Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Danpech · 03-16-2002, 08:27 AM

In Donald Morgan's article, titled "Jesus was a Hypocrite" ( <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/jesus_was_hypocrite.html" target="_blank">Jesus Was a Hypocrite</a> ), Mr. Morgan gives twelve Biblical references to support the idea that Jesus hated hypocrisy, and also makes note of the fact that Christians teach that Jesus was a completely perfect person. Mr. Morgan then goes on to state that,

"It would be reasonable, therefore, to expect Jesus to never demonstrate, in his own behavior, even the slightest trace of anything which could possibly be construed as hypocrisy."

It seems that Mr. Morgan is no lawyer, for if he were, he would (hopefully) know that there is no way for anyone to avoid having their own words and behavior contain the slightest trace of anything which could possibly be construed as hypocrisy. All kinds of things can be construed to be what they are not and, so, to expect that someone should speak and behave in such a way as to eliminate even the slightest trace of anything which could possibly be construed as hypocrisy on their part is absurd. Common sense alone would grant far more benefit of the doubt than Mr. Morgan grants the words of Jesus. If any representative selection of Mr. Morgan's own words and behavior from any three consecutive years of his life were put to paper, not only would this record show traces of quite a large number of things which could possibly be construed as hypocrisy on the part of Mr. Morgan, but a fair number more would more than be mere traces of things which could possibly be so construed.

It also seems that Mr. Morgan has little knowledge of languages, their dynamics over time and culture, and the problems of translation between languages. One other problem which Mr. Morgan seems unaware of is that the Bible translation which he references has a rather limited vocabulary. There are competent and readily available English translations of the Bible which have been in print for some decades which clear up all of the problems which Mr. Morgan's article presents.

If, instead of using a certain, hyper-critical sensitivity which is well-known in clinical psychology, Mr. Morgan had used context and common sense for the passages which he claims show hypocrisy on the part of Jesus, he would not have found the kind of problem with any of these passages which he claims they present. You read what you expect to find said.

[ March 20, 3025: Message edited by: Danpech ]

Danpech · 03-16-2002, 08:32 AM

Mr. Morgan's full reply (see the Feedback forum with the thread of the same name as the present one) was as follows.

Quote:

Danpech:
Thank you for your feedback to my article Jesus Was a Hypocrite. And thank you for providing a URL; too many people neglect to do so.

I am no lawyer. But lawyers don't work with individuals who are perfect. One need not be a lawyer to understand that a perfect being could have done a better job of it than did Jesus to avoid hypocrisy in his own behavior. A perfect being who was genuinely concerned with hypocrisy would not in one instance admonish his listeners to call no one a "fool" and then in the next instance call people he disliked (or disagreed with) "fools." A perfect being who was genuinely concerned with hypocrisy would not in one instance state unequivocally that nothing is impossible to him who believes and in another instance blame his own inability to perform miracles on the faith of others.

Yes, all kinds of things can be construed to be what they are not, and that goes for claiming that Jesus was perfect and/or the only perfect man that ever lived. Common sense alone makes that obvious. Common sense alone provides the understanding that perfection does not and never has existed in any individual--including Jesus. Common sense grants that the Bible itself contains evidence of Jesus' imperfection, whether imperfection on the basis of his own standards or ours.

Inasmuch as I don't claim to be perfect and inasmuch as no one who has a modicum of common sense has ever claimed that I am perfect, it is a straw man--if not a red herring--to talk about my behavior providing evidence that I am less than perfect and to some extent a hypocrite. I have never claimed otherwise.

Regarding languages, I speak English, Spanish, and some German. I have studied cultural anthropology, so I do have an understanding of the dynamics of language over time and with regard to cultural differences.

I didn't use any one Bible translation but many different Bible translations (nearly thirty) and numerous reference works. To put it plain and simply, there is no honest and accurate Bible translation which clears up "all of the problems" which my article presents. You are entitled to believe otherwise, if you wish, but my opinion is that if you do you are self-deluded.

