Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated)

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Luke 23:34 Is it possible that this verse wasn't talking as much about those who crucified Christ not knowing they were crucifying an innocent man, but that they didn't realize that, by doing so, they were bringing the salvation of all mankind?

More likely than anything, this was an addition that never belong in Luke in the first place, added after the destruction of the temple to place the blame on Rome and not God. Just google the verse and you'll find tons of sources on this. 04:31, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

The only basis for excluding "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", is based upon its absence from older, and therefore supposedly better, mss, which is a questionable premise. (one side: Its exclusion on doctrinal grounds has no real basis. This does indeed fulfill the prophecy in Isa. 53:12, that he "made intercession for the transgressors", praying for them which despitefully abused Him. (cf. Lk. 6:28)

While it is true that there is no forgiveness without repentance, this is another case of the righteous asking for mercy for sinners, which has a solid Scriptural basis.

Exo 32:32 "Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written." (A desire seen in Paul: Rm. 9:3)

Num 14:19 "Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now." (cf. Gen. 50:17; Amos 7:2)

Act 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Thus these text must also be excluded, upon the doctrinal basis which is used for Lk. 23:34.

Praying as Christ did manifests selfless love for sinners, even our enemies, which we are commanded to do, (while also reproving such, which Jesus also did). While this may not secure deliverance at the final judgment seat, it can forestall immediate judgment. God hears the cry of the unjustly afflicted, and promised to kill Israelites in response to hearing their cry. (Exo. 22:21-24) But examples are given of intercession which prevented the warranted temporal judgment upon sinners. (Exo. 32:9-14)

As for the objection that the subjects of Jesus intercession were not ignorant, this is seen as regarding the full cognizance of what they were doing by the people overall, and is confirmed by other texts:

Act 3:17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (and repentance is then commanded: v. 19)

1 Cor 2:7-8 "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: {8} Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

Finally, rather than making a new translation which is supposed to correct liberal translations, here and in its "thought for thought" form it is following the practice of liberal scholarship. While archaic words can be replaced in the KJV with modern spelling, this radical revision is unwarranted and unwise. Better to just add conservative notes to the suggested revision. Daniel1212 08:53, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for your analysis. I've learned from your quotes of other Scriptural passages. But note how those passages are slightly different: none contain the illogical reasoning of "forgive them because they know not what they are doing." Sin requires intent, and if there were a true and justified lack of knowledge, then there would be nothing to forgive. So the phrase in Luke has a logical flaw the others lack.
This phrase doe snot appear in the other Gospels and is not in the original manuscripts. That evidence alone is very compelling in demonstrating it is fake.
Jesus Himself did NOT forgive one of the thiefs crucified along with Him, so the contradiction is disfavored.
Finally, as an interesting aside, note how the fake phrase has been cited by evil-doers. One murderer quoted it defiantly just prior to execution. That would be very odd indeed if the phrase were authentic.--Andy Schlafly 10:16, 18 October 2009 (EDT)
One additional point: Luke was not an eyewitness, but served as an historian. It's implausible that he would include such a quote when the eyewitnesses Matthew, Mark and John all missed it.--Andy Schlafly 19:54, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for your reply. Your objection #1 is that while others Scripturally prayed for God to forgive souls, yet these were culpable while those in Luke were said to be ignorant, thus forgiving them would be illogical. However, this supposes that the souls at issue were inculpably ignorant, and not at all guilty of slaying an innocent man, though they were blind that he was the Messiah. One can also be guilty of being ignorant, due to not cooperating with the grace that would have led to enlightenment. It was ignorance that Jesus was the Messiah that is stated in 1 Cor 2:7-8, and that the Jews were guilty of this is what Peter indicates in his preaching Acts 2 and 3. Realizing this, and the consequence of being on the wrong side of Jesus, the former crowd earnestly sought salvation. (2:37) Also, the apostle Paul testifies he was the chief of sinners, persecuting the church, but that he found mercy for because he "did it ignorantly in unbelief." (1Tim. 1:13-15; cf. 1Cor. 15:9)

It should also be noted that the Old Testament (Lev. 4;5; Num. 15) provides ample examples of how souls are in need of forgiveness, protection from wrath, in the case of sins of ignorance, perhaps such as due to carelessness/forgetfulness/neglect, after the giving of the law.

