389
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 102:
Line 102: + + + +
Talk:Luke 9-16 (Translated) (view source)
Revision as of 16:36, January 27, 2010
, 16:36, January 27, 2010→"Politically Incorrect" in 11:54
::::::We all welcome the best translation of the original intent, using the most powerful modern terms available. I agree that "politically incorrect" has a connotation of superficiality, but it can be very serious in consequences also. People can lose their careers and sometimes even their lives around the world with a single politically incorrect remark, and you can see liberals today try to provoke such a remark. Solzhenitsyn spent years in hard labor in Siberia, and people languish in Cuban jails to this day for politically incorrect statements or writings. Pharisees were playing a liberal game to trap Jesus.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 27 January 2010 (EST)
::::::We all welcome the best translation of the original intent, using the most powerful modern terms available. I agree that "politically incorrect" has a connotation of superficiality, but it can be very serious in consequences also. People can lose their careers and sometimes even their lives around the world with a single politically incorrect remark, and you can see liberals today try to provoke such a remark. Solzhenitsyn spent years in hard labor in Siberia, and people languish in Cuban jails to this day for politically incorrect statements or writings. Pharisees were playing a liberal game to trap Jesus.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 27 January 2010 (EST)
:::::::Those are excellent examples of people suffering the consequences of saying the wrong things while living in modern-era oppressive states where freedom of speech is not permitted. I suspect the that typical reader is not going to think of those cases when they see the phrase "politically incorrect" used in a Biblical context, though. The essential question is, given who the questioners were and the setting they lived in at the time, could they have entrapped Jesus in a way that would eliminate him as a threat by getting him to say politically incorrect things? That seems unlikely. <br/>
:::::::Remember that Jesus was healing people, raising the dead and performing miracles, and that this as much as his lessons were the reason for his popularity at that time (the lessons would be his enduring legacy, but the miracles were essential back then to show doubters that he spoke through the authority of God). If a man walked among us today could cure blindness and disease with a touch and raise children from the dead, who wouldn't tolerate political incorrectness on his part as a price to pay? <br/>
:::::::Since the miracles were witnessed by many, then the best way to discredit the miracle-worker, Jesus, would be to imply that the source of his power came not from God, but from the devil to lead men away from God. Catching him in something that could be spun as heresy would be a means to that end. This interpretation is straightforward, consistent with both the original scripture and the translated versions to date, and supports conservative efforts to stand up to people who try to trap men of faith into saying things that can be spun into an attack on that faith. Sorry to be so wordy, but I've taken this project to heart and care about doing my best by it. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:36, 27 January 2010 (EST)