Jesus wasn't accused of being a "pervert" in the sense you might be using it johniam ("and even a pervert") there in Luke, although that word gets used in various bibles and translations. The "actual greek" reads kinda weird in those straight to transliteration versions. Frankly I don't know how anyone can get an English rendering out of the some of the greek stuff, so I confess to being no greek skollar. But if the sense you're after is of a sexual pervert, no, that verse and that accusation - no.
The original meaning of the word 'pervert' is a verb. It means to use something in a way it wasn't designed to be used. The verse in Luke DOES use that word in that way. Today because of the media the first thing you think of when you hear that word is a sex pervert. But in Luke, this accusation was the basis for their requesting that Pilate crucify him. The words 'heretic' and 'deceiver' were for their own people.
TLB: Thought you had me on ignore. Seems you've made some progress. I do exist after all.
I don't think it is pin-headed. It's a search for stability, or equilibrium..
what would you do.. if in one moment you found everything you (thought) you believed was just, plain, brutally WRONG..
that has happened to more than the religious crowd..
Well, not to be too picky, but in terms of what happened with Jesus.......all the evidence in scripture doesn't really point to a great epiphany of error for the crowds....even Pilate knew who He was....that is why he had the guards paid off. Remember, the body was missing! These people knew who Jesus was....who He claimed to be....and many of them had followed Him.
He was Messiah, someone they expected......but, what happened and what still happens is they didn't want to change. That is why Jesus said to the Jews who believed on Him, if you continue in my words then you are my disciples indeed. Israel had known it was God who led them through the wilderness......they just didn't like the program. Same with Jesus.....they knew who He was....followed Him for a time.....and then decided they didn't like the program.
It was rebellion....not a great epiphany of everything they knew as wrong.
Many of us claim to believe in God.......yet, some of us feel it is admirable to tell our neighbor to "F off". We may believe there is a God.....but, not that He meant we really have to love our neighbor. If we do believe He meant to love our neighbor....some of us twist the meaning of love to hang on to our own ways. . . . . it is just a form of rebellion against God. It is a particularly ugly form of rebellion because we are dragging God down into the mud with us.
The mercy of God is so beyond our comprehension......consider that He would allow the centurion who crucified Jesus to be saved.....the scriptures don't record a voice from heaven saying "Sorry to late." it is just slipped in there.
Yet for some of us....there is never enough evidence to put our faith in such a God. We want to do it our way.
These crowds and religious leaders were not slackers or stupid concerning spiritual matters, neither did they look in a mirror and have some epiphany......they were downright angry and rebellious.
BTW...RumRunner still cared enough about these spiritual matters to discuss them at length....sometimes in a thought provoking way and often just a provoking way. :)
In the entire history of W-Dale and GreaseSpot Cafe I've never used the "ignore" feature or placed anyone on ignore to avoid seeing what someone writes, you included johniam. Pretty much had the same login name the whole time too, as far as I can remember so if anyone's placed me on "ignore" they have prevented themselves from viewing the scintillating insight and illumination that I, socks, bring. Not much I can do about that but not to worry - a book is in the early planning stages that will capture all of the posts, thoughts, sharings, the laughter and the tears that I, socks, have provided lo these many years. To be titled - "Stuff You Won't Believe You MIssed", it's sure to both astound and please.
I'm glad I'm making progress though. So this is what progress feels like? I've wondered.
Soooooo, we agree then - Jesus wasn't "called" a pervert in Luke and you stated in the originals and in the grammar wars of GSCafe that would be a noun. He got verb'd - perverting. Agreed whatever the tense, the context of the english renderings use several different words for that, and to pervert/subvert/cause to rebel - but I would not use the phrase "original meaning" as that implies a depth of endeavor I don't think we've put in here but contextually we know from that chapter He was being accused of a whole range of things, "being a pervert" not one of them.
