Jesus as an opponent of the rich

[Topper]

I don't think "most scholars think he knew greek" is all that different from "most scholars think he may have spoken greek," but if you want that inch of ground, it's all yours. I hereby revise my earlier statement: most scholars think he may have spoken aramaic, hebrew, and greek.

That is a bit surprising, given the common belief that he came from humble means. Unless, having descended from a "royal" lineage, the traditions of royalty were maintained.

[creekster]

Yes. A Tekton from Galilee knew Greek. You're nuts.

And so you launch a personal attack against someone who has responded directly to the question you presented because, essentially, he disagrees with you. Nice job. Is this the sort of smart discussion you were lamenting earlier? Very nice job. Do you really wonder why your posts are received the way they are here?

[ERCougar]

I don't think "most scholars think he knew greek" is all that different from "most scholars think he may have spoken greek," but if you want that inch of ground, it's all yours. I hereby revise my earlier statement: most scholars think he may have spoken aramaic, hebrew, and greek.

Since we're nitpicking, that is a rather important "inch". With one, you come away with the impression that Jesus probably spoke Greek; the other grants it as a possibility.
I think most scholars would grant the possibility of me completely understanding quantum mechanics.
I'll fix your still deceptive revision: Most scholars think Jesus spoke Aramaic as his native tongue. It's also possible that he spoke Hebrew and Greek, although that is far less likely.

[creekster]

Since we're nitpicking, that is a rather important "inch". With one, you come away with the impression that Jesus probably spoke Greek; the other grants it as a possibility.
I think most scholars would grant the possibility of me completely understanding quantum mechanics.
I'll fix your still deceptive revision: Most scholars think Jesus spoke Aramaic as his native tongue. It's also possible that he spoke Hebrew and Greek, although that is far less likely.

far less likely than he spoke a language as a naive tongue? I am not sure I see the benefit of nit-picking that point. We all have a native tongue and it is always far less likely that we speak any other language than a native tongue, right? so where does this go in terms of the larger question? its just hanging around the edge.

[cowboy]

As a practical matter, it doesn't make a difference if Jesus was literate. It doesn't change his ability to have been the Savior. Perhaps when he was writing in the dirt he was mocking the learned who opposed him. If he was illiterate, though, it makes his debates with the Pharisees and scribes even more amazing, as he had a deep understanding of the scriptures.

[ERCougar]

far less likely than he spoke a language as a naive tongue? I am not sure I see the benefit of nit-picking that point. We all have a native tongue and it is always far less likely that we speak any other language than a native tongue, right? so where does this go in terms of the larger question? its just hanging around the edge.

We've already agreed it's not important to the larger question. So stop reading if your interest ends there.

What AA was implying, even in his revision, was that it's equally likely that he spoke Greek as Aramaic, that he was a multilingual scholar, almost. That's not at all what "most scholars" would say.

[All-American]

Since we're nitpicking, that is a rather important "inch". With one, you come away with the impression that Jesus probably spoke Greek; the other grants it as a possibility.
I think most scholars would grant the possibility of me completely understanding quantum mechanics.
I'll fix your still deceptive revision: Most scholars think Jesus spoke Aramaic as his native tongue. It's also possible that he spoke Hebrew and Greek, although that is far less likely.

Oh, good grief. Do what you want with what the article says.

[ERCougar]

Oh, good grief. Do what you want with what the article says.

Thanks, I will.
Don't pretend there's not a substantial difference between "Most scholars think he spoke Greek" and "It's possible that he spoke Greek". You're an attorney, right?

[creekster]

We've already agreed it's not important to the larger question. So stop reading if your interest ends there.

What AA was implying, even in his revision, was that it's equally likely that he spoke Greek as Aramaic, that he was a multilingual scholar, almost. That's not at all what "most scholars" would say.

My interest was trying to follow the discussion. But thanks for your helpful advice.

I think AA speaks for himself rather well, but I don't think that is what he said. Bottom line, I suppose, is that you were right to call it nitpicking.

[Topper]

We've already agreed it's not important to the larger question. So stop reading if your interest ends there.

What AA was implying, even in his revision, was that it's equally likely that he spoke Greek as Aramaic, that he was a multilingual scholar, almost. That's not at all what "most scholars" would say.

Why go to this extreme? AA has spoken rather clearly as to how he interprets what the scholars theorize.

[Northwestcoug]

Sort of.

My personal interpretation: I put a lot of stock in things that have staying power. Christianity is one of those things. If it were just about some guy that lived and performed some miracles a few millenia ago, well, that's not very interesting or unique, and it would die off quickly, just as it has in the case of so many others. But there's something about Christianity that has given millions of people something and made them better, and I think that's really difficult, and even arrogant, to just brush aside as some self-deluding myth. But when I get down to the actual things that really have power, it's this concept that I have in my head of what Christ is and what he represents. It may or may not have anything to do with what actually happened or what the real historical Christ did, because when i really think about it, his turning water into wine has never entered into my daily decisions or actions, while I think about certain teachings of his all the time (whether or not he actually even taught them). There are certain things he said that don't resonate with me at all, by the same token. So is Christ my Savior? Well, yeah--the image of Christ, that is some combination of what I've been taught, what i've read, and what I deeply believe through experience, has saved me from being a worse person than I am, and hopefully will make me a better person than I would otherwise be. It doesn't particularly matter whether this image has much to do with the reality.

I can't argue with this. If it helps it helps, despite what really happened 2000 years ago.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

If this is true then why is he always helping wealthy and middle class Mormons find their wallets?

That's not Jesus, that's the HG he loves rich people.

[Moliere]

So those that think He was illiterate are also saying that the NT isn't historically accurate? So you take it at face value that he was a tekton but then totally disregard the instances where he clearly reads. Seems like you should pick one or the other.

[Mormon Red Death]

That's not Jesus, that's the HG he loves rich people.

They are one in the same

[SoonerCoug]

So those that think He was illiterate are also saying that the NT isn't historically accurate? So you take it at face value that he was a tekton but then totally disregard the instances where he clearly reads. Seems like you should pick one or the other.

Well what would be the motivation to lie about him being a tekton?

Galilee wasn't even on maps at the time. No roads. No synagogue. No bathhouses. Nothing much in Galilee. Certainly unlikely that he was educated. I suppose Greek authors could have lied about him being a tekton, but it's more likely that they lied about him being literate to appeal to a roman audience.

You have to ask yourself what would motivate them to write the things they wrote.

For example: why would they write that his mother was a virgin? The most likely explanation is that the pregnancy was not legitimate and there were rumors of this, so they wrote about the miracle of virgin birth to preserve or enhance his image.

The discussion is about what is most probable. People are welcome to believe what they want.

Was Paul Bunyan 100 feet tall? Did Paul Bunyan exist?

Stories are stories. It has nothing to do with whether Jesus was divine. It's about understanding what was written in the context of history. For example, people were generally dead by the time they were placed on a cross. That's just a fact. Crucifixion was reserved for traitors to the state. This says something about Jesus and an attempt at political revolution. These are interesting ideas worth discussing.

No one knows the answers to these questions. But that doesn't mean they aren't worth considering in terms of history and probability.

But if you operate under the assumption that Jesus was divine, it becomes very difficult to discuss facts, especially since you'll be inherently biased against anything historical that challenges your faith in or your image of the mythical Jesus.