In terms of what is and isn't well-known in clinical psychology, keep in mind that although I worked only briefly in the field, psychology was my field of study. And while it may be true that clinical psychologists are well-aware of the tendency on the part of some individuals to use a "hyper-critical [sic] sensitivity," clinical psychologists are also well-aware of the tendency on the part of some individuals to compartmentalize their beliefs thereby allowing irrational religious beliefs to coexist with rational beliefs in an otherwise rational individual. As clinical psychologist, therapist, and author Nathaniel Branden puts it in his book The Psychology of Self-Esteem:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mental health requires of man that he place no value above perception, i.e., no value above consciousness, i.e., no value above reality. ... There is no greater self-delusion than to imagine that one can render unto reason that which is reason's and unto faith that which is faith's. ... Anyone who engages in the practice of psychotherapy confronts every day the devastation wrought by the teachings of religion. ... If preventive therapy is every psychologist's and psychiatrist's professed dream, then an expose of the harmful consequences of childhood exposure to religion is a pretty good place to begin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, if it were always true that you read what you expect to find, then it would also be true that I wouldn't likely have discovered what I consider to be Jesus' hypocrisy given that I was, at the time that I first began to notice these kinds of problems in the Bible, a devout Christian who was on the Board of Elders of my church and Chairman of its Christian Education Committee. On the other hand, I'll grant that probably most Christians read what they expect to find when they read the Bible.

--Don--

P.S. This forum, the Feedback forum, is not intended for or set up for ongoing discussion. If you intend to elaborate on your point of view, you will need to do so in a different forum. If you e-mail me DM@infidels.org and request that I do so, I will be happy to copy this thread to Miscellaneous Religion Discussions in order to facilitate further discussion.

Danpech · 03-16-2002, 09:17 AM

In his initial reply to mine, Mr Morgan said:

Quote:

A perfect being who was genuinely concerned with hypocrisy would not in one instance admonish his listeners to call no one a "fool" and then in the next instance call people he disliked (or disagreed with) "fools."

If that were really what the Bible indicates that the Jesus character in the Bible said and did, then, yes, that Jesus would be a hypocrite (inconsistent, self-contradictory). But, according to any and all of the translations of the Bible which I have read, that is not what Jesus said and did. If humans can hardly do without context in communicating with each other face-to-face or over the telephone for even one sentence out of every ten, then it should well be expected that context was necessary for that same sentence at any time in the past, whether some or all of that context is implied, made explict, or even explained in twenty five legalese pages.

The textual context of Matthew 5:22 (KJV), which verse gives Jesus as saying, in part, "Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.", gives sufficient basis for gaining an understanding of what Jesus' words meant to the people at the time. (Matthew 5:20-24)
---

Mr. Morgan also said:

Quote:

I am no lawyer. But lawyers don't work with individuals who are perfect.

Lawyers operate on the basis of certain ideals. If they did not, they would be unable to do their jobs competently. Furthermore, the philosophical logic which is behind the gradualistic, progressive model which allows us to believe that life evolved and that humans are capable of doing great things with technology may be appealed to as a way to reply to the assertion that there is no perfect person. If, as many believe, Jesus was a great teacher, then, it is worthwhile to have a model (among other models, perhaps) which supposes that he was a wise man, and not the great fool and hypocrite which Mr. Morgan seems to think the text warrants concluding.
---

Mr. Morgan continued:

Quote:

One need not be a lawyer to understand that a perfect being could have done a better job of it than did Jesus to avoid hypocrisy in his own behavior.

Again, I refer to the hyper-critical mentality. This mentality is born of a certain anxiety and a great degree of simple-mindedness. I have seen it results in action on all sides of any controversy concerning virtually every human concern. With regard to any person, idea, human organization, or text, which one despises, this mentality readily allows errors of judgement, and are apparent to those who, one whatever side of a given controversy, know some of the basic issues by which particular errors occur.

