The Surprising Genius of Jesus (ft. Peter Williams) 

Well. Not quite. I am constantly left without satisfying answers when reading the bible. But that might be because I am an atheist. Sometimes Jesus answers intentionally cryptically. This is not what I expect from a god of truth.

​@@adamruuth5562it could be because of the time period when he spoke. I have difficulty understanding Shakespeare as well.

🎉😂❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😅😅😅😅😅😅😅

⁠@@adamruuth5562yes, no insult meant, but the failure is on your end. Greater understanding would yield greater appreciation of what's being said. And the cryptic answers are a big part of that. He even explains that it's intentionally so that only those who are humble seekers will come to an understanding, while the prideful ignorant will not. God isn't keeping you from coming to a true conclusion that otherwise would've reached by your own effort, through personally misleading you. He possesses infinite information. Withholding information is not deception. And being selective with whom you explain it to is not deceptive. The truth is right there in the pages, it is only "veiled to those who are perishing." If you really want to understand it, humble yourself to ask God to reveal the truth to you. If you do that sincerely, not holding something back eg maintaining the pretense that you are God's judge, it is going to result in conversion and your eyes will be supernaturally opened to understand what was right in front of you the whole time. It's not facts that produce salvation. Some facts might lead you to it. But it is a humility and open handed self abnegation and complete unconditional trust in God that - from the human perspective - produces salvation, and after this, you are able to receive and understand the facts, which simply confirms what happened to you

​@@adamruuth5562 how would you answer someone who was trying to trap you ( and publicly)? Some questioners weren't sincere. I saw a portrayal yesterday in a video of the question, should we pay taxes to Caesar? We don't know if it's accurate but they showed Roman soldiers listening. Answering a true seeker VS. A person causing trouble.

The genius of Jesus is beyond human. Period. :)

jesus s life is not mentioned between 13 n 20 bc he was at school

@@terryallen7976 No... they didn't have public schools back then. Not in a backwater town like Nazareth. You have to understand the privilege of your upbringing. People back then, if you grew up poor like Jesus, you had nothing except the agrarian traditions handed down to you by your fathers. Or in the case of Jesus, how to make a cabinet or stool. To be educated, you had to be rich, or come from money. Of which the Bible is explicitly clear that Jesus was poor. Both Old and New Testament.

Thank you for that elucidation!!! I greatly appreciate it!

@@BKNeifertSorry do a bit more research into Jewish history and practices. They were educated in the Temple... !!! yes read write memorize Old Testament !!!

@@mafakefoot The Sanhedrin were not just educated in Jewish Temple rituals. Among them they spoke every dialect known at the time, they had knowledge of "Magic" Which would mean they were masters of Geometry, and other sciences, as that's what magic was back then. Plus, they were literati and possessed the best educations of classical antiquity, they were experts at Law--as Sanhedrin were basically Judges. They were also probably familiar with the histories of regions beyond Roman borders. You might need to do a bit more research into Jewish history. Like, you obviously mischaracterize the ministry of Jesus, if you make that claim, too, as at that time period, people's opinions, the clergy's even, weren't much different than that of our own. It was nearly identical to today, when Jesus lived.

Amen

Yes!...thought the same thing ❤ I love the way Dallas wrote about the beautiful astounding intelligence of the Lord Jesus.

That's an axiom, not an argument.

Wonderful discussion, I’ll be getting this book!

​@@chris4321das Captain Obvious strikes again, eh? 🤣

@@captainfantastic7843 💯

Exactly!

I don't think that amazement is the point. From my point of view, it seems like yet another great way to intellectually analyze the gospels. However, I am biased towards this type of thinking because I'm one of those weird intellectuals who's way into Christ. It's not for everybody. Deeper understanding from angles that I've maybe not thought of is rejuvenating for me personally.

It's setting up a circular reasoning argument. "If he was the smartest man to ever have lived... makes sense he was god."

Good point.

It adds depth to the humanity of Christ. Another characteristic of His we can know. God loves to be known.

How would this have been considered blasphemy?

@@robertbreish8182 🫠I got offended at just the thought of measuring Jesus according to human standards and concepts...

Willard was stating the obvious.

I would hope God was a little brighter than your average Job.

