Jesus Christ, was he sent for all mankind?

[Islam_mulia]

You are arguing about his age. that is not a tradition so your argument is spurious.

What is "tradition" to you, then?

 

[Secundulus]

What is "tradition" to you, then?

Any teaching or practice which has been transmitted and believed from generation to generation throughout the life of the Church.

 

[Islam_mulia]

Any teaching or practice which has been transmitted and believed from generation to generation throughout the life of the Church.

Are the teachings and writings of Irenaeus, for example, included in this "tradition"?

 

[français]

Josephus was NOT an early christian father.

He was an early Christian writer.

My point was that while some Christians claimed the "traditions" they follow are accurate and fruitful in explaining and defending the bible and their faith, they forget that the same early christian fathers "wrote things" that might not be consistent with the bible.

You want me to show you some early muslim writings about praying to muhammad, and ali? OH! LOOK! You muslims have changed!

You want me to show you some writings of ealry muslims and their views on the Crucifixion?

You want me to show you some writings of early muslims and their writings about the qu'ran, and how it might not be 100% perfect? How about the preservation of the Bible? I can show you what a muslim scholar even from the 20th century said about the authenticity of the Bible(he said the Bible we have is 100% unchanged.)


Give me about two weeks, and I could make a thread with at least well over 1,000 quotes from early muslim writers that differentiate between the islamic belifs of today.

I could show you the same thing with your religion.. Only I could show you an even greater, HUGE difference.. The sunni and shiah accounts. CONTRADICTORY accounts too.

You therefore need to make a choice: the "tradition" or the "scripture".

Tradition does not contradict Scripture.

You see, here you are again trying to make assumptions with no evidence.

Show me.. Where does Tradition contradict Scripture?

And who said that all Traditional views were 100% the same? Certainly, you should not talk about Christianity and different beliefs among some Church Fathers, because your religion is even worse!

 

[français]

Are the teachings and writings of Irenaeus, for example, included in this "tradition"?

Are the teachings of the shiah included in your sunni traditions?

 

[GenemZ]

That's what you say. Some of you Christians believe in sola scriptura, some do not and "tradition" plays an important part.

Why do some Christians stick to "traditions" that can be questionable??

Why do you believe Allah is the true God? You could suffering from the same type of deception. You believe he is because someone appeared hundreds of years after the two established faiths had their Bibles (Judaism and Christianity) and yours contradicts the nature of their God in spades. How do you know Muhammad was not like Irenaeus? And your people believed him like the traditionalists blindly believe what they are told? Same thing.

I know I am saved. Muslims can never be certain of salvation until after they die. Why is your God so different?

Did Jesus command the disciples to threaten all at unbelievers at knife point as to make them believe? Did he command the disciples to form armies to kill the infidels?

You never question your God. Traditionalists are of the same mind set. They never question what they are told to believe. There you have it.

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What is "tradition" to you, then?

Anything writings outside the Bible?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

1 Peter 4:7 Of all all-things The/ End/teloV <5056> hath Come Nigh/hggiken <1448>; be sober-minded, then, and watch unto the prayers,

Matt 24:6and ye shall begin to hear of wars, and reports of wars; see, be not troubled, for it behoveth all [these] to come to pass, but the End/teloV <5056> is not yet.

Revelation 2:26 and the One overcoming, and the One keeping unto an end of/telouV <5056> the works of Me, I will give to him authority over the nations,

 

[Islam_mulia]

You want me to show you some early muslim writings

I remember once there was a poster here who keep saying Muslims adopted tu quoque policy. Dont tell me you want to adopt that too??

I was referring to your "tradition" which Catholics and Orthodox believe. How in the world has that got to do with what Muslims practice??

 

[Islam_mulia]

Are the teachings of the shiah included in your sunni traditions?

Again. What is your point?

My contention was that some of the statements of the Churh Fathers are not consistent with the narrations of the Bible. Hence, I quoted an example that Irenaeus wrote that Jesus lived up to 50 years until the time of King Trajan. Obviously, this cannot be supported by the bible. Holding on to the "tradition" may not be the best thing then.

