I find this verse insulting to God

[sk0rpi0n]

'What he actually meant' is evident from the context and to any intellectual honesty and charitable individual this is obvious. Do you seriously think Paul or any Jew thought there was anything foolish about God?

As far as comparing the futility of worldly wisdom to the wisdom of God, Paul was doing fine. Ill give him that. Anybody who is "intellectually honest" will see that Paul had brought up (the idea of) foolishness of God to illustrate his point. And no, I am not saying Paul implied there was anything foolish about God.

The concept of the gospel being foolishness to non-believers has nothing to do with the idea of "foolishness of God".

The gospel is the 'foolishness of God' in context. Did you read the chapter (and thus verses 18 & 26-9) before you came here blabbering on about what's apparently only rhetoric to any one with even half-open eyes? (cf. the similar rhetoric in 2Cor xi.19)

The 'gospel' and the supposed 'foolishness of God' are not interchangeable terms, even in context to the verses surrounding 1 Corinthians 18:25. I dont know how you read it that way, but carry on.

 

[bodhitharta]

That's not quite right.


1 Corinthians 1 (King James Version)

21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

It is clear that Paul is saying that there are "Foolish" things of God and "weaknesses" of God, so there really is no way to defend the actual statement other than to say you believe his intentions were good despite the comment. The verse itself is insulting.

It's quite right, and all your response does is beg the answer again. You merely pointed out a second time references to Paul speaking of God's 'foolishness'...already answered by Elf and myself by our explaining that Paul is speaking from the perspective of natural men/non-believers. (like me :D )

This is the charitable way to understand his arguments. No devout Jew like Paul would ever seriously entertain the notion that anything about God was 'weak' or 'foolish'.


Finis,
Eric

However he was not being a devout Jew if he was being a devout Jew he would not have went against the law including saying that circumcision was not needed when in fact Jesus himself was circumcised if it was not needed Gabriel would have certainly told mary do not take the foreskin of this Holy Child but circumcision was given as an everlasting covenant and there is no scripture where God says circumcision is a temporary covenant.

Circumcision wasn't just for Jews either as God said even the strangers in your gate must be circumcised

 

[wavy]

However he was not being a devout Jew if he was being a devout Jew he would not have went against the law including saying that circumcision was not needed when in fact Jesus himself was circumcised if it was not needed Gabriel would have certainly told mary do not take the foreskin of this Holy Child but circumcision was given as an everlasting covenant and there is no scripture where God says circumcision is a temporary covenant.

Circumcision wasn't just for Jews either as God said even the strangers in your gate must be circumcised

No devout Jew historically, whether he believed circumcision was valid or not, would have denigrated the nature of God. There is simply no comparison in Jewish thought between ritual and God himself. To suggest this is ludicrous. At any event, please read the account in Ac xxi.17-26. You also ignored everything else that has been written regarding the context.


Finis,
Eric

 

[bodhitharta]

However he was not being a devout Jew if he was being a devout Jew he would not have went against the law including saying that circumcision was not needed when in fact Jesus himself was circumcised if it was not needed Gabriel would have certainly told mary do not take the foreskin of this Holy Child but circumcision was given as an everlasting covenant and there is no scripture where God says circumcision is a temporary covenant.

Circumcision wasn't just for Jews either as God said even the strangers in your gate must be circumcised

No devout Jew historically, whether he believed circumcision was valid or not, would have denigrated the nature of God. There is simply no comparison in Jewish thought between ritual and God himself. To suggest this is ludicrous. At any event, please read the account in Ac xxi.17-26. You also ignored everything else that has been written regarding the context.


Finis,
Eric

What's your point? I said that Paul was not a devout Jew and you showed the same thing that he was not a devout Jew.

Anyway, I said that the OP was right but I also said you can perceive his intent was good if you like but there is no way to alter the statement itself.

You said you were a non-believer that statement can be perceived by some that your intent is good but the statement itself is atheistic, right?

 

[wavy]

What's your point? I said that Paul was not a devout Jew and you showed the same thing that he was not a devout Jew.

No...I didn't. However did you infer that from me showing just the opposite?

Anyway, I said that the OP was right but I also said you can perceive his intent was good if you like but there is no way to alter the statement itself.

No one's trying to 'alter the statement'.

Finis,
Eric

 

[bodhitharta]

What's your point? I said that Paul was not a devout Jew and you showed the same thing that he was not a devout Jew.

No...I didn't. However did you infer that from me showing just the opposite?

Anyway, I said that the OP was right but I also said you can perceive his intent was good if you like but there is no way to alter the statement itself.

No one's trying to 'alter the statement'.

Finis,
Eric

You can not show that Paul was a devout JEW if he decides to teach things that are not Jewish, How can you say that a Jew who teaches against everlasting covenants of God is being devout, it wouldn't make him any more devout than those who went astray from God according to Jewish theology.


I'm not saying that you were trying to alter the statement. However, you seem to not be able to see the sentence as it is.

The sentence itself was called insulting to God not the overall thought process of the author.

 

[Sinthesis]

The concept of the gospel being foolishness to non-believers has nothing to do with the idea of "foolishness of God".

Wavy is exactly right. The lesson teaches it is men who incorrectly judge the actions of God as foolish or weak, because the truth of the matter is so far beyond them.