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Danpech ]</p>

MadKally · 03-16-2002, 09:50 AM

Mr.Morgan makes sense to me. Why do have trouble understanding?

sock

Danpech · 03-16-2002, 11:19 AM

Yes, sock, Mr. Morgan makes sense, but, no, I have no trouble understanding him. All errors make sense to those who make them, otherwise they would not make them, would they? The question is not what makes sense, but which sense eats all other senses (like Aaron's rod which, when he cast it down and it turned into a snake like that of the rods of all of Pharaoh's magicians, atE all the other snakes).

I myself find that the sense which the Bible makes when read as a collection of accurate and historical documents is greater by far than the sense which it makes if read any other way. This sense I get from trying to understand the Bible in this way gives me great understanding of how to judge all "records" of any sort, whether court documents and court cases, witnesses on the stand, cases under investigation, and how and why people do lots of things.

If the only parts of the Bible in existence were one general text with no contradictions in it but two short passages which can be viewed or construed as contradictory, then the people who wanted to say that this Bible is hardly to be considered the word of some great God would surely say that these two passages contradict each other. But, since the Bible we have is made up of so much text from such a range of people and, since, like any comparable collections of texts which the secular world has, it contains a certain statistical quantity of seemingly conflicting records and actions, this makes it so very easy to reject as just some nonsense overflowing with contradictions.

But, in order to justifiably conclude that the Bible is not the word of a great God, one must first know the patterns of recordology and show that the Bible does not fit the expected statistics. After that, one must also understand linguistics from a user's standpoint. Even the word "stood" in one passage has been claimed to be a contradiction of other passages of action which say that certain people actually fell to the ground. Part of the trouble there is that the public's vocabulary and usage, as well as mentality, decreases as the culture becomes more decadent (and more mechanised in its education of the young) in its luxury. As any older collegiate dictionary indicates, if you had been born a hundred years ago, the word 'stood' in that passage would readily be understood in its usage.

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Danpech ]</p>

ken1burton · 03-16-2002, 07:44 PM

Jesus is a hypocrite?

Cute, I think Jesus gave a loophole on that one. He was not telling us what He thought. He was just a messenger. Not the sender of the message.

(JOHN 7:16) Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. (KJV)

(ISAIAH 42:19) Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord's servant? (KJV)
(ISAIAH 42:20) Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not. (KJV)

"Let's see???", God said to say that "whosoever calleth His brother a fool, is in danger of hell fire.", Then, He has Jesus call others a fool, having Jesus then in danger of hell fire. Which was part of His ""field trip"" anyway.

The Sepulchre is in a garden, or a field. "Let Him that is in the field not return to take up His clothes." I guess Jesus just had to WAIT on the Lord in hell so He is set free with all of them on the third day.

(ZECHARIAH 9:11) As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.

Ken. Tailgateing the hypocrite, no problem.

MadKally · 03-16-2002, 08:40 PM

Danpech and Ken1Burton,
I'm glad you two found each other. You can have your very own thread to talk to each other.

God is the only childhood myth carried over into adulthood

ken1burton · 03-16-2002, 09:33 PM

Sock.

Here is the cute part. The Child is always within the adult. The Myth stays.

My first wife is a brittle diabetic. When she goes into a insulin reaction her mind reverts back to a 4 year old child. She became a diabetic then. Her speech, Her actions, Her memory. Still in there, still intact.

Those that have believed, still has someone inside that believes.

He stands at the door and knocks, The secret is, He is the One on the inside.

Ken

HelenM · 03-17-2002, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ken1burton:
Jesus is a hypocrite?

Cute, I think Jesus gave a loophole on that one. He was not telling us what He thought. He was just a messenger. Not the sender of the message.

Don't you believe in the Trinity? If you do you can't say Jesus was only the messenger and separate him from God the sender in that way.