In the context of Islam, if the hadith contradicts the Quran, then Muslims reject the hadith. You do that with the "tradition"?

 

[KCDAD]

That's what you say. Some of you Christians believe in sola scriptura, some do not and "tradition" plays an important part.

Why do some Christians stick to "traditions" that can be questionable??

The same reason Muslims do.

 

[Snowbunny]

What is "tradition" to you, then?

Any teaching or practice which has been transmitted and believed from generation to generation throughout the life of the Church.

hola,

if i can jump in for a second... in the Catholic Church we believe in something called 'Magisterium' that is the official teaching power of the Church. Magesterium allows the Church to look at sacred tradition and determine which parts are infallible and which are not... which guides Catholic practices.

think of Sacred Tradition as the raw material, every significant non heretical teaching or practiced generated by the Church over the last 2000 years... and through Magisterium we are able to see crystal clear. for that reason Magisterium is far more important... they are often confused...

Are the teachings and writings of Irenaeus, for example, included in this "tradition"?

it depends upon what he wrote. merely being a saint or being a bishop or pope does not mean everything you say all the time is 100 percent infallible and correct. if certain writings of Irenaeus are found to be fallible then, while they are part of the Sacred Tradition... they are probably not going to be taught and adopted by the Church and the Catholics.

that works backwards too... probably the most well known heretic in history is Arius... and while he was eventually excommunicated (twice) and his view publicly condemned, some of his still surviving earlier writings about asceticism are considered correct according to Magisterium.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Interestingly when we talk about Irenaeus, and the apostoloc tradition, we find that Irenaeus believed Jesus died of old age!

I was shocked myself to read this, but it is true. Read this:


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103222.htm

Those were the writings of Irenaeus, whom you state as "one of the foremost early apologists against all the heresies", and whose writings totally contradict the gospel writers.

Notice in his writing, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103222.htm
Irenaeus did not mention anything about crucifixion of Christ.

In fact, Irenaeus, labelled 'false' those who believe the gospel's narration that Jesus preached for only one year.

INTERESTING!

I am trying to find another statement of Eusebius who stated that Father Papias did not believe in the crucifixion and resurrection. Will post once I have them.

Which strikes me as odd.

Catholics and Orthodox follow the 'traditions' and non-sola scriptura. Yet I have read a few statements from the early church fathers (will post other INTERESTING writings) whose accounts contradicts the bible's.

The same question Irenaus asked, "whom then should you rather believe"?

If Islam_mulia was a Christian Scholar, then there would be no reason for us to believe in anything else, just listen to his conclusions. Islam_mulia says...

we find that Irenaeus believed Jesus died of old age!

Well, you're proving that you are not infallible more and more, islam_mulia. Not only do you read the Scriptures incorrectly because you wrench them out of context, you also do the same with the Fathers. Why didn't you present ALL of what St. Irenaeus has to say? Then you might understand his point IN CONTEXT. First of all, Irenaeus' point is that Jesus' humanity identifies with human beings of every age:

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God --infants, and children, and boys, and *youths*, and *old men*. He therefore passed through *every age*, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. *So likewise He was an old man for old men*, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time *the aged* also, and becoming an example to them likewise."
​

So, is Irenaeus saying that Jesus became an "old man"? NO! But, first he continues...

"They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, 'to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,' maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and *robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable*.... "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be *thirty years old*, when He came to receive baptism; and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His *thirtieth year* He suffered, being in fact still a *young man*, and who had by no means attained to *advanced age*."
​

So far, Irenaeus' point is that some say that Jesus died at age 30 (as a "young man," as opposed to an "elder"), that He was NO OLDER than 30. And, he continues...

