Give me one reason why Paul Tillich isn't the greatest theologian

>>2191278

Because Thomas J. J. Altizer is.

>>2191287
Ded dog :DDD

>great
I ask every New Testament theologian I've known in this life the same question; I've asked the great Pelikan this question, at which he had just shrugged his shoulders and walked off smiling amiably: How can it possibly be that we don't have an Aramaic Gospel of Jesus Christ? All the scholars agree that he spoke Aramaic to his disciples, who would have known no other language, and to the crowds in Galilee, who clustered around him, and they knew no other language. If you believed that this particular personage from Nazareth was indeed God or the son of God or the anointed Messiah, how can you fail to preserve the actual words, sentences, that he had spoken? How could you not commemorate his discourses literally? Aramaic and demotic Greek are totally different languages. The nuances of thought, expression and spirituality of one are not readily translatable into the other. How could you believe that you were hearing the ipsa verba, the actual words of the incarnate God, and not write them down and preserve them? And what makes me especially suspicious from the start is, as you know, scattered through the gospels are some seven or eight Aramaic phrases, which have been put in more or less, as it were, to spice it up or authenticate it, though it's never explained why they are there.

>>2191278
Looks like Warren Buffet

>>2191319
>All the scholars agree that he spoke Aramaic to his disciples, who would have known no other language, and to the crowds in Galilee, who clustered around him, and they knew no other language.


I've certainly never heard this expressed as a certainty. And 1st century inscriptions in Judea are more likely to be in Greek than either Aramaic or Hebrew. Why do you think they knew no other language?

>>2191482
It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic (Jewish Palestinian Aramaic), the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.[1] The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were Aramaic-speaking communities.[2]

Why do you think the disciples or crowds would be the ones making inscriptions?

>>2191319
>>2191482
>>2191554
Does this mean Arabic the closest thing we have to a "language of [Abrahamic] God"? Since Moses was spoken to by an angel, and Jesus wasn't directly quoted as we've said.

>>2191554
>It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic (Jewish Palestinian Aramaic), the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.

Primary language or cradle language isn't the only language. Illiterate peasants all throughout history have often known smatterings of other languages, especially trade ones: Why should 1st century Judean peasants be any different?

>Why do you think the disciples or crowds would be the ones making inscriptions?

I'm not. I'm just saying that the assumption that they didn't know other languages, especially the entirety of a crowd in a town, is stupid and baseless. And that if the majority of inscriptions are made in Greek, it implies a level of Greek knowledge in a society at odds with the notion that everyone knew Aramaic and only Aramaic.

>>2191621

Not really. 1st century style Aramaic is closer to Hebrew than it is to Arabic, although all 3 languages are pretty similar.

> Since Moses was spoken to by an angel,

What are you basing this on?

>>2191319
it's very unlikely that he didn't know other languages as people of that time needed to have some basic understanding of the languages of the neighboring peoples. Aramaic was the lingua franca of Judea at the time, so it's also possible that it wasn't Jesus' native language

>>2191636
>>2191659
Neither of that is relevant to the fact that the language he would have used to speak to those people would be Aramaic, not Greek.

>>2191667

Anon, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? The mere fact that the cradle language of these people was Aramaic does not mean that all sermons were in Aramaic. The scholarly language of the day wasn't Aramaic, it was Greek or Hebrew, depending on where your political and religious loyalties lay. If you believe the Gospels, Jesus left Judea proper on occasion, preached in places like Tyre, where Aramaic was not the norm. If Jesus wrote a book, what makes you think it would have been in Aramaic, even if you can prove that every single one of his sermons was done in that language, which is itself a hell of a stretch from your foundational fact that Aramaic was the cradle language of Judea?

Furthermore, there's going to be a gulf between how he addresses the peasantry, and how he justifies his theological leanings to his inner circle, or to visiting and doubting rabbis and other officials. A multilingual society will not have such cut and dry language usage, and you're a fool to think that there would be such. Why did Philo and Josephus write in Greek? Why did Yehuda Ha-Nassi write/compile in Hebrew? Everyone spoke Aramaic, right?

>>2191636
>Not really. 1st century style Aramaic is closer to Hebrew than it is to Arabic, although all 3 languages are pretty similar.
But my points is that Mohammed was to write down the exact words of God while Moses does not.

So Arabic is the only language of God.

>>2191697
>But my points is that Mohammed was to write down the exact words of God while Moses does not.


If you believe the Jewish line, Moses did in fact write what God dictated; that's why they separate out the 5 books attributed to Moses from the rest of the prophetic stuff.

Why should their claim hold any more or less weight than the Islamic one that he didn't?