So i think there is sufficient warrant to allow that these were guilty souls, and hence the intercession, which is consistent with other Godly examples of such. (The correlation of sins and affliction also has an element of mystery to it, as Jesus forgave a sick man who did not ask, equaling it with healing, (Luke 17:17-25) a correlation that is also seen in James 5:14+15. The former is invoked by your(?) church to validate proxy faith, though in both cases it is not be presumed that they could not assent to faith.)

2. As acknowledged, the mss issue could be an argument for exclusion, as debatable as it is. However, excluding it due to its sole inclusion in Luke would also logically candidate numerous other texts for deletion, which uniquely are provided by the inspired diligent historian, and whose accuracy is well attested to. Luke's gospel for Gentiles, which he researched different sources for (though ref tags were not needed) has 59 percent more material than Matthew, and records six of Jesus’ miracles and 18 parables or stories (publican sinner,s etc.) that are not found in any other gospel, with it overall having more than twice as many of His illustrations than other Gospel writers, making it the longest gospel account. His propensity for thoroughness also weighs against the argument that sees it implausible that he would include a quote that other writers did not know of. Concise (what's that?) overview of gospels here:

3. As for Jesus not forgiving the railing criminal, that offers no real weight favoring disallowing Him from doing it to others. Grace is owed to no man, and God could have even brought Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom to repentance. (Mt. 11:20-24)

4. And as noted before, the misappropriation of Scripture text by enemies is not odd, but logical, and cannot itself warrant their exclusion, lest we remove the 75% percent (i think) of the KJV which the BOM is said to plagiarize! Good day. Daniel1212 00:42, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