"Now, that the *first stage of early life* embraces *thirty years* (i.e. age 1 to age 30), and that this extends onwards to the *fortieth year* (31-40), every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth (i.e. 40 plus) year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, *even as the Gospel* and all the elders *testify*..."
​

Ah! Now what is Irenaeus' point? It's that Jesus was OLDER than 30 when He died (i.e. 33 years old, to be precise --"EVEN AS THE GOSPEL ...TESTIFIES" ...that is, the Gospel of John. His point is that Jesus lived past the first stage of life, and was in the stage of life between 31 and 50, which extends into "old age" (as they saw it in Roman times). In this, Jesus was qualified to be a teacher; since a Jewish rabbi had to be a "elder" in order to be a true teacher. Think about it. Irenaeus says that the Gospel TESTIFIES to this. Does the Gospel ever say that Jesus was 40 or 50? Rather, John's Gospel presents Jesus as thirty years old at the time of His Baptism, and then gives a 3-year narrative. And THAT is Irenaeus' point.
And, Irenaeus continues,

"But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, 'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,' they answered Him, 'Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?' Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to *one who is only thirty years old* it would unquestionably be said, 'Thou art not yet forty years old.' "
​

Notice how Irenaeus is counting in 10's here. Jesus is 33, so the Jews do not use "forty," but "fifty." Why? Because the Jews would only say "forty" if Jesus was 30-years-old or younger. Yet, he had entered into the next stage of life -- the period between 31 and 50, as opposed to the period between 13 and 30. And Irenaeus then sums up his point, saying:

"He did not therefore preach *only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year.* For the period included between the *thirtieth and the fiftieth year* can never be regarded as one year ...."
​

So, Irenaeus' point is that Jesus was between 30 and 50. That is all he is saying. He is showing that Jesus had reached the age of a Teacher: 33 yrs-old, according to the Gospel of John.

ON MORE TIME for you, read it again, I know you won't but others might,

Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while he still fulfilled the office of a teacher.​

What Irenaeus is saying here can be summarized as such also: youth lasts up to the age of thirty; from thirty to forty old age is approached, but youth is not yet completely left behind; and from forty onwards one enters the period of "old age". It is also interesting to note here that Irenaeus claims that, with regard to Jesus entering "old age", the "gospels testify" to it (alongside the "tradition" of the Church). We've already seen what the gospels say about this - they say only that there were three years of Christ's ministry (but, with respect and sympathy to Irenaeus, not "three and only three")-the conclusions that Irenaeus reaches beyond this have no explicit backing. This seems to back up the claim made above, namely, that Irenaeus isn't giving testimony to an actual and explicit Church tradition, but rather, that he is subverting the data which tradition offers to his doctrine of recapitulation for the purpose of blowing the Gnostic arguments sky-high. And also, it should be pointed out that Irenaeus never once claims that Jesus lived to be fifty-in point of fact Irenaeus claims that Christ was "between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year" (2:22:6). According to the above description of the "periods" of life, Irenaeus therefore thought Christ to have been between forty and fifty, though "not want[ing] much of being fifty years old".

So, you once again MISINTERPRET Christian writings, fathers and the Church, islam_mulia, BECAUSE you did not read his statement IN CONTEXT, and because you did not read it with the cultural sensibilities of a 2nd century Greco-Roman Christian, but with your own, narrow, modernist sensibilities. For even a scholar such as yourself, that is DISGRACEFUL!

 

[MattTheAgnostic]

hola,
it depends upon what he wrote. merely being a saint or being a bishop or pope does not mean everything you say all the time is 100 percent infallible and correct. if certain writings of Irenaeus are found to be fallible then, while they are part of the Sacred Tradition... they are probably not going to be taught and adopted by the Church and the Catholics.
que Dios te bendiga

"The powers of the Pope are defined by the Dogmatic Constitution (ch.3, s.8) such that "he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment" and that "the sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon" (can. 331 defines the power of the Pope as "supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power")."
I thought the Pope was supposed to be correct 100% of the time? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

That is the problem with Christians. On the one hand, you, Secundulus, was very bold in introducing Irenaeus as the "foremost early apologist" hoping to convince us that the early christian fathers kept the "traditions" and hence you have all the evidence to point to the biblical narratives.