Case in point: Muslims believe God would have been weak and/or foolish to allow His son Jesus the Messiah to be crucified. Hence they have concocted a ridiculous substitution scheme. However it was only through Christ's crucifixion and resurrection that mankind could be redeemed to an afterlife (for those who believe).

 

[Sinthesis]

How is preaching foolish anyway?

Preaching is foolish to the unbeliever.

• Die Religion... ist das Opium des Volkes.
  (Religion... is the opiate of the people.) - Karl Marx

 

[Tina]

1 Corinthians 1:25

I dont even feel like quoting it here.

My question is...
Does anybody really believe that there is even such a thing as the first five words of that verse???

Luke 14:26
If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.


What do you think Jesus means when He said this ?


......

 

[GodspromisesRyes]

the foolishness of God is us we are the foolishness of God and when we preach the word to unsaved men they think our preaching is also foolishness.

1Cr 1:26 ¶ For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:


1Cr 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;


1Cr 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:


1Cr 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

 

[justvisiting]

Honestly, if you can't accept that God is bigger than you and smarter than you...then you've...got...a problem.

Of course I do accept that God is infinitely bigger and smarter than me.

I just have a problem with Paul using the phrase "the foolishness of God".

My question to YOU is.... do you believe that such a thing exists?

My simple question in the OP can be answered as 'yes' or 'no'.

I'd say "NO". What is your answer?

I would say the foolishness of God might have to do with letting some men have their way to some degree, because He loves them.
...as Moses claimed he couldn't speak well enough...so it was turned over to Aaron... who later was part of the golden calf situation.
All things still work out in the plan of God though. Another example might be letting the Children of Israel have a king. ie. Saul. God was upset with them...and gave in to their demands. Of course they were paid back for their stupidity.
Don't know if those really qualify for foolishness or weakness...but obviously the point is...man is not to be compared to God, in His wisdom and strength. All things will still work out according to His plan.

 

[follower of Christ]

1 Corinthians 1:25

I dont even feel like quoting it here.

My question is...
Does anybody really believe that there is even such a thing as the first five words of that verse???

oh good grief.
Did it ever occur to you to try to UNDERSTAND something that is written or said without inserting your own distortions ?

 

[Joe67]

Prov 22:15
15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
KJV

Mark 10:15
15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. KJV

Joe

 

[Eyezup]

This is a word that should be considered when reading scripture that attributes human qualities to God.

an·thro·po·mor·phic
Pronunciation: \ˌan(t)-thrə-pə-ˈmȯr-fik\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin anthropomorphus of human form, from Greek anthrÃ…Âpomorphos, from anthrÃ…Âp- + -morphos -morphous
Date: 1827
(Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

1 : described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes <anthropomorphic deities>
2 : ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things <anthropomorphic supernaturalism>

We could never ascend to God's level of intellect, so He rather descends to our level in order for us to comprehend. The bible clearly demonstrates that God is all powerful, yet Gen 2:2 says 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

Does God tire in the same sense we do?

How about this verse: Gen 9:16 “When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.â€Â

Does God need these reminders because He forgets things like we do?

Gen 3:9 Then the Lord God called to the man (Adam), and said to him, “Where are you?â€Â
Gen 6:6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

Does Gen 3:9 and Gen 6:6 demonstrate that God isn't Omniscient nor Omnipresent according to what it says? God clearly didn't know where Adam was, or did He? God surely made a great error in making man...He had no clue that they would turn out to be so sinful.

Most assuredly God knew where Adam was when He called out to him in the garden. God most definitely is aware of man's sinful nature and our ability to do harm to that perfect image that He gave to Adam. God is not pleased with sin and allows us to comprehend within our minds to the extent to which sin displeases Him when using words that we can relate to.

God is sovereign over all and is gracious enough to communicate on our level regardless of our degree of intellect.

Thanks be to God for His love and His mercy!

(NASB)

 

[Solo]

1 Corinthians 1:25

I dont even feel like quoting it here.

My question is...
Does anybody really believe that there is even such a thing as the first five words of that verse???

I totally agree, there is no such thing as the foolishness of God, some people would rather protect Paul thinking everything he says has to somehow be true because it's written.

Well, in Paul's defense he's speaking of God's 'foolishness' and 'weakness' from the perspective of non-believers. He's saying that what men of the world think is 'foolish' (i.e., the gospel) is unfathomably beyond their natural comprehension. (1Cor ii.14; cf. Rm xi.33)


Finis,
Eric

Good perception, Eric.

 

[walter]

Honestly, if you can't accept that God is bigger than you and smarter than you...then you've...got...a problem.

Of course I do accept that God is infinitely bigger and smarter than me.

I just have a problem with Paul using the phrase "the foolishness of God".

My question to YOU is.... do you believe that such a thing exists?

My simple question in the OP can be answered as 'yes' or 'no'.

I'd say "NO". What is your answer?

This verse was to show you how much more superior God is than us. It is merely saying that the least perfect thing God can do is so far above the best man can do.
Don't be offended but your response is immature for a christian. You taking offense has kept you from delving into the true meaning of this verse.
God is a big boy. He can take a little self deprecating.

 

[AskTheA]

Uh, what? That verse is not insulting to Yahweh. I bet it's a translation issue. He's simply saying that HE is NOT foolish, in our sense at least.