Anyway this thread is a good illustration of how different people can take the same texts [the gospels] and come to different conclusions [Jesus was/wasn't perfect], some of them arguably more valid than others.

love
Helen

Danpech · 03-17-2002, 05:30 AM

I have little trouble understanding you by your ways and your sarcasm. Can God not be sarcastic, or is his every statement plain like a child's? Even children's speach is not alwayd plain.

It would do you a lot of good to read what the Blue Letter Bible commentaries say about Isaiah 42.

see <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/popup/1016371582.html#18" target="_blank">http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/popup/1016371582.html#18</a>

Let me translate the passage a little for you (note that prophecy is fulfilled not because people do not understand the prophecy when it is given, but because they reject the truth and the spirit of the Law--while claiming the letter of the law--and thus are blinded when the prophecy is fulfilled):

Isa 42:16 And I will bring the blind (gentiles) by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them (light up the darkness of their minds), and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them.

Then God speaks of something of how this shall be, by referring to a different "them" (the ancient Roman state) in the next verse:
Isa 42:17 They shall be turned back, they shall be greatly ashamed, that trust in graven images, that say to the molten images, Ye are our gods.

Then God addresses these gentiles directly:
Isa 42:18 Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see.

Then God gives a double meaning (a language convention not unknown to the Jews) in what he says next, one negative and concerning Israel in Jesus' day, and the other positive and concerning the way in which Jesus held his peace when on trial and killed rather than desperately pleading his innocence:
Isa 42:19 Who [is] blind, but my servant (Israel)(see Isaiah 49:3)? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD'S servant?

Isa 42:20 Seeing many things, but thou observest (an old word for 'do' 'carry out', 'perform', which, in common legal usage even today is without the King-Jamesian form as 'observe') not; opening the ears, but he heareth not.

Then God refers to both himself and to the second meaning of what he just said:
Isa 42:21 The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make [it] honourable.

Then God returns to the first and negative meaning and this time calls Israel a people, and tells to the gentiles what has happened to them (Israel) after Rome is invaded and the Jewish Diaspora begins:
Isa 42:22 But this is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in prison houses: they are for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore (no ruler declares that they be restored to their land, as, contrarywise, was the case a few times before).

[/b]God continues:[/b]

Isa 42:23 Who among you will give ear to this? who will hearken and hear for the time to come?

Isa 42:24 Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers? did not the LORD, he against whom we (Isaiah speaking of his people to whom all this prophecy was first given) have sinned? for they (the people of Israel as a whole) would not walk in his ways, neither were they obedient unto his law.

Isa 42:25 Therefore he (God) hath poured upon him(corporate Isreal) the fury of his (God)) anger, and the strength of battle (destruction of Rome by the invading army): and it (the battle) hath set him (corporate Israel) on fire round about, yet he (corporate Israel) knew not (at first); and it (then, or soon) burned him, yet he laid it not to heart (why it was happening, and then, why, afterwards, it had happened on account of Israel's rejection of the truth and spirit of the Law and thus of the Messiah).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-16-2002, 08:27 AM	#1
Danpech Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: streets of downtown Irreducible Good Sense in a hurricane Posts: 41	Initial reply to Donald Morgan's article "Jesus was a Hypocrite" In Donald Morgan's article, titled "Jesus was a Hypocrite" ( <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/jesus_was_hypocrite.html" target="_blank">Jesus Was a Hypocrite</a> ), Mr. Morgan gives twelve Biblical references to support the idea that Jesus hated hypocrisy, and also makes note of the fact that Christians teach that Jesus was a completely perfect person. Mr. Morgan then goes on to state that, "It would be reasonable, therefore, to expect Jesus to never demonstrate, in his own behavior, even the slightest trace of anything which could possibly be construed as hypocrisy." It seems that Mr. Morgan is no lawyer, for if he were, he would (hopefully) know that there is no way for anyone to avoid having their own words and behavior contain the slightest trace of anything which could possibly be construed as hypocrisy. All kinds of things can be construed to be what they are not and, so, to expect that someone should speak and behave in such a way as to eliminate even the slightest trace of anything which could possibly be construed as hypocrisy on their part is absurd. Common sense alone would grant far more benefit of the doubt than Mr. Morgan grants the words of Jesus. If any representative selection of Mr. Morgan's own words and behavior from any three consecutive years of his life were put to paper, not only would this record show traces of quite a large number of things which could possibly be construed as hypocrisy on the part of Mr. Morgan, but a fair number more would more than be mere traces of things which could possibly be so construed. It also seems that Mr. Morgan has little knowledge of languages, their dynamics over time and culture, and the problems of translation between languages. One other problem which Mr. Morgan seems unaware of is that the Bible translation which he references has a rather limited vocabulary. There are competent and readily available English translations of the Bible which have been in print for some decades which clear up all of the problems which Mr. Morgan's article presents. If, instead of using a certain, hyper-critical sensitivity which is well-known in clinical psychology, Mr. Morgan had used context and common sense for the passages which he claims show hypocrisy on the part of Jesus, he would not have found the kind of problem with any of these passages which he claims they present. You read what you expect to find said. [ March 20, 3025: Message edited by: Danpech ]

