Changes

:::::::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/>

:::::::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)

:::::::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)

:::::::it's my belief that the Pharisees, like liberals, are nit picking. If a man walked among us who could cure blindness by touch, intellectual elitists who cling so desperately to their theories would be dying for a reason to ostracize him. That's exactly what the elitist Pharisees were doing to Jesus.  At least I think so. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 11:46, 27 January 2010 (EST)

::::::::It's my belief that the Pharisees, like liberals, are nit picking. If a man walked among us who could cure blindness by touch, intellectual elitists who cling so desperately to their theories would be dying for a reason to ostracize him. That's exactly what the elitist Pharisees were doing to Jesus.  At least I think so. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 11:46, 27 January 2010 (EST)