You're right in noting how it's used today - using it that way as you did carries that meaning. I would never say "they called" Jesus a "pervert" because it would carry an incorrect meaning and uh -cloud the discussion with misunderstanding. I don't know why you used it that way as that says something different than what you apparently meant., knowing how it's used in modern usage. I'm glad you clarified that.
Socks: The ignore bit was for Thomas Loy Bumgarner (TLB). The reason I put the scripture in there was because I figured someone would think what? where was Jesus called a pervert? They were trying to convince Pilate that Jesus was proclaiming himself to be a king who rivaled Caesar. Rebellion is perversion I guess.
I don't get it - are you saying you put Luke as the reference just to yank everybody's chain?
Jesus was never called a "pervert", as far as we know and not by our modern definition which implies a specific context. Or maybe He was, who am I to say what's not written? But it's not implied in Luke there.
A "perverter" is different, agreed. Someone who perverts the truth isn't a "pervert" by any definition I've seen.
When you write perVERT (v) - it means to change something from it's original condition.
When you write PERvert (n) - it means that person is a deviation from a norm.
Rebellion as a perversion of a norm doesn't mean the person rebelling is a pervert...................a pervertER, perhaps.
the record in Luke doesn't say they called Him a pervert, as a way to refer to the rebellion stuff. Period. Anyone who can prove that conclusion wrong please do cuz it seems very plain. They just didn't.
Plus -
It was lying b-sh-it on the part of the accusers, up and down and all around. He wasn't a threat to Rome or the kingdom. He was a threat to them. So they lied about HIm.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
7
10
13
Popular Days
Jun 21
11
Jun 23
9
Jun 20
9
Jul 5
8
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 7 posts
socks 7 posts
johniam 10 posts
waysider 13 posts
Popular Days
Jun 21 2011
11 posts
Jun 23 2011
9 posts
Jun 20 2011
9 posts
Jul 5 2011
8 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
All the "fake it 'til you make it.", "If I act excited, I'll be excited.", "Life is tremendous!" sort of doctrine that was being promoted by The Way during the 1970s is straight out of secular sales t
Ham
wasn't that what it was that ruined Russel?
something like.. what about a set that didn't include itself..
I'll need this for the next (last(?)) paper..
Naive set theory, it is described. Bites off more than it can chew..
It's the Barber of Seville question. The Barber shaves every man who does not shave himself. The Barber is a man. Who shaves him?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno. I can look at such a question, have another glass of Cabernet, and not (or greatly) care..
it's like trying to trisect an arbitrary angle with a compass and straightedge, only..
don't even get me started..
there is a three-dimensional object, that you could fill with paint, but never find enough paint to cover it..
what is the point here..
I don't even know if there is a point.
I can enjoy this kind of uncertainty.. just can't force it on others..
where is Rumrunner when you need him..
he breathed math..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
Jesus wasn't accused of being a "pervert" in the sense you might be using it johniam ("and even a pervert") there in Luke, although that word gets used in various bibles and translations. The "actual greek" reads kinda weird in those straight to transliteration versions. Frankly I don't know how anyone can get an English rendering out of the some of the greek stuff, so I confess to being no greek skollar. But if the sense you're after is of a sexual pervert, no, that verse and that accusation - no.
The original meaning of the word 'pervert' is a verb. It means to use something in a way it wasn't designed to be used. The verse in Luke DOES use that word in that way. Today because of the media the first thing you think of when you hear that word is a sex pervert. But in Luke, this accusation was the basis for their requesting that Pilate crucify him. The words 'heretic' and 'deceiver' were for their own people.
TLB: Thought you had me on ignore. Seems you've made some progress. I do exist after all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Well, not to be too picky, but in terms of what happened with Jesus.......all the evidence in scripture doesn't really point to a great epiphany of error for the crowds....even Pilate knew who He was....that is why he had the guards paid off. Remember, the body was missing! These people knew who Jesus was....who He claimed to be....and many of them had followed Him.
