Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 12-15-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition after the NT and Church writings have been examined.

It does appear foolish.

Quote:

New International Version (©1984)
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

New Living Translation (©2007)
The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

International Standard Version (©2008)
For the message about the cross is nonsense to those who are being destroyed, but it is God's power to us who are being saved.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
The message about the cross is nonsense to those who are being destroyed, but it is God's power to us who are being saved.

King James Bible
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

American King James Version
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but to us which are saved it is the power of God.

American Standard Version
For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God.

Bible in Basic English
For the word of the cross seems foolish to those who are on the way to destruction; but to us who are on the way to salvation it is the power of God.

Douay-Rheims Bible
For the word of the cross, to them indeed that perish, is foolishness; but to them that are saved, that is, to us, it is the power of God.

Darby Bible Translation
For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but to us that are saved it is God's power.

English Revised Version
For the word of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God.

Webster's Bible Translation
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness; but to us who are saved, it is the power of God.

Weymouth New Testament
For the Message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are on the way to perdition, but it is the power of God to those whom He is saving.

World English Bible
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are dying, but to us who are saved it is the power of God.

Young's Literal Translation
for the word of the cross to those indeed perishing is foolishness, and to us -- those being saved -- it is the power of God,
Geneva Study Bible

For the {m} preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the {n} power of God.

(m) The preaching of Christ crucified, or the type of speech which we use.

(n) It is that in which he declares his marvellous power in saving his elect, which would not so evidently appear if it depended upon any help of man, for if it did man might attribute that to himself which is to be attributed only to the cross of Christ.

People's New Testament

1:18 The preaching of the cross. The gospel of a Crucified Savior.

Unto them that perish. Those who are unregenerate.

Foolishness. The Greek philosopher and the Jewish scribe scoffed at the thought of a Savior who had been crucified. They held that his crucifixion proved that he was not divine.

Unto us who are saved. There are two sections of mankind--the unsaved and the saved. To the first, the cross is folly; to the second, the gospel of the Crucified One comes as the power of God. See Ro 1:16. To the unsaved, the cross is a pillar of cloud; to the saved, a pillar of light.

Wesley's Notes

1:18 To them that perish - By obstinately rejecting the only name whereby they can be saved. But to us who are saved - Now saved from our sins, and in the way to everlasting salvation, it is the great instrument of the power of God.

Scofield Reference Notes

Margin saved

See Scofield Note: "Rom 1:16"

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

18. preaching, &c.-literally, "the word," or speech as to the cross; in contrast to the "wisdom of words" (so called), 1Co 1:17.

them that perish-rather, "them that are perishing," namely, by preferring human "wisdom of words" to the doctrine of the "cross of Christ." It is not the final state that is referred to; but, "them that are in the way of perishing." So also in 2Co 2:15, 16.

us which are saved-In the Greek the collocation is more modest, "to them that are being saved (that are in the way of salvation) as," that is, to which class we belong.

power of God-which includes in it that it is the wisdom of God" (1Co 1:24). God's powerful instrument of salvation; the highest exhibition of God's power (Ro 1:16). What seems to the world "weakness" in God's plan of salvation (1Co 1:25), and in its mode of delivery by His apostle (1Co 2:3) is really His mighty "power." What seems "foolishness" because wanting man's "wisdom of words" (1Co 1:17), is really the highest "wisdom of God" (1Co 1:24).

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

1:17-25 Paul had been bred up in Jewish learning; but the plain preaching of a crucified Jesus, was more powerful than all the oratory and philosophy of the heathen world. This is the sum and substance of the gospel. Christ crucified is the foundation of all our hopes, the fountain of all our joys. And by his death we live. The preaching of salvation for lost sinners by the sufferings and death of the Son of God, if explained and faithfully applied, appears foolishness to those in the way to destruction. The sensual, the covetous, the proud, and ambitious, alike see that the gospel opposes their favourite pursuits. But those who receive the gospel, and are enlightened by the Spirit of God, see more of God's wisdom and power in the doctrine of Christ crucified, than in all his other works. God left a great part of the world to follow the dictates of man's boasted reason, and the event has shown that human wisdom is folly, and is unable to find or retain the knowledge of God as the Creator. It pleased him, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe. By the foolishness of preaching; not by what could justly be called foolish preaching. But the thing preached was foolishness to wordly-wise men. The gospel ever was, and ever will be, foolishness to all in the road to destruction. The message of Christ, plainly delivered, ever has been a sure touchstone by which men may learn what road they are travelling. But the despised doctrine of salvation by faith in a crucified Saviour, God in human nature, purchasing the church with his own blood, to save multitudes, even all that believe, from ignorance, delusion, and vice, has been blessed in every age. And the weakest instruments God uses, are stronger in their effects, than the strongest men can use. Not that there is foolishness or weakness in God, but what men consider as such, overcomes all their admired wisdom and strength.

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/1-18.htm

DancesWithCoffeeCups · 12-15-2009, 03:23 PM

Let's dial it back a notch, shall we? The "T" word is off limits.

DWCC

aa5874 · 12-15-2009, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition after the NT and Church writings have been examined.