I think there's definitely a precedent for eliminating passages with questionable textual support (e.g. the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7-8). However, even in the cases where the text is almost certainly much later, such as the longer ending of Mark, it could be a good idea to at least provide a note, along the lines of "Some manuscripts add..." just to avoid charges of manipulating the text. Even very liberal translations often do that type of thing. (Of course, they are still criticized for "tampering with the Word of God," but a little footnote can go a long way toward eliminating that kind of charge.) Just a thought.--Cory Howell 14:59, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
I do not think Mark left an abrupt ending, and better to include such, and then put a note. In fact, I still hold to my assertion that outside updating words, no real revision is necessary. The KJV does not produce liberals, though cults use it for its power, and providing sound conservative commentary is far far better than a "thought for thought" translation which does a substantial amount of revision, largely driven to prevent attempts by liberals to hijack the text.Daniel1212 21:56, 26 October 2009 (EDT)
I was concerned when I saw this edit, but took the time to read the full commentary above as well as the referenced online analysis/debates before commenting here. As a non-scholar but someone who takes the teaching of Jesus to heart, it troubles me to see Jesus' plea for forgiveness completely stricken from this Gospel, when it could have been left in brackets and annotated. I'm not saying this out of an unwillingness to consider that it could be inauthentic, but because I'm not convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it is inauthentic. You would not convict a man of a crime while reasonable doubt remains, and to purge a statement attributed to Jesus Himself from a Gospel when there remains reasonable doubt for doing so is the kind of act that Christians are warned against in other parts of the New Testament.
My reasons for still having doubt are straightforward:
  • I have not found in any of the referenced articles or the debate above an alternate explanation for how Isaiah 53:12 would have been fulfilled. Much of the validity of the Bible comes from how the life of Jesus was the fulfillment of prophesy, "closing the loop" as it were. Removing this statement breaks one of these important connections unless another reference can be found that is equal or better to the passage in Luke.
  • The argument that something could be invalid because it is mentioned in one Gospel but not in others should not be used to invalidate it. When I was a young Catechist, my teacher explained why there were four distinct Gospels and not just one "biography of Jesus" by explaining that these were the accounts of different witnesses each describing the same story in their own way. The next week, she showed us a filmstrip about Jesus and afterward asked each of us to write what happened. As you can guess, each of us missed details that others caught, and sometimes we used very different words to describe the same things. The teacher's point is that the story still happened as it did no matter how each of us described it later, and that's what the Gospels are like. As I write this, I also realized that while there were many different recaps, no one added anything to the story that wasn't there in the filmstrip.
  • The Bible is full of accounts where mankind, as opposed to individual men, is regarded child-like in terms of our capacity to live up to God's standards. Jesus was sent on behalf of all mankind, not just the individuals who saw him for who He was, but also for those who didn't. When I read the "Father forgive them" statement, I've always thought of the word "them" as referring to mankind and its inherent immaturity regarding God, and not just the people on the scene. That's just my personal observation, but it's as valid as any of the other opinions I've seen expressed here.
  • What is the harm in leaving the statement in place with brackets, and then annotating it? This allows for the full ability to comment on why it may not be considered authentic without opening the door to criticisms of censorship or ideological "spinning" of the Bible. Engaging people to read & think about the Bible themselves, and research their questions regarding it with guidance is a much better approach than telling them to simply accept the conclusions you've reached on their behalf.
I guess this goes to my biggest concern about this project, so I'll get it out of my system here. I like the KJV, and find the prose beautiful even if it can be archaic at times. When I first heard of this project, I was surprised at the degree to which people were willing to change Biblical text and still call it "The Bible", but that is the nature of the Bible, after all. The Old Testament found in a synagogue would not be the same as the one in the Bible of my church, so we have to decide for ourselves what version(s) to use as a guide in our lives.
I would liked to have seen this project be more of a "Conservative's Annotated Bible", which would be a great counterpoint to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, rather than a re-translation of the Word of God itself. That's why I won't make any edits to the content pages itself other than the cleanup of obvious spelling and/or grammar errors. If these actions or my input above is unwelcome then tell me and I'll move on, but I want to try and represent the views of someone who sees himself as a conservative even if they don't line up with the mainstream here. --ChrisY 09:33, 23 December 2009 (EST)
Chris, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I'm glad you like the KJV; so do I. But fewer and fewer people, even Christians, are reading it. It's becoming as archaic as the Latin Vulgate. Adhering to the KJV doesn't address the problem of how most people are given increasingly liberal distortions of the Bible; adhering to the KJV does not evangelize. With each passing year, the KJV's share of the market decreases, and that's not likely to change.
The NIV, which overtook the KJV in sales two decades ago, erases many references to the unborn child and thereby falsely leads readers to support, or acquiesce, in abortion. Should we silently stand by and allow such deception? Of course not. A conservative approach to translation can catch and correct such distortions more efficiently than any other approach. A conservative translation can also most effectively communicate the message of the Bible in our modern, CNN-saturated culture. Of course our project will encounter issues like the Luke verse you mention above, and in good faith we'll sort those out with full respect for the original intent. I hope you can be part of this important work, even more than you have been.
Translating the Bible has always sparked controversy. But liberals have already been doing it, and silently permitting their distortions to spread is not an acceptable option.--Andy Schlafly 11:04, 23 December 2009 (EST)
The comments are appreciated. I think an accessible, contemporary translation of the Bible is important and valuable, just as the approval of Masses being spoken in the vernacular, and not just Latin, was after Vatican Council II. I'd want to help a project that makes the content of the Bible accessible to more people, but in good conscience I can't do more than copyedit if such fundamental quotes such as the "Father forgive them" one in question here are being removed without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that they need to be. Two wrongs don't make a right, and it's not our place to criticize Biblical text being removed by one group because of their views and then doing the same thing ourselves without making an airtight case first.
I've seen analysis offered that the quote doesn't belong, but not airtight proof, and since the general tone of this Talk page acknowledges that this is a controversy among the faithful rather than an outright vandalism of the Bible that needs to be removed, why not restore the quote in the Conservative translation and annotate it? --ChrisY 11:20, 23 December 2009 (EST)
Chris, of course two wrongs don't make a right. But this translation will adhere to original intent. If something was added later, if it is oddly missing in other texts in a way that suggests lack of authenticity, if it conflicts with things we know Jesus said, and if it has an obvious liberal bias to it, then we're not going to keep just to "compromise with" or appease a liberal view. We take original intent seriously here.
We're open-minded about this particular verse and urge you to be open-minded also. The continuing discussion about this provision is not a reason for declining to participate in the thousands of other verses. Hope you can enjoy the benefits that Newton and many others have throughout history in participating in Bible translation.--Andy Schlafly 12:22, 23 December 2009 (EST)
Every time I pick up my family's KVJ and contemplate what I'm reading through the perspective of my contemporary, 21st century life, I'm engaging what you describe as Bible translation, so I understand how that is helpful in one's life. To do so for anyone but myself places a special burden on myself, though, and that is to do my best to convey the meaning and lessons of the Bible free from my human failings and biases.
I've been impressed by the spirit of goodwill and cooperation among the participants in this project, but your last set of comments begs a question. You use the word "we" as if all of the editors on this project speak in a single, consistent voice regarding every issue of interpretation & translation, and obviously that's not the case. So using this passage from Luke as a perfect example, how are respectful disagreements in translation resolved so that a matter can be considered closed? Specifically, what is the burden of objective evidence required to determine that something should or shouldn't be attributed to Jesus? (the most significant editing one can make regarding the Bible IMHO) Who in this project makes the final decision as to what the "official" translation for a given passage is - a single person, a committee of trusted CP senior sysops, a vote by the pool of established editors with a proven track record of accurate and valuable translations on this project?
This would be an good policy to clarify, not only for my benefit but for future potential editors. In this specific case, I've presented a line of reasoning that tight correlation between the gospels is not a good test for inclusion since that would require many quotes to be removed across all four of them. I've also pointed out, as others have, that removing this statement would remove clear evidence of Jesus' actions fulfilling a specific Old Testament prophesy - how can we not require airtight, unambiguous proof that this was vandalism before deliberately diminishing Jesus' role in fulfilling prophesy? Saying that something "doesn't sound like what Jesus would say" or "sounds liberal" is too subjective to justify this.
I've been open-minded in offering constructive comments regarding this project rather than knee-jerk criticism, which would benefit nobody. Hopefully some good will come from this discussion. Thanks. --ChrisY 13:22, 23 December 2009 (EST)
You haven't been openminded; you've been opinionated. Now, alternate opinions are fine but try not to pretend you have a grasp on the "real truth" and you'll get along here. Better to say, "I'd like to offer another way of looking at that" and then move on.
This is what I always try to do, and it's worked rather well for me here, even though I have quite a number of sharp disagreements with senior staff here. I go along to get along, and if you do what I do you'll get the same results. --Ed Poor Talk 14:20, 23 December 2009 (EST)