@@sethsims812yes but Jesus is also a man. Don't deny his humanity

​​@@chris4321das it's good to say sometimes for unbelievers though. Warner Wallace says that made him buy a Bible

@carolledger8047, yes, it seems very messed up, and all through the family. John Lennox did a series- maybe on the Forum of Christian Leaders Online, where he talks, about Judah, and how damaged he is, with his unloved mum, and spoilt brother, etc, and yet how God changes him.

Yeah different things in different contexts.

This is inaccurate christology and denies the Trinity. You might not have realized this. The father did not "possess" the human body of Jesus. The divine son united himself with a real human nature. Jesus is one person with two natures, one human and one divine, thus he is truly God and truly man. Not a puppet of the father or the spirit. The definition of Chalcedon is very helpful, look it up and let yourself learn from the history of the early church

@@cosmictreason2242 But JTB was a witness to the uniting of the man and Holy Spirit, he descended on Jesus, and Jesus revealed his Father by his word and actions. Not a puppet but one in purpose with the other. We all have two nature's, human and spirit, and our spirit must commune with the Spirit. But like Jesus we are born of a woman.

The use of the word ‘possessing’ seems unsettling. The Holy Spirit coming upon, into the heart of the individual, God’s doing a work within, a Holy encounter, differs as to how one refers to a possession that which is often associated with evil. It does seem important to distinguish the individual aspects, as is given to us, as (God) (Jesus Christ) (The Holy Spirit). It also seems quite clear, IF you were sitting there, and suddenly you heard something, received a communication and the communication was telling you, This is God, you would report back you received contact from God, if you received a communication from The Lord you would report you received communication from The Lord Jesus Christ, as the disciples, Christ apostles reported they received interaction from Jesus while he was walking the earth surface in human body. The respect towards the divine is appropriate, to whom it belongs. The Bible says, the fool doubts God, thus it can be concluded from that, human beings should strive to have the smarts of navigating themselves to the facts of reality, to the truth, to the full truth of God, Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit, asking of God, for God to do a work in their life, in their heart, through them. In agreement so far as it regards, the importance to acknowledge the Father, Son and The Holy Spirit and give due respect to each, to the 3 in 1. Glory to God Praise The Lord, Hallelujah, 🙌🙌🙌

Hypostatic union

Are you saying that Paul considered his own accolades as dung, or the accolades of Jesus? I am going to assume that you mean the accolades of Paul, because Paul is talking about himself in Philippians 3:5-8. If you need proof Paul is talking about himself and not Jesus, Paul says he is of the tribe of Benjamin, and we know that Jesus is of the tribe of Judah. Before Paul says that he 'considers all is accolades as dung' or, rubbish, he goes on to enumerate his accolades, how he was "circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a pharisee (an avid studier of the law, and someone who upholds the law to the highest possible extent); as to zeal, a persecutor of the church (again, showing how he upheld the law); as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the SURPASSING WORTH of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all these things and count them all as RUBBISH, in order that I might gain Christ" Philippians 3:5-8. In these verses Paul is talking about how if anyone has ANY reason to be confident in the flesh, none had more than him. He was counted as blameless under the law, a Hebrew of Hebrews, and yet he thought that knowing Christ was far superior to the things that he would have had confidence in if he were to put his confidence in the flesh. His point is that 1. Christ is greater than the flesh 2. If anyone is confident in his own (accolades, obedience to the law, etc) they can't have any more than Paul would have had. I don't think that Paul actually considers these things to be bad, these are very good things, church persecution aside. Rather, I think he is comparing them to the 'surpassing worth' of Christ. Next to Christ, these things are 'rubbish'. if you are asking about how we reconcile Jesus being clever/a genius with Paul saying he counts his accolades as rubbish, I don't see how Paul's accolades and the cleverness/genius of Jesus have anything to do with each other. And if you are asking how we reconcile the genius of Jesus with Paul thinking that Jesus' accolades are dung, Paul certainly didn't think any of Jesus' accolades were dung.

Wow dude. You and easily billions of other guys before and after you relate to that story. That's the point. Do you still have a lot of participation awards hanging up in your room? ha ha...jk. God bless ya cuz He loves ya.

@@sethsims812 Get more creative with your statements and learn how to write properly. Thanks.

What? I had some real insight on a specific topic they were discussing. What was so creative about your brown nosing comment? You're entitled to be like all opinions, but jealous criticisms aren't your thing right? Don't waste your last days mad at me. I ain't woke sucka! God bless your humble @@captainfantastic7843 heart.

sorry for given you a hard time bro.