It does appear foolish.

So, why are there threats of destruction if it is believed that the message of the cross appears to be foolish?

Are you implying that only those who accept the Gospels, where Jesus was conceived by Holy Ghost, will not be destroyed?

arnoldo · 12-15-2009, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

It does appear foolish.

So, why are there threats of destruction if it is believed that the message of the cross appears to be foolish?

Are you implying that only those who accept the Gospels, where Jesus was conceived by Holy Ghost, will not be destroyed?

The Gnostics were much more liberal, perhaps they were correct?

aa5874 · 12-16-2009, 06:17 PM

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

It is becoming clear to me that HJers are creationists, they want to re-create Jesus, holy Ghost-man, from their own imagination.

Now, if I were to ask anyone to describe Homer's Achilles they would immediately make reference to Homer's writings on Achilles or some similar source and they would repeat verbatim or quote directly as much as possible to avoid any misunderstanding.

But, on the other hand, if I were ask some to describe Jesus of the NT they would not depend on the NT or the Church writings . They would simply reject the NT and Church writings and rely just their imagination

It is probably accepted universally that Homer's Achilles was the offspring of a sea-goddess so why do HJers refuse to accept that Jesus was holy GHOST-MAN, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, when the information is readily available and found in Matthew 1.18?

Because they want to re-create HOLY GHOST-MAN with their own imagination.

No-one dares to re-create Romulus and Remus, the offspring of the God MARS and the priestess, yet HJers dare to re-create the offspring of the HOLY GHOST of God born of a Virgin.

No-one dares re-invent Cyclops the one-eye Myth and give him two eyes, yet some want to re-invent super Holy G-MAN of Nazareth as just a man.

Now, if we examine gMark or any Gospel it will be noted that Jesus, Holy GHOST-MAN, appears to be fundamentally non-historical. His actions and words are not of a man but more in keeping with a Supernatural being. He was DIVINE and yet fully man.

He was SUPER-HOLY GHOST-MAN from Nazareth.

As I went through gMark, chapter by chapter, it became clear to me that Jesus was SUPERNATURAL indeed.

It must be noted that SUPER-HOLY G-MAN of NAZARETH healed or was believed to have cured many infirmities that were incurable in the 1st century. But it is most amazing that his remedy was usually only words a touch or spit.

Even with the best modern medication, leprosy cannot be cured within weeks, yet Jesus cured leprosy in an instant by simple talking to the leper.

Jesus, it would appear, used spit liberally to the eyes and tongue.

In Mark Mr 7:33 -

Quote:

And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue...

Mr 8:23 -

Quote:

And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.....

Now, this fabled method of healing by Super HOLY G-MAN of Nazareth may have been used by some other mythical God that predated Super Holy G-MAN.

The MYTHICAL Greek/Roman God SERAPIS requested that Vespasian the Emperor use SPIT to cure blindness and to touch the lame to cure his ailment.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition since holy G-MAN of Nazareth performed miracles that never happened before and after he walked on water with the bishop of Rome in his arms.

kcdad · 12-16-2009, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The HJ is

I have no comment other than to not leave this thread with another one of his long rants...

DancesWithCoffeeCups · 12-17-2009, 05:41 AM

Leave the personal comments out of this discussion.

Thanks.

Larkin31 · 12-17-2009, 06:43 AM

I am entering the discussion late, my apologies.

By HJ do you mean a DENIAL of the divinity of Jesus? Not all researchers into the HJ deny the divinity of Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

It is becoming clear to me that HJers are creationists, they want to re-create Jesus, holy Ghost-man, from their own imagination.

This is not true. They trace attestations and try to separate religious claims from "historical" claims.

Quote:

Now, if I were to ask anyone to describe Homer's Achilles they would immediately make reference to Homer's writings on Achilles or some similar source and they would repeat verbatim or quote directly as much as possible to avoid any misunderstanding.

Only if they are studying the literature. If they are trying to determine the historicity of the figure, much more will be investigated.

Quote:

But, on the other hand, if I were ask some to describe Jesus of the NT they would not depend on the NT or the Church writings . They would simply reject the NT and Church writings and rely just their imagination

False. The Biblical writings are definitely used. Try reading J Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus or Jesus, a Mediterranean Peasant. Both are wonderful examinations of Biblical attestation and historical analysis from many other sources.

aa5874 · 12-17-2009, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

I am entering the discussion late, my apologies.

By HJ do you mean a DENIAL of the divinity of Jesus? Not all researchers into the HJ deny the divinity of Jesus.

That is correct.

Fundamentalists and non-divine HJers vehemently claim Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, did exist on earth during the days of Tiberius.

However, fundamentalists accept the Gospels as fundamentally true, while non-divine HJers accept the Gospels as fundamentally false but cherry-pick whatever they think is the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

It is becoming clear to me that HJers are creationists, they want to re-create Jesus, holy Ghost-man, from their own imagination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

This is not true. They trace attestations and try to separate religious claims from "historical" claims.

But, you have just made a most contradictory statement. Once they try to separate the DIVINITY from Holy Ghost-Man then they are RE-CREATING Jesus of the NT.