My reason for including "earthly" was that I think it incorporates the non-physical parts of the world that are sinful. Putting both the materialism and non-physical parts together makes it more complete. Also, being of the world, "earthly" or "worldly", in my mind is more economic in word use because it encompasses so much in just one word. ameda 21:36, 15 November 2009 (EST)

I don't see how Jesus would be referring to any sins other than materialism in this context. It's only one Greek word, not two.--Andy Schlafly 21:44, 15 November 2009 (EST)
Very good point, I'm going to get rid of earthly. I guess my last point would only be that inherent is materialism is the knowledge that most people aren't materialistic in the sense that they just want objects, period. I think they want them more for either what those objects can give them (emotionally for instance) or bestow upon them in social status; things that are divorced from the "physical" world. Things that theology says replaces God.ameda 21:53, 15 November 2009 (EST)
Very interesting insight! Thank you.--Andy Schlafly 21:59, 15 November 2009 (EST)

Chapter 20 revisions

I removed the references to unions and union-busting in this chapter, because the original simply mentioned "farmers". This was a very powerful, direct parable about men charged with doing the will of their master rejecting the master's will, and harming those sent to remind them of the master's will, including killing the master's son. This is too important a metaphor for what is happening between Jesus and those rejecting him to try and turn it into an anti-union statement, especially since unions as we understand them did not exist then. --ChrisY 09:50, 27 January 2010 (EST)

