Was Christ intelligent?

[marco]

Some might suppose that Jesus was more intelligent than any other human. Some might say he was a very simple man with simple tastes.

There is no evidence, as I see it, that Jesus pondered science while someone like Lucretius, born a century before Jesus, was able to talk of atoms and the void. Jesus gave no hint that he pondered the beginnings of life; his statements are very simple and do show a study of Scripture and little else. When he does move to secular matters he seems to be on shaky ground - as with the mustard seed.

Would we expect Jesus to be highly intelligent?
Is there evidence to show he was among the intelligent men of history?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 39 by bluethread]

Perhaps, but no one ever considered Machiavelli to be divinely inspired, or to be in touch with immortal soul saving truths, whose correctness was penultimance was necessary for saving those souls.

Do you understand the difference?

So you see, Jesus did not ever say anything actually intelligent, he did say many clever things. But as we all know from experience, those who are being clever are usually acting to deceive or deter some aspect from a goal, by manipulating the truth.

Why would a semi-divine entity fear the truth.
The obvious reason is, he was simply a man - (or written by clever men) and this symbol would be afraid of circumstance.

Unless you have a better, operative word, better, explanation.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 39 by bluethread]

Perhaps, but no one ever considered Machiavelli to be divinely inspired, or to be in touch with immortal soul saving truths, whose correctness was penultimance was necessary for saving those souls.

Do you understand the difference?

Yes, and I understand that this thread is enquiring about the intelligence of HaMeshiach, not the possible effects of the issue He spoke about.

So you see, Jesus did not ever say anything actually intelligent, he did say many clever things. But as we all know from experience, those who are being clever are usually acting to deceive or deter some aspect from a goal, by manipulating the truth.

I have indeed noticed this in the posts of certain individual on this forum, however, I do not see this in the case of HaMeshiach.

Why would a semi-divine entity fear the truth.
The obvious reason is, he was simply a man - (or written by clever men) and this symbol would be afraid of circumstance.

Unless you have a better, operative word, better, explanation.

I do not believe He feared the truth, nor was He afraid of circumstance, whatever that means. If you mean consequence, fear is a visceral reaction and common to human existance. The measure of a man is not in whether of not he experiences fear, but in whether he proceeds in spite of the fear, as Yeshua did. However, we are discussing intelligence here, not courage and integrity.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 41 by bluethread]

Yes, and I understand that this thread is enquiring about the intelligence of HaMeshiach, not the possible effects of the issue He spoke about.

That is only possible if you don't believe that what he spoke about was in any way divine, or carried any messages, particularly about salvation and other truths.
People whom understand truths are intelligent. It is practically a definition.

You see, if Jesus knew or had any intelligence or knowledge from God, he would have demonstrated it in many demonstrable, if at the time, paradoxical ways:

For example, as Sagan said, if Jesus wished to make himself believed through faith he might have said:

"The way of the stone is two, but the way of light is three."

In describing gravity vs electromagnetics.

But we have none of this... we only seem to have statements about not only invisible things, but invisible things that also cannot be proven.

Isn't one or the other enough? If things were invisible, we could still perceive them, if things were unprovable as well?
You see an intelligent man would not argue for both. Both invisible and unprovable, to an intelligent man, means:

NONEXISTENT

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 41 by bluethread]

Yes, and I understand that this thread is enquiring about the intelligence of HaMeshiach, not the possible effects of the issue He spoke about.

That is only possible if you don't believe that what he spoke about was in any way divine, or carried any messages, particularly about salvation and other truths.
People whom understand truths are intelligent. It is practically a definition.

People who understand truths are not lacking intelligence when they do not state all of those truths every time they speak. Intelligent people speak to the points and people they are addressing at the moment.

You see, if Jesus knew or had any intelligence or knowledge from God, he would have demonstrated it in many demonstrable, if at the time, paradoxical ways:

For example, as Sagan said, if Jesus wished to make himself believed through faith he might have said:

"The way of the stone is two, but the way of light is three."