Jesus was multiple attested to be Holy Ghost-Man who walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

For a sample of multiple attestations of Holy Ghost-Man see Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, Matthew 14.25, Mark 9.2, Mark 16.6, Acts 1.9 and Galatians 1.1.

The NT and Church writings are about Holy Ghost-Man of Nazareth.. Any other designation or description must be re-invented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, if I were to ask anyone to describe Homer's Achilles they would immediately make reference to Homer's writings on Achilles or some similar source and they would repeat verbatim or quote directly as much as possible to avoid any misunderstanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

Only if they are studying the literature. If they are trying to determine the historicity of the figure, much more will be investigated.

But, you must admit that without any physical or archaeological evidence that only the literature can be investigated.

Now, there are hundreds of documents of antiquity that describe Jesus as the offspring of the Holy Ghost and there is no known physical or archaeological evidence that can be investigated.

You must study the literature about Holy Ghost-Man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, on the other hand, if I were ask some to describe Jesus of the NT they would not depend on the NT or the Church writings . They would simply reject the NT and Church writings and rely just their imagination

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

False. The Biblical writings are definitely used. Try reading J Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus or Jesus, a Mediterranean Peasant. Both are wonderful examinations of Biblical attestation and historical analysis from many other sources.

You may have not noticed that I did say SOME would not depend on the NT and the Church writings.

Now, is it not true that some who claimed Jesus was only human REJECT Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, Mark 9.2, Matthew 14.25, Mark 16.6, Acts 1.9 and Galatians 1.1?

It is false to claim that Achilles was NOT the offspring of a sea-goddess.

It is false to claim that Romulus was NOT the offspring of a God Mars.

It is false to claim that Holy Ghost-Man of Nazareth was NOT the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition after the NT and Church writings are examined since they are about Holy Ghost-Man of Nazareth.

Larkin31 · 12-17-2009, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

I am entering the discussion late, my apologies.

By HJ do you mean a DENIAL of the divinity of Jesus? Not all researchers into the HJ deny the divinity of Jesus.

That is correct.

Fundamentalists and non-divine HJers vehemently claim Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, did exist on earth during the days of Tiberius.

However, fundamentalists accept the Gospels as fundamentally true, while non-divine HJers accept the Gospels as fundamentally false but cherry-pick whatever they think is the truth.

This is because not all documents from history are 100% accurate. It is standard historical practice to examine attestation and look for additional sources and corroborating evidence in a historical analysis. I don't understand your objection.

Quote:

But, you have just made a most contradictory statement. Once they try to separate the DIVINITY from Holy Ghost-Man then they are RE-CREATING Jesus of the NT.

Jesus was multiple attested to be Holy Ghost-Man who walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

For a sample of multiple attestations of Holy Ghost-Man see Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, Matthew 14.25, Mark 9.2, Mark 16.6, Acts 1.9 and Galatians 1.1.

The NT and Church writings are about Holy Ghost-Man of Nazareth.. Any other designation or description must be re-invented.

But this is like saying that only those who believe in the KKK can analyze or interpret the KKK. Historical interpretations of the actions and times of Jesus do not need to address ALL of the narrative details , nor do they have to accept them, even. If I, say, wish to write a paper on the role of fishing in the time and culture of Jesus, and I also wish to include the figure of Jesus, I do not need to address the issue of whether he was divine, nor do I have to address whether or not I accept the claim that a rock was rolled away from the face of his tomb. Separation of the lengthy narratives into component parts is NOT a "reinvention" of the figure. It is ANALYSIS. To analyze means to cut into parts. It is common investigative process.

Quote:

But, you must admit that without any physical or archaeological evidence that only the literature can be investigated.

But this premise is FALSE to begin with. There IS evidence of the culture, the movement. Of course the texts are used. No one denies this.

Quote:

Now, there are hundreds of documents of antiquity that describe Jesus as the offspring of the Holy Ghost and there is no known physical or archaeological evidence that can be investigated.

Not of the EXACT individual, no. But of the culture, the gov't, the Jews, the Romans, there most certainly IS. I don't see your point.

Quote:

You may have not noticed that I did say SOME would not depend on the NT and the Church writings.

Have you read any of Crossan's work? Do you actually know what it claims?

Quote:

Now, is it not true that some who claimed Jesus was only human REJECT Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, Mark 9.2, Matthew 14.25, Mark 16.6, Acts 1.9 and Galatians 1.1?

It is false to claim that Achilles was NOT the offspring of a sea-goddess.

It is false to claim that Romulus was NOT the offspring of a God Mars.

It is false to claim that Holy Ghost-Man of Nazareth was NOT the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God.

This is logical gobbledygook. You are simply denying the validity of any historical analysis of any/all remote cultural documents that included mythical or supernatural figures.

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

12-15-2009, 03:23 PM	#292
DancesWithCoffeeCups Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 8,077	Let's dial it back a notch, shall we? The "T" word is off limits. DWCC

12-17-2009, 05:41 AM	#297
DancesWithCoffeeCups Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 8,077	Leave the personal comments out of this discussion. Thanks.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.