Cyprus-Forum.com

[dms007]

Luke 4:16-21 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society



16He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."[a]

20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

I guess he could.

[kafenes]

From the Urantia book.

Total and utter bollocks. It is quite extraordinary that in this day and age people can refer to such manifest nonsense and expect to be taken seriously. These people are away with the fairies ...

On a separate note, Josephus is as unreliable as the rest of them. Jospehus was born after Jesus supposed death, and his writings are at least some 50 or so years later so he's certainly no eye witness and his text shows no particular interest in Jesus nor any effort to verify sources. So what is offered as an ostensibly authoritative and contemperaneous account is ... neither. Just another yarn that religious believers can draw out yet more tendentious threads.

Well? Could Jesus read and write or not.

[color=red]YES[/color]

Must have run out of red color. Were we voting on this?

Thanks for the confirmation Deniz. I think it's about time you changed the red cartridge in your computer.

[denizaksulu]

Luke 4:16-21 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society



16He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."[a]

20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

I guess he could.

I admire all scholars.
Thanks 007

[CopperLine]

I hope that you do realise that Luke 17:4 is the only reference in the gospels (or elsewhere) to Jesus' ability to read. There are no references to whether he could write or not.

Several things to bear in mind :

First, writing is much more difficult to learn than reading. Many who can read are unable to write, and this is quite apart from the simple unavailiablity of writing materials.

Second, Luke was written - though probably by more than one person - decades after Jesus death, so there is absolutely no corroborative evidence that Jesus could read or write. Yet again it is a matter of belief - if you want to believe that he could, that is your look out, even though the claim does meet even the most elemental standards of proof.

Third, the use of the English term 'read' in the KJV does not necessarily mean the ability to interpret the written word on the page. It can also mean, for example when the phrase '... have you not read that ...' is used, 'have you not heard it said by scholars, priests, etc [i.e, from those who can read] tha ...'

Fourth, if Jesus was indeed the son of an itinerant carpenter who, if you read Luke went off to Nazareth but according to Matthew fled to Egypt, what are the chances of him being able to read and write ? The chances are he had illiterate parents, an itinerant carpenter is not likely to have stashed away cash for his son's college fund !

As someone has already mentioned on this thread, much more interesting is Jesus' ability to walk on water. What's the evidence of that ? One brief reference in one gospel written decades after the purported 'event'.

Do we really have to remind people that just because some storyteller says something happened doesn't actually mean that it happened.

Organised religion ? Organised deception of the terminally gullible.[/i]

[phoenix]

Did you know, they have isolated a gene which pre-disposes people to be gullible in the way that's necessary, in order to accept belief systems without evidence or logic.

You can tell if you have this "mutation" when you have a limb amputated (God forbid ! ), but you still think it's attached and can sense feelings from it.

Weird But True.......Believe me!

Prophet
Phoenix

[denizaksulu]

I hope that you do realise that Luke 17:4 is the only reference in the gospels (or elsewhere) to Jesus' ability to read. There are no references to whether he could write or not.

Several things to bear in mind :

First, writing is much more difficult to learn than reading. Many who can read are unable to write, and this is quite apart from the simple unavailiablity of writing materials.

Second, Luke was written - though probably by more than one person - decades after Jesus death, so there is absolutely no corroborative evidence that Jesus could read or write. Yet again it is a matter of belief - if you want to believe that he could, that is your look out, even though the claim does meet even the most elemental standards of proof.

Third, the use of the English term 'read' in the KJV does not necessarily mean the ability to interpret the written word on the page. It can also mean, for example when the phrase '... have you not read that ...' is used, 'have you not heard it said by scholars, priests, etc [i.e, from those who can read] tha ...'

Fourth, if Jesus was indeed the son of an itinerant carpenter who, if you read Luke went off to Nazareth but according to Matthew fled to Egypt, what are the chances of him being able to read and write ? The chances are he had illiterate parents, an itinerant carpenter is not likely to have stashed away cash for his son's college fund !

As someone has already mentioned on this thread, much more interesting is Jesus' ability to walk on water. What's the evidence of that ? One brief reference in one gospel written decades after the purported 'event'.

Do we really have to remind people that just because some storyteller says something happened doesn't actually mean that it happened.

Organised religion ? Organised deception of the terminally gullible.[/i]

You do split hairs. At least he was full of compassion for his fellow beings.

[devil]

Fourth, if Jesus was indeed the son of an itinerant carpenter who, if you read Luke went off to Nazareth but according to Matthew fled to Egypt, what are the chances of him being able to read and write ? The chances are he had illiterate parents, an itinerant carpenter is not likely to have stashed away cash for his son's college fund !

You very obviously lose credibility by your ignorance of 1st century Judaism and misinterpretation of the Bible.

1. What makes you think Joseph was an itinerant carpenter? He was the Nazareth carpenter and a highly respected tradesman. There is no question that he was itinerant. The Jews respected their tradesmen who were considered of a high caste and were generally educated.

2. The only reason that Joseph left Nazareth was that a Roman edict forced him to go to Bethlehem, because he was of the Davidian clan. This was for the census, not to seek work.

3. Joseph, Mary and Jesus did flee to Egypt to escape the Herodian edict that all male babies be killed. They obviously returned to Nazareth as soon as the coast was clear, as Jesus was brought up there.

4. There is no question of a 'college fund'. Rabbinical schools have always been free of charge and still are. In Jerusalem today, very few of the Hasidim parents of those who do rabbinical studies in preference to military service could afford a penny for their progenitors' education. They are amongst the poorest people in Israel.

I visited Nazareth on business about 20 years ago. I found it interesting that the Arabs (the majority) there have maintained a word-of-mouth tradition about the life of Joseph and family to the extent of a cult beyond the traditional Muslim belief that Jesus was the last prophet before Mahomet. In particular, Mary is revered by these Nazarenes, not as the Virgin, like some Christians believe, but simply as the woman who brought up the prophet Jesus. AFAIK, this is unique among Muslims. OTOH, the Church of the Annunciation of the BVM is entirely out of keeping with the character of the town, albeit an architectural masterpiece if it were elsewhere.

In conclusion, Jesus was most certainly an historical character. He was probably an excellent teacher with what would be considered today as left wing views. I would guess at a 0.95 fractile probability that he could read, judging by what we do know of him.

[observer]

It seems to me that the letters of St. Paul, a man whose life overlapped that of Jesus, prove that Jesus was at least a historical character.

Also Tacitus, a Roman historian whose accuracy on other matters is generally reckoned to be good, wrote only 20 or so years after the assumed death of Jesus that “Christians are named after Christus, who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius”. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus. The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover, and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed - worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

It is likely that the sack of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD was responsible for the destruction of some contemporary records.

People seem willing to accept that many of the other characters mentioned in the gospels existed (Herod, Pontius Pilate etc) on far less evidence. So although it is possible to not believe that he was the son of God, it seems to be a greater act of faith to deny that Jesus never existed as a historical character.

[Eliko]

Do we really have to remind people that just because some storyteller says something happened doesn't actually mean that it happened.

Organised religion ? Organised deception of the terminally gullible.[/i]

Sounds a bit like politics to me "CopperLine".

[Get Real!]

Did you know, they have isolated a gene which pre-disposes people to be gullible in the way that's necessary, in order to accept belief systems without evidence or logic.

You can tell if you have this "mutation" when you have a limb amputated (God forbid ! ), but you still think it's attached and can sense feelings from it.

Weird But True.......Believe me!

Prophet
Phoenix

I was under the impression that all amputees go though similar emotions initially.

Poor Zan, who's gonna tell him that we have removed his brain... he still thinks he can think!