In describing gravity vs electromagnetics.

Why would Yeshua need to speak to gravity vs electromagnetics?

But we have none of this... we only seem to have statements about not only invisible things, but invisible things that also cannot be proven.

Isn't one or the other enough? If things were invisible, we could still perceive them, if things were unprovable as well?
You see an intelligent man would not argue for both. Both invisible and unprovable, to an intelligent man, means:

NONEXISTENT

No, intelligent people talk about such things all of the time. Now, admittedly some keep them in the rhelm of speculation, but intelligent people discuss them none the less.

[shnarkle]

what use is there in being highly intelligent when one can't follow simple blatantly beneficial instructions?

Einstein famously struggled over simple tasks but a few would contend that he made good use of his intelligence. In the context of Christ's intelligence your point is at best obscure.

If Einstein struggled over remembering to bathe, flush the toilet, or take out the trash, who knows what he could have come up with if he had applied himself?

for who can surely say that one's obedience is given to God or to a shadow? If a command be wicked, with wicked consequences, can we carry it out on the assumption God willed it?

How does one know the commmand or consequences be wicked without a substructure to support it? "we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"

If you're assumptions match reality, you're probably on the right track. If you can't tell the difference, your car has jumped the rails.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 43 by bluethread]

People whom understand the wisdom of magical unicorns possess the same intelligence that you believe Jesus does, you agree, correct? That is basically what you are saying, Jesus was intelligent in the ways of the made-up. Otherwise, you can prove it.

Why would Yeshua need to speak to gravity vs electromagnetics?

Just one example my-desperately-trying-to-save-his-religion friend. It doesn't have to be that, but it could be anything, were he real. Which he isn't so didn't, and so QED, one fictitious demi-god served with unicorn sauce and a dash of logic.

No, intelligent people talk about such things all of the time.

No, fools talk about invisible unprovable things, they have no impact. That is a QED.

And thus, still unrefuted:

NONEXTANT!

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 38 by marco]

You miss the point. I know the circumstances of the death of Socrates and yes, there was an alternative but once he accepted his sentence he had to swallow his poison. You were painting a picture of Greek philosophers ruminating in golden conditions; in the case of Socrates conditions were not so golden.

Your point wasn't missed at all. In fact, Socrates had it "good enough", and was in essentially the same position as those silly Jews who thought they could fend off the Roman military in 70 ce. He was more than ready to accept his fate as soon as was summoned to court. He, like Jesus; placed his trust in the law, and regardless of whether the law was carried out with justice or not, he would accept his fate either way. In the gospel narratives, the protaganist isn't under this false impression that justice has any chance of prevailing. He's not so foolish to pretend human nature is anything more than wicked to the core. Yet, he goes to his fate knowing full well they're going to put him to death.

In the case of Socrates conditions were optimal for endless discussions and all night drinking parties. Socrates had it made in the shade, his only stipulation as I'm sure you're only too well aware was to refrain from corrupting the youth of Athens. Hardly what one would call struggling under a yoke of bondage.

You can't be serious in comparing the living conditions of Socrates with Jesus. There really is no comparison. When it comes to their respective deaths, Socrates took a nap while Jesus was publically affixed to beams of wood and left naked to be picked to pieces by buzzards. Socrates' accusers just wanted him out of their society. Jesus' accusers didn't just want him out of their society. They wanted him tortured to death.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 32 by marco]

Jesus effectively said: Be nice, let people trample over you, hate your father but love me and place your enemy on the same love level as your best friend.

Nonsense of course but my goodness it was of its time.

Bertrand Russel pointed out that the pacifism of Gandhi would never have woked on the British empire had they not been so heavily influenced by Christianity. His point being that a few thousand years of his teachings, even when poorly applied, was enough to give them enough of a conscience to know when to stop beating a people who have had enough.

Nonsense of course, just think how much better India would be today if they were all dead, and who better to kill off than those who are asking for it?