Crucified man had prior run-in with authorities

Washington Post ^ | April 12, 2017 | Alexandra Petri

[TankerKC]

I don’t get the reference singling out Trump.

It might have worked if they had said all politicians and the wealthy.

Otherwise, a brilliant take on the issue

[TankerKC]

You’re quite the drama queen.

[TankerKC]

91

[TankerKC]

Dr. David Dao was charged in 2005 with 98 felony drug counts...

That's less interesting than it was the first 20 times it was posted, and still just as irrelevant.

[Ezekiel]

He claimed to be God. Either He was right or wrong. If wrong, He either knew He was wrong or He didn’t know He was wrong. If He didn’t know He was wrong, then He was crazy, really totally crazy and belonged in a looney bin. If He did know He was wrong, then He was a liar and a scoundrel for enticing many to their deaths. If He was right and actually was, and is, God, then He deserves to be worshipped, loved, and obeyed.

This argument fails, because it is based upon a false premise.

It was the religious experts who claimed that he was claiming to be God. They did not understand his words, but were wholly convinced of their own interpretations of them. They even attempted to trap him in his words and bribe his mind with flattery, as if he were an insecure dullard with an ego to be massaged. And when that didn't work they picked up stones to stone him. Those were the kinds of 'experts' he was dealing with on a regular basis. So what else is knew. His attempts at correction fell upon deaf ears, as it is to this day. He was right and they were wrong.

It goes a long way in explaining why the teachers and disciples of the modern established religious orders will not recognize him. They'd be minded to do much worse things than to beat him and drag him off of an airplane. Nothing is new under the sun.

He deserves to be honored, loved, and obeyed. Bridezilla is in for a rude awakening. "United", at least until the lawyers are called in.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I wouldn't say the argument "fails," but I would say it is not an "inescapable trilemma" but rather a somewhat elastic "pentalemma". In this 5-option view, Jesus might logically have been:

• Liar: a religious charlatan, claimed to be God to fool the gullible

• Lunatic: someone who thinks, via a grandiose delusional paranoia, that He is what he could not be: the Master of the Universe ;

• Legend: Christ never made any divine claims, but these were invented early and became "gospel" as part of the fervently-believed lore;

• Guru: (sorry, I can't think of anything else that begins with "L"): someone who thinks he's "god" because he thinks that down deep, everybody is "god."

• OR, LORD.

I remain convinced, and would argue, that Jesus is God, but it cannot be logically proven on the basic of this "pentalemma" alone.

[Robert DeLong]

Perhaps others, like myself, had not seen that. It was really necessary for you to say that though wasn’t it.