He was Messiah, someone they expected......but, what happened and what still happens is they didn't want to change. That is why Jesus said to the Jews who believed on Him, if you continue in my words then you are my disciples indeed. Israel had known it was God who led them through the wilderness......they just didn't like the program. Same with Jesus.....they knew who He was....followed Him for a time.....and then decided they didn't like the program.
It was rebellion....not a great epiphany of everything they knew as wrong.
Many of us claim to believe in God.......yet, some of us feel it is admirable to tell our neighbor to "F off". We may believe there is a God.....but, not that He meant we really have to love our neighbor. If we do believe He meant to love our neighbor....some of us twist the meaning of love to hang on to our own ways. . . . . it is just a form of rebellion against God. It is a particularly ugly form of rebellion because we are dragging God down into the mud with us.
The mercy of God is so beyond our comprehension......consider that He would allow the centurion who crucified Jesus to be saved.....the scriptures don't record a voice from heaven saying "Sorry to late." it is just slipped in there.
Yet for some of us....there is never enough evidence to put our faith in such a God. We want to do it our way.
These crowds and religious leaders were not slackers or stupid concerning spiritual matters, neither did they look in a mirror and have some epiphany......they were downright angry and rebellious.
BTW...RumRunner still cared enough about these spiritual matters to discuss them at length....sometimes in a thought provoking way and often just a provoking way. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
In the entire history of W-Dale and GreaseSpot Cafe I've never used the "ignore" feature or placed anyone on ignore to avoid seeing what someone writes, you included johniam. Pretty much had the same login name the whole time too, as far as I can remember so if anyone's placed me on "ignore" they have prevented themselves from viewing the scintillating insight and illumination that I, socks, bring. Not much I can do about that but not to worry - a book is in the early planning stages that will capture all of the posts, thoughts, sharings, the laughter and the tears that I, socks, have provided lo these many years. To be titled - "Stuff You Won't Believe You MIssed", it's sure to both astound and please.
I'm glad I'm making progress though. So this is what progress feels like? I've wondered.
Soooooo, we agree then - Jesus wasn't "called" a pervert in Luke and you stated in the originals and in the grammar wars of GSCafe that would be a noun. He got verb'd - perverting. Agreed whatever the tense, the context of the english renderings use several different words for that, and to pervert/subvert/cause to rebel - but I would not use the phrase "original meaning" as that implies a depth of endeavor I don't think we've put in here but contextually we know from that chapter He was being accused of a whole range of things, "being a pervert" not one of them.
You're right in noting how it's used today - using it that way as you did carries that meaning. I would never say "they called" Jesus a "pervert" because it would carry an incorrect meaning and uh -cloud the discussion with misunderstanding. I don't know why you used it that way as that says something different than what you apparently meant., knowing how it's used in modern usage. I'm glad you clarified that.
Know what I mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Socks: The ignore bit was for Thomas Loy Bumgarner (TLB). The reason I put the scripture in there was because I figured someone would think what? where was Jesus called a pervert? They were trying to convince Pilate that Jesus was proclaiming himself to be a king who rivaled Caesar. Rebellion is perversion I guess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Hmmm...ok.
I don't get it - are you saying you put Luke as the reference just to yank everybody's chain?
Jesus was never called a "pervert", as far as we know and not by our modern definition which implies a specific context. Or maybe He was, who am I to say what's not written? But it's not implied in Luke there.
A "perverter" is different, agreed. Someone who perverts the truth isn't a "pervert" by any definition I've seen.
When you write perVERT (v) - it means to change something from it's original condition.
When you write PERvert (n) - it means that person is a deviation from a norm.
Rebellion as a perversion of a norm doesn't mean the person rebelling is a pervert...................a pervertER, perhaps.
the record in Luke doesn't say they called Him a pervert, as a way to refer to the rebellion stuff. Period. Anyone who can prove that conclusion wrong please do cuz it seems very plain. They just didn't.
Plus -
It was lying b-sh-it on the part of the accusers, up and down and all around. He wasn't a threat to Rome or the kingdom. He was a threat to them. So they lied about HIm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.