aa5874

So, how can it be explained that such a character was worshipped as a God and was claimed to have the power to forgive sin, if it is supposed he was just human? What good news did this "poor malicious fool" have for the Jews who already had a system in place for the atonement of sins commanded by the very God of the Jews?

If Jesus was a Jew, and was circumcised on the 8th day, and followed all Jewish tradition, it is incredible that his so-called disciples and the letter writer Paul, after he was dead, would tell people that circumcision was not necessary, when Jesus himself was circumcised and was offered to God with the sacrifice of two turtledoves or a pair of pigeons.

Luke 2.21-24 Jesus was a stupid monstrous lie, a story that went wrong.

If he was a man, he had no news for the Jews, he died for his own stupidity.

spin

Back to transparent coquetry. How often have you been asked to come across? and you never deliver. You like lying on your back and doing none of the work.

Evidence is something available to the casual onlooker. They can see it when you point it out. It requires no commitment for it to be perused. Someone who disagrees with you has to deal with it, when you use it to make a case.

But you... you say, "come and see what I've got" and keep the light out.


spin

patcleaver

I really want to know the evidence, I really want to believe, but I cannot because I do not have your sixth sense, your extra sensory perception that makes you such a special person and allows you to see the historical Jesus dude that I cannot see. But wait, I do not believe that the world is divided up between people with superior senses and those with just ordinary senses. I cannot believe that you have a special sense that other people do not have. I do not believe that some special superior people have special senses that other inferior ordinary people do not have. What is the evidence for your special senses – in fact, what is you evidence that anyone has ever had superior special senses that otherwise normal people don’t have.

I think your special sense is the same one that the people had in the story of the emperor who had no clothes. In that story, the special sense was just delusion based on arrogance. You are claiming that your superior to the rest of us, because you have a special sense, that allows you to see things that we do not see and know things that we do not know. Naturally, our reaction is that your claim sounds like a psychotic delusion. You should investigate yourself, and try to understand why we know that your belief, that you have some special superior sense or insight, that you cannot share, is based on an obvious arrogant delusions.

Doug Shaver

Are you under the impression that that contradicts what I said about Paul?

Whoever or whatever he preached was not a historical Jesus.

No Robots

Is that what you tell all your coquettes?

aa5874

You may have missed something. I am supposing that Jesus of the NT was just a mere mortal.

So, any reference to Jesus in the NT, in my supposition, refers to a man, a supposed historical Jesus.

Now, in Romans 4.24, the letter writer claimed God raised Jesus from the dead, if Jesus was just a man, that is a stupid monstrous lie.

Jeffrey Gibson

Actually, you keep saying that the Jesus of the NT is anything but a "mere mortal".

But be that as it may be, could you do us the favour of defining "mere mortal" by stating what you think are the characteistics that "mere mortals" have that those mortals who are not "mere" ones do not have, and what characteristics those mortals who are more than "mere" possess that "mere" mortals don't?

So does what God does (or is anticipated by mortals as being willing to do to, cf. 2 Macc. 7) to a mortal after that mortal dies, change the fact that before that mortal dies, he was a mortal?

And may I have your evidence that μωρία was thought by Greek speakers to mean, or to be a synonym of Greek words that meant, "stupiudity"?

Jeffrey

patcleaver

There is no one-to-one correspondence between words in Greek and words in English. At different times, the same Greek word might be translated into many different English words, depending on our guess as to their real meaning from their context.

I looked in several different on line thesaurus.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/foolishness

Almost all of them listed stupidity as a synonym for foolishness and vice versa. It may not be the most accurate word choice, but unless someone is trying to dishonestly change the meaning, then you should not be complaining about them using well established synonyms.

In fact, in general, I think its often better to avoid using the "traditional" biblical words, such as "foolishness", that are "loaded" with apologetics.

Jeffrey Gibson

My question has nothing to do with whether the English words "foolishness" and "stupidity" are well established in English as synonyms. It's whether the Greek word that the KJV translators translated as "foolishness" was used in Koine Greek either to mean, or as as synonym, well established or otherwise, for the Greek word(s) for, "stupidity".

Do you know?

And for that matter, was the English word "stupidity" thought by the translators of the KJV to be an actual, let alone a well established, synonym for "foolishness" or that the English word "foolishness" meant "stupidity"?

Most importantly, do you think that when Paul says:

ἡμεῖς δὲ κηρύσσομεν Χριστὸν ἐσταυ-
ρωμένον, Ἰουδαίοις μὲν σκάνδαλον ἔθνεσιν δὲ μωρίαν,
αὐτοῖς δὲ τοῖς κλητοῖς, Ἰουδαίοις τε καὶ Ἕλλησιν,
Χριστὸν θεοῦ δύναμιν καὶ θεοῦ σοφίαν·

he is declaring that what, according to him ἐθνικοί regarded as "foolish" was "foolish".

In other words, do you think that the claim that the A man was apparently trying to make -- i.e, that Paul himself declared that was he was preaching was actually from his point of view as well as from that of "the Greeks, "stupid"?

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith

Our guess? Is this a slap in the face of all those humble, virtually anonymous lexicographers who have spent years and entire careers revising translations and writing books, dissertations, and monographs detailing the most minute etymological minutiae to do with ancient languages?

Are we really only guessing?

Ben.