Did you honestly think that Irenaeus made a gross mistake not knowing about Christ's age and ministry, and the Gospels written about Him, being the second in passing the faith on after Polycarp and His mentor Saint JOHN? Did you think that Irenaeus would create a conflict between Saint John's testimony and his own? Did you ever think that you would know more on Christ than Irenaeus? If you respond, yes to any, you are more gullible than anyone can see through you here. Keep in mind the way and language and cultural mindset and environment Irenaeus made his argument... and remember the verse of Saint John 8:57, and put in context!... Unfortunately you can't do that, for the millionth time you argued your nonsense demon possession "charge" against Christ, but you have not seen the way Jews addressed Him of His age. You didn't care... Another example of dishonest internet scholar work from islam mulia.

When I referred you to the same Ireneaus, you now said his writings on Jesus age was "irrelevant". Why was Jesus living until 50 years considered "not important". Remember, Ireneaus also said it is "false" to believe Jesus preached for one year only... he did it till 50, at least.

Do you believe Irenaeus literally meant He was "50" years old? Then why not believe Irenaeus on other aspects of Christ? No, that doesn't fit your agenda therefore you can't. Likewise you used condemned Origen to make another point in the past. Whatever fits your wishes, that is why no Christian on this board should take you seriously... Example, when it was said the 3rd hour, did it mean 3 PM? 3 AM? What? How can you even argue about historical things when you do not possess the knowledge to articulate and interpret those?

Either the biblical account or the "traditions" are WRONG... or there are other things that are not open and transparent for us to see and decide.

Irenaeus by Himself does not start a traidition, if that was the case the CHURCH today would promote that Christ WAS 50 when He was crucified. Church doesn't do that, but Church doesn't condemn Irenaeus either, which is another proof that he was talking about something else, rather than exact age, but the range of age He was in.

Do you misquote me on purpose or are you just inherently dishonest. I said his age is irrelevent, not the writings of Ireneaus.

I would go with the latter, inherently dishonest! You would not imagine how many times he brought up the same issues over and over and over again on these boards since 2005. Very common ones are, John 8:58, Exodus 3:14 I AM, pre-existence of Christ as suggested by Origen, Christ was not acused of being God but being demon possessed, Josephus account is corrupt, every 3 months you would see these argument from him...

Josephus was NOT an early christian father.

Correct...

My point was that while some Christians claimed the "traditions" they follow are accurate and fruitful in explaining and defending the bible and their faith, they forget that the same early christian fathers "wrote things" that might not be consistent with the bible.

Not all of them... Those are the condemned ones because they go outside of the biblical truth and traiditions. Traditions are historical facts of the Church. And one single entity doesn't start a tradition on his own.

You therefore need to make a choice: the "tradition" or the "scripture".

Such as you need to dismiss hadith? Same goes here, on a larger magnitude of course! Tradition doesn't interpret the bible by itself, nor Bible can not be explained without tradition, on the other hand, the same doesn't apply to Quran.

That's what you say. Some of you Christians believe in sola scriptura, some do not and "tradition" plays an important part.

Do you have any idea of Christian history, I didn't think so. Read up Martin Luther in 16th century and Sola Scriptura a little bit... It is not wrong but it was not necessary...

Why do some Christians stick to "traditions" that can be questionable??

Such as?

I was referring to your "tradition" which Catholics and Orthodox believe. How in the world has that got to do with what Muslims practice??

You might not be aware of this but most Protestant churches have traditions too, they just don't name it that way. But there is a order of things, and protestant churches do not create stuff out of the blue.

My contention was that some of the statements of the Churh Fathers are not consistent with the narrations of the Bible. Hence, I quoted an example that Irenaeus wrote that Jesus lived up to 50 years until the time of King Trajan. Obviously, this cannot be supported by the bible. Holding on to the "tradition" may not be the best thing then.

Irenaeus DID NOT say Christ was 50 when He was CRUCIFIED. Another example of dishonesty in islam_mulia's ridiculous position, he affirms Irenaeus did teach Crucifixion, whether Christ's age is 50 or not is irrelevant to islam_mulia's fundamental position that Crucifixion didn't happen at all... So which one are you taking here? Irenaeus was correct in the age therefore the Crucifixion or otherwise? With this dishonesty and in my opinion stupidity, islam_mulia still shows his face around here.... So sorry islam mulia, your contention was wrong... NEXT?