03-16-2002, 09:50 AM	#4
MadKally Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: LALA Land in California Posts: 433	Mr.Morgan makes sense to me. Why do have trouble understanding? sock

03-16-2002, 11:19 AM	#5
Danpech Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: streets of downtown Irreducible Good Sense in a hurricane Posts: 41	Yes, sock, Mr. Morgan makes sense, but, no, I have no trouble understanding him. All errors make sense to those who make them, otherwise they would not make them, would they? The question is not what makes sense, but which sense eats all other senses (like Aaron's rod which, when he cast it down and it turned into a snake like that of the rods of all of Pharaoh's magicians, atE all the other snakes). I myself find that the sense which the Bible makes when read as a collection of accurate and historical documents is greater by far than the sense which it makes if read any other way. This sense I get from trying to understand the Bible in this way gives me great understanding of how to judge all "records" of any sort, whether court documents and court cases, witnesses on the stand, cases under investigation, and how and why people do lots of things. If the only parts of the Bible in existence were one general text with no contradictions in it but two short passages which can be viewed or construed as contradictory, then the people who wanted to say that this Bible is hardly to be considered the word of some great God would surely say that these two passages contradict each other. But, since the Bible we have is made up of so much text from such a range of people and, since, like any comparable collections of texts which the secular world has, it contains a certain statistical quantity of seemingly conflicting records and actions, this makes it so very easy to reject as just some nonsense overflowing with contradictions. But, in order to justifiably conclude that the Bible is not the word of a great God, one must first know the patterns of recordology and show that the Bible does not fit the expected statistics. After that, one must also understand linguistics from a user's standpoint. Even the word "stood" in one passage has been claimed to be a contradiction of other passages of action which say that certain people actually fell to the ground. Part of the trouble there is that the public's vocabulary and usage, as well as mentality, decreases as the culture becomes more decadent (and more mechanised in its education of the young) in its luxury. As any older collegiate dictionary indicates, if you had been born a hundred years ago, the word 'stood' in that passage would readily be understood in its usage. [ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Danpech ]</p>

03-16-2002, 07:44 PM	#6
ken1burton Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Ilion, NY Posts: 10	Jesus is a hypocrite? Cute, I think Jesus gave a loophole on that one. He was not telling us what He thought. He was just a messenger. Not the sender of the message. (JOHN 7:16) Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. (KJV) (ISAIAH 42:19) Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord's servant? (KJV) (ISAIAH 42:20) Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not. (KJV) "Let's see???", God said to say that "whosoever calleth His brother a fool, is in danger of hell fire.", Then, He has Jesus call others a fool, having Jesus then in danger of hell fire. Which was part of His ""field trip"" anyway. The Sepulchre is in a garden, or a field. "Let Him that is in the field not return to take up His clothes." I guess Jesus just had to WAIT on the Lord in hell so He is set free with all of them on the third day. (ZECHARIAH 9:11) As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water. Ken. Tailgateing the hypocrite, no problem.

