389
edits
Changes
Talk:Luke 9-16 (Translated) (view source)
Revision as of 20:13, January 27, 2010
, 20:13, January 27, 2010→"Politically Incorrect" in 11:54
I don't see "heresy" as encompassing all of the tricks and traps used by the Pharisees in questioning Jesus. "Controversy" doesn't seem to capture the meaning at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 27 January 2010 (EST)
I don't see "heresy" as encompassing all of the tricks and traps used by the Pharisees in questioning Jesus. "Controversy" doesn't seem to capture the meaning at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 27 January 2010 (EST)
:I seem to be in the minority on this one so I'll let it go and move on. Being able to discuss these issues here is what makes this project productive versus a series of edits and counter-edits to the translation itself. Some last answers to the points above:
::*Andy, you're absolutely correct in the Pharisees wanting to find something to use against Jesus, and I'm certain that there was no shortage of verbal games and tricks they tried to use against Him. However, I wasn't stating that heresy was part of the tricks and traps they were using - I was suggesting that a charge of heresy was much more likely to be one of the ''results'' they were looking for than to merely catch Him saying something politically incorrect, which you yourself agree carries has a "connotation of superficiality".
::*Douglas, your point is interesting but the passage in question is not about anyone trying to debunk the miracles Jesus performed. If anything, they were so utterly convincing that no one could dispute the power behind them. The best the Pharisees could probably do is to be deceitful, and imply that Jesus was an agent of the devil rather than God, and this concurs with another Gospel passage where Jesus is accused of invoking demons to cast out other demons. Getting Jesus to say something heretical would be a means to that end, while saying something politically incorrect would not.
::Jeff, I apologize if my response to you seemed wordy, but you asked good questions that deserved a well-reasoned response. Where the Bible is concerned, if I can't back up a suggestion than I don't make one. To be brief, it's a tangent to ask what modern-day liberals and skeptics would do if Jesus walked on earth today. Our assignment is to take the words of scripture describing what happened between those people, at that time and place, and use our best language to make it understandable. To change the meaning so the actions of ancients are recast as the actions of our contemporaries is not what we are supposed to be doing, I think. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 15:13, 27 January 2010 (EST)