 

[dnihila]

Hello.We muslims believe he was sent to the sons of Israel not for all mankind.This doesnt mean the one who follows Him in real does a wrong job but this is God's plan for He sent Muhammed-aleyhissalam-to all mankind.Which proofs do christians have to claim that Jesus was sent to entire humanity and not only to the israelites?

I would like to add some points in here if brother
anatolian don't
mind.
I would like to say that Jesus (peace be upon him)
was sent to Sons of Israel at his time and by
comparing Chrsitianity to Islam you can see also that
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was sent to Quraish at his time and they were
the first ones to know about his message but as long as his message is permenant then all the world must follow the last Holy Book which is The Holy Quran and this is for a hidden wisedome by Allah that He had His messangers
after each other to complete the message on Earth.
Before the prophet died he said:

3. Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah. that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

So why to differentiate between religions while
they are all the completing each other but as long as some originals are lost then the best solution is to stick to the remaining original which is the Holy Quran.

From here and from now on I ask every non muslim to take 10 minutes among his/her busy day to read a small part of the Holy Quran and forget about any other prejudice ideas that you have about Islam.
Then you will find that those 10 minutes are not wasted on a trivial thing-Allah forbids.

 

[KCDAD]

I would like to add some points in here if brother
anatolian don't
mind.
I would like to say that Jesus (peace be upon him)
was sent to Sons of Israel at his time and by
comparing Chrsitianity to Islam you can see also that
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was sent to Quraish at his time and they were
the first ones to know about his message but as long as his message is permenant then all the world must follow the last Holy Book which is The Holy Quran and this is for a hidden wisedome by Allah that He had His messangers
after each other to complete the message on Earth.
Before the prophet died he said:

3. Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah. that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

So why to differentiate between religions while
they are all the completing each other but as long as some originals are lost then the best solution is to stick to the remaining original which is the Holy Quran.

From here and from now on I ask every non muslim to take 10 minutes among his/her busy day to read a small part of the Holy Quran and forget about any other prejudice ideas that you have about Islam.
Then you will find that those 10 minutes are not wasted on a trivial thing-Allah forbids.

I began by reading the hadithas (since I can not read Arabic and it is a sin to read the Q'uran in English , isn't it?) They are nonsensical legalistic ethnocentrism. Don't sit, propping yourself up with your hand, for that is the way Christians and Jews sit.
I have a suggestion. Why don't you encourage Muslims to stop worrying about what Allah forbids, and start worrying about what Allah requires?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

I began by reading the hadithas

It is hadith, hadis, etc.. Haditha is a town in Iraq.

(since I can not read Arabic and it is a sin to read the Q'uran in English , isn't it?)

Not true, otherwise we had 11 million in the US alone in trouble. Most of those are arabic immigrants though you go figure. It is claimed that the language of the paradise is Arabic, and that is the language of Muhammad. Well, the best meaning comes out of arabic, therefore in muslim countries, you will see these 5 year olds (well, including any school age kid) going to Quran course with their headscarves and skullcaps, especially during summer break, going there to learn the language from the childhood. If the message is not being conveyed fully outside of its own language, then what good is it?

They are nonsensical legalistic ethnocentrism. Don't sit, propping yourself up with your hand, for that is the way Christians and Jews sit.

Don't drink water when adhan, the call to prayer, is being announced in the P.A., don't lay when the call to prayer is being announced, don't walk in front of someone who is praying, I can think of more I am sure from my upbringing....

I have a suggestion. Why don't you encourage Muslims to stop worrying about what Allah forbids, and start worrying about what Allah requires?

LOL! If they only had unity, there would either be peace around the world, or a world war that would have ended their existence. However their uniformity doesn't mean unity. They are not united in ANY issue. They are not doing it here but I wish you would have time to go to random islamic forums and see how they fight over their theological differences.