03-16-2002, 08:40 PM	#7
MadKally Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: LALA Land in California Posts: 433	Danpech and Ken1Burton, I'm glad you two found each other. You can have your very own thread to talk to each other. God is the only childhood myth carried over into adulthood

03-16-2002, 09:33 PM	#8
ken1burton Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Ilion, NY Posts: 10	Sock. Here is the cute part. The Child is always within the adult. The Myth stays. My first wife is a brittle diabetic. When she goes into a insulin reaction her mind reverts back to a 4 year old child. She became a diabetic then. Her speech, Her actions, Her memory. Still in there, still intact. Those that have believed, still has someone inside that believes. He stands at the door and knocks, The secret is, He is the One on the inside. Ken

03-17-2002, 05:30 AM	#10
Danpech Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: streets of downtown Irreducible Good Sense in a hurricane Posts: 41	I have little trouble understanding you by your ways and your sarcasm. Can God not be sarcastic, or is his every statement plain like a child's? Even children's speach is not alwayd plain. It would do you a lot of good to read what the Blue Letter Bible commentaries say about Isaiah 42. see <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/popup/1016371582.html#18" target="_blank">http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/popup/1016371582.html#18</a> Let me translate the passage a little for you (note that prophecy is fulfilled not because people do not understand the prophecy when it is given, but because they reject the truth and the spirit of the Law--while claiming the letter of the law--and thus are blinded when the prophecy is fulfilled): Isa 42:16 And I will bring the blind (gentiles) by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them (light up the darkness of their minds), and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them. Then God speaks of something of how this shall be, by referring to a different "them" (the ancient Roman state) in the next verse: Isa 42:17 They shall be turned back, they shall be greatly ashamed, that trust in graven images, that say to the molten images, Ye are our gods. Then God addresses these gentiles directly: Isa 42:18 Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. Then God gives a double meaning (a language convention not unknown to the Jews) in what he says next, one negative and concerning Israel in Jesus' day, and the other positive and concerning the way in which Jesus held his peace when on trial and killed rather than desperately pleading his innocence: Isa 42:19 Who [is] blind, but my servant (Israel)(see Isaiah 49:3)? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD'S servant? Isa 42:20 Seeing many things, but thou observest (an old word for 'do' 'carry out', 'perform', which, in common legal usage even today is without the King-Jamesian form as 'observe') not; opening the ears, but he heareth not. Then God refers to both himself and to the second meaning of what he just said: Isa 42:21 The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make [it] honourable. Then God returns to the first and negative meaning and this time calls Israel a people, and tells to the gentiles what has happened to them (Israel) after Rome is invaded and the Jewish Diaspora begins: Isa 42:22 But this is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in prison houses: they are for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore (no ruler declares that they be restored to their land, as, contrarywise, was the case a few times before). [/b]God continues:[/b] Isa 42:23 Who among you will give ear to this? who will hearken and hear for the time to come? Isa 42:24 Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers? did not the LORD, he against whom we (Isaiah speaking of his people to whom all this prophecy was first given) have sinned? for they (the people of Israel as a whole) would not walk in his ways, neither were they obedient unto his law. Isa 42:25 Therefore he (God) hath poured upon him(corporate Isreal) the fury of his (God)) anger, and the strength of battle (destruction of Rome by the invading army): and it (the battle) hath set him (corporate Israel) on fire round about, yet he (corporate Israel) knew not (at first); and it (then, or soon) burned him, yet he laid it not to heart (why it was happening, and then, why, afterwards, it had happened on account of Israel's rejection of the truth and spirit of the Law and thus of the Messiah).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.