>>> Continued from previous message

KG>Uneducated?  Illiterate?  Unfamiliar with Scripture?
KG>How could He advance an argument like this:
KG>See: Matthew 5:17 See: Matthew 15:1-9 See: Matthew 22:29
KG>Pretty bold if He didn't know the Scriptures.
KG>Surely He knew His audience might challenge Him.

There is a difference between intelligence and being well-educated.
A third-grade drop-out might have far more intelligence than a
well-educated president of the United States.  Put another way,
wisdom is not necessarily dependent on being book smart.  And rarely
is.  Could Jesus afford to go to the best schools?  Very doubtful.
Remember, he came from a poor family.  A very poor family...

>LL>What makes you think he had "a thorough knowledge of scripture"?

KG>Have I answered this question to your satisfaction?

Where is the evidence/proof showing Jesus could read and write?
Speculation is not evidence.  Circumstantial evidence is not proof.
The only writing of Jesus that is mentioned in the gospels is when
a woman was about to be stoned.  Jesus squatted and drew doodles in
the sand, thus convincing the crowd not to stone the woman.  He actually
had to do it twice, because some folks didn't get it the first time.
Drawing doodles in the sand is hardly what anybody would call reading
and writing real words in any language.  Unless you consider stick
figures of women holding hands as being words.

>LL>It may be he was a keen observer of human nature, but how
>LL>does that correlate with scriptural knowledge of any kind?

KG>Have I answered this question to your satisfaction?

Everybody likes to speculate.  Will the Saints successfully
defend their NFL Championship?  I certainly like to think so...

KG>Lee, please recognize this.  It was not my intent nor do I intend
KG>to engage in a prolonged discussion of the Bible.  I merely made
KG>an observation about the meaning of the word "meek" which was
KG>based on the writing of others.  You have attempted to use that
KG>as a launching pad for tangents I don't have the time to pursue.

There is much speculation as to what words mean, and do not mean.
The meaning of words changes over time.  Sometimes totally replaced
with new, or other, words.  Words are also often taken out of context
in an effort to swing the meaning from what a word/phrase really
means.

When it comes to the books of the Bible, things get even more
complicated.  What we have are not translations, but transliterations.
Transliterations of writings that no longer exist.  Who wrote the
gospels?  Nobody knows.  Where are the original texts?  They do not
exist.  Each of the books were based on oral and written sources in
different languages, written by unknown authors.  And then translated
to individual languages.  That is what is called transliteration.
Furthermore, there is no single version that is used or accepted by
all. So what the hell do we know what the gospels say, or do not say?

We know even less, given the fact that only a handful were selected
to be included in what we call the Bible.  Look at the New Testament.
A total of 27 books.  Taken from a selection of at least 50 gospel
accounts, countless letters, and another 70 apocalypses.  Which ones
tell the real story?  The version we have been spoon-fed?  And even
that version comes in many flavors...

>>> Continued to next message

 * SLMR 2.1a * We are confronted with insurmountable opportunities.

--- Maximus 3.01