 

[KCDAD]

I understand that children learn to read and speak Arabic ONLY by reading the Q'uran. I guess that is one way to indroctinate young children and insure that your culture doesn't progress.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Jesus, the Word and Booths:

http://www.jewfaq.org/holiday5.htm

The Hebrew word "sukkah" (plural: "sukkot") refers to the temporary booths that people lived in, not to the Tabernacle.

Leviticus 23:42 `In booths/05521 cukkah ye dwell seven days; all who are natives in Israel dwell in booths/05521 cukkah,

Matthew 17:4 And Peter answering said to Jesus, `Sir, it is good to us to be here; if thou wilt, we may make here three booths/skhnaV <4633>--for thee one, and for Moses one, and one for Elijah.'

John 1:14 And the Word flesh became, and booths/eskhnwsen <4637> (5656) in us, and we esteem the glory of him, glory as an Only-generated beside Father. Full of grace and truth.

Zechariah 14:18 And, if the family of Egypt shall not come up, and shall not enter in, upon whom there falleth none, then shall smite them the plague wherewith Yahweh, did plague, the nations, because they came not up to celebrate the festival of booths/05521 cukkah.

 

[Abdurrahim]

The famous passge from the gospel of barnabas .

We find out why he called others dogs .

And lo! a woman of Canaan with her two sons, who had come forth out of her own country to find Jesus. Having therefore seen him come with his disciples, she cried out: 'Jesus, son of David, have mercy on my daughter, who is tormented of the devil! Jesus did not answer even a single word, because they were of the uncircumcised people. The disciples were moved to pity, and said: 'O master, have pity on them! Behold how much they cry out and weep!'
Jesus answered: 'I am not sent but unto the people of Israel.' Then the woman, with her sons, went before Jesus, weeping and saying: 'O son of David, have mercy on me!' Jesus answered: 'It is not good to take the bread from the children's hands and give it to the dogs.' And this said Jesus by reason of their uncleanness, because they were of the un- circumcised people.
The woman answered: 'O Lord, the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.' Then was Jesus seized with admiration at the words of the woman, and said: 'O woman, great is thy faith.' And having raised his hands to heaven he prayed to God, and then he said: 'O woman, thy daughter is freed, go thy way in peace.' The woman departed, and returning to her home found her daughter, who was blessing God.' Wherefore the woman said: 'Verily there is none other God than the God of Israel.' Whereupon all her kinsfolk joined themselves unto the law of [God], according to the law written in the book of Moses.
Chapter 22 Miserable condition of the uncircumcised in that a dog is better than they.
The disciples questioned Jesus on that day, saying: 'O master, why didst thou make such answer to the woman, saying that they were dogs?'
Jesus answered: 'Verily I say unto you that a dog is better than an uncircumcised man.' Then were the disciples sorrowful, saying: 'Hard are these words, and who shall be able to receive them?'
Jesus answered: "If ye consider, O foolish ones, what the dog doth, that hath no reason, for the service of his master, ye will find my saying to be true. Tell me, doth the dog guard the house of his master, and expose his life against the robber? Yea, assuredly. But what receiveth he? Many blows and injuries with little bread, and he always showeth to his master a joyful countenance. Is this true?'
'True it is, O master,' answered the disciples.
Then said Jesus: 'Consider now how much God hath given to man, and ye shall see how unrighteous he is in not observing the covenant of God made with Abraham his servant. Remember that which David said to Saul king of Israel, against Goliath the Philistine: "My lord," said David, "while thy servant was keeping thy servant's flock there came the wolf, the bear, and the lion and seized thy servant's sheep: whereupon thy servant went and slew them, rescuing the sheep. And what is this uncircumcised one but like unto them ? Therefore will thy servant go in the name of the Lord God of Israel, and will slay this unclean one that blasphemeth the holy people of God."
Then said the disciples: 'Tell us O master for what reason man must needs be circumcised?"
Jesus answered: 'Let it suffice you that God hath commanded it to Abraham. saying: "Abraham, circumcise thy foreskin and that of all thy house, for this is a covenant between me and thee for ever.''

At least we know Jesus pbuh has not called anyone dog ,because of not being jewish.

Peace