@@sethsims812 Thanks, I appreciate that. I sincerely hope that you and your loved ones have a great Thanksgiving.

Not to me 😆

It's clearly the Jews and gentiles in the passage (not too far off what you are saying, but the face value meaning is more specific)

But I’m listening. Perhaps this is needed for those who have been convinced that Jesus was too human. ?

Interesting is putting it kindly. But I'm feeling you, brother.

God told us the reason when He cursed the serpent in the Garden of Eden: I will put enmity between thee and the woman; between thy seed and her seed.

Other than that rhetorical misstep, I very much enjoyed the interview.

It can't, because the epistles teach that Gentiles were cut off from God and the promises before the gospel was preached to them. The idea that the prodigal son represents the Gentiles would have to mean that Gentiles were previously under covenant, rejected it, and then returned to being under the covenant.

@@theeternalsbeliever1779 you’re right about that.

Cut off from God? How so? Melchizedek wasn't a Jew, nor was Namaan the leprous general from Assyria. And what about Cornelius in the book of Acts? And the Egyptians who came with the Jews out of Egypt? God allowed the Edomites to worship in the Temple, though descended from Esau, not Jacob. Rahab? Ruth? Neither were Hebrews. Just because they weren't 'under covenant' doesn't mean they can't be the younger son in the story. Both Jews and Gentiles were made in God's image, just as both sons were sons of one and the same father in the story (i.e., made in his image). :) @@theeternalsbeliever1779

Op is correct. The gentiles who admitted their emptiness got saved, the works righteous Jews who thought they had a better relationship with the father ended up in a situation where the parable ends with a question of whether theyll repent or not

In the prodigal son passage, the brother who stayed home is the Jews and the prodigal is the gentiles

That's just repeating what I said as if you had to jump in and make an educated correction to a hypothetical concept I agreed with that has no importance to anyone whatsoever. So please tell me what was YOUR point@@cosmictreason2242 ?

Correction: was. They are talking about the living human "Jesus" on earth.

DUH, right?? 🙄

No, it would not have turned heads. Assuming Jesus wrote down a formula, scribes copied it with no understanding, and centuries later someone uses those figures to describe quantum physics, it would have been said that the modern scientist deliberately chose those figures to adhere to what Jesus wrote. And no amount of denial from the scientist would convince you otherwise. Or the doubters would explain it away by saying the figures in Jesus' writing coincidentally look like the ones in the equation - but they are actually close to some old Hebrew and Greek letters and definitely can't mean what it seems to mean to modern mathematicians.

@@rethaf4387 Your theory is that even if Jesus wrote down mathematical equations, explained about the existence of China, talked about evolution, or even say, wrote down Pi to 100 digits, atheists wouldn't believe his was special or somehow supernatural or something? I find that spurious. If Jesus even said or did anything original, I'd find that worth noting, instead, it's just rehashed quotes, stories, and actions. Nothing new, nothing surprising, nothing special, nothing notworthy. Jesus (if he even existed) was so unspecial and so unnewsworthy, that not a SINGLE contemporary source records his existence, much less anything he did or said. No Roman, no Jew, nobody. Not even Paul writes about great things Jesus said or did, no quotes, no parables, no miracles (other than the obvious one where he resurrects, but that's kind of needed for the religion to have a foundation). Why doesn't Paul quote the brilliance of Jesus' parables and sayings? Could it be because Luke didn't write these things down until after Paul was already dead and thus Paul never even heard the prodigal son story? Why didn't any Jews write down things to explain to other Jews how Jesus was doing things "in the power of the Devil" as the NT claims that some of them thought? IF Jesus was so brilliant, you'd think at least one rabbi would have bothered to write polemetics about why Jesus wasn't the messiah afterall....instead, crickets....why? Obvious answer is that Jesus either didn't even exist OR he was so ordinary nobody noticed him out the 100s of other apocalyptic preachers of the day.

@@rethaf4387 Interesting reply: I guess that people infected with severe atheism will do, say or refute anything they can to maintain their atheism. I don't argue with atheists anymore. Ironically, I suggest that atheists are required by God in order to keep the issue of "freedom of choice" viable. If you have free will to believe, you must also have free will not to. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)