anything He wants.

[LivnForChrist]

Yes close but no cigar. Thanks Sean.

[Sean Osborne]

So the "prince of Greece" being a demonic being, does he at some point fully possess a human being and thus that man becomes the Antichrist? Or will the Antichrist actually be that demonic being masquerading in human form?

For the sake of brevity... Antichrist, the Beast, will be a man under demonic influence for the first 3.5 years of the 70th Week. Then someone will assassinate him, a mortal wound to the head and an arm. He is then reanimated (body and soul, he is but an image of the man that was) in a false resurrection - a mimickry of Jesus' resurrection - and will then enter the Temple to declare himself God, cease the daily sacrifice, the Abomination of Desolation. In these final 42 weeks the Antichrist is fully indwelt by Satan.

Revelation 19:20 and Revelation 20:1-3 show us the keen distinction between the man who will be Antichrist/Beast (plus his demonically powered-reanimated image) and Satan.

Revelation 19:20

Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Revelation 20:1-3

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

[This]

btw... I apologize for the unintended thread hijack going on here.

No apology necessary!! This is an "EXCELLENT" hijacking!! Very interesting back-and-forth discussions happening here!!

[mattfivefour]

For the sake of brevity... Antichrist, the Beast, will be a man under demonic influence for the first 3.5 years of the 70th Week. Then someone will assassinate him, a mortal wound to the head and an arm. He is then reanimated (body and soul, he is but an image of the man that was) in a false resurrection - a mimickry of Jesus' resurrection - and will then enter the Temple to declare himself God, cease the daily sacrifice, the Abomination of Desolation. In these final 42 weeks the Antichrist is fully indwelt by Satan.

Revelation 19:20 and Revelation 20:1-3 show us the keen distinction between the man who will be Antichrist/Beast (plus his demonically powered-reanimated image) and Satan.

Revelation 19:20



Revelation 20:1-3

Yes! Excellent exposition, Sean! It clearly explains what many fail to see.