English allows descriptions far more accurate than were available in the Greek; please don't remove descriptions of these farmers which are clearly true from the context. If you wish to alter another editors translation, bring it up on a talk page first. JacobB 15:27, 27 January 2010 (EST)
I'm sorry. Usually I keep these edits to basic spelling and grammar, but in this case the insertion of the concept of unionized workers has no basis, and doesn't leave the meaning of the story intact - it distorts it. Let's discuss this on the Talk page. --ChrisY 15:43, 27 January 2010 (EST)
It absolutely has a basis. The text is clear: a group of workers organized to conspire against their employer, demand greater pirveleges than their work entitled them to, and killed those they disagreed with. Sound familiar? Just because the word union didn't exist in Greek, doesn't mean we shouldn't use it now when it's clear that that is what is meant.
Jesus didn't constrain himself by only talking about things which existed during his own time. He discussed the destruction of the temple, which didn't occur for 40 years after his death, the persecution of Christians, which didn't REALLY get underway for maybe 80-100 years after his death, and yes, even unions.
If you want to deny that the farmers in the parable are uniting to extort their employer, go ahead, but I'm not in favor of censorship like you are.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion,
but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.
- Adam Smith
JacobB 16:09, 27 January 2010 (EST)
Jacob, there's an obvious difference between a group of bad people who conspire together to commit a crime and people who unionize. I'm not a fan of unions - aside from their work-place safety priorities that could have been addressed by legislation, they have not accomplished anything positive for the economy and frankly destroyed the American auto industry. Using your analogy, we could describe the farm as being taken over by an organized-crime gang and it would be as appropriate in terms of modern language, and probably moreso.
The simple fact is that unionized labor did not exist back then, and describing these farmers as being members of a union that needs to be "busted" in verse 16 is not replacing archaic language with better modern terms, it's adding a distinction that didn't even exist and detracts from the meaning of the story. The farmers were thieves and murderers, and they themselves deserved punishment.
The men were farmers in the original version, and referring to them as "farmers" rather than as "the union" in the Conservative translation takes away nothing. It fulfills the original intent. --ChrisY 16:08, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Recap of question regarding 20:9-18

Jacob believes that the addition of the concept of unionized workers into the parable adds to the translation because:

  • These farmers organized to conspire against their employer, which he sees as a trait of unions
  • Demanded greater privileges than their work entitled them to, which he sees as a trait of unions
  • Killed those they disagreed with, which he sees as a trait of unions
  • While unions are a modern concept, the use of such modern concepts is appropriate in this project where they help express the original intent better than the archaic language could.

I believe that the insertion of the concept of these farmers being unionized is incorrect here because:

  • This project's mission is to remove liberal bias from the translation, not to insert new messages that didn't already exist, even if we agree with the message itself.
  • Unions didn't exist then, and since the original text refers to a bunch of rebel farmers that is all that is needed in the translation - there is nothing unclear about this scenario
  • This parable was meant to be a metaphor for men acting against their master's (God's) will, and focusing instead on how disobedient men organized themselves dilutes that message
  • A group of men plotting to do wrong together is a conspiracy, not necessarily a union. This is adding controversy and inviting criticism, which distracts readers from Jesus' message here
  • Verse 16 highlights the problem - if the punishment for theft, assault and murder is simply the busting of a union and not the punishment of the men at fault, Jesus' message is lost

Jacob's edits are now the current version, and I have agreed not to revert them myself. However, I am requesting that others involved in this project read through the comments above and the verses in question, and provide guidance as to whether the inserted union references should be retained or removed. Thanks. --ChrisY 11:35, 28 January 2010 (EST)

Use of "Establishment" in Chapter 22

Substituting "Establishment" for "Chief Priests and scribes" may work in other contexts, but in this passage it may create confusion because of where the story is heading. When I think of this period and setting, there are two groups that could be thought of as "the Establishment": the Pharisees and other entrenched religious leadership of the Jews, and the Roman government who actually controlled the lands these people lived in.
Jesus did not let his message get caught up much in the politics of the time (although he's been shown to be very politically savvy), because his lessons were meant to transcend the politics of any one period and last for as long as mankind lives on Earth. The Roman leadership was not too concerned about what Jesus was teaching, because he never spoke directly against their rule.
The groups most threatened by what Jesus was teaching were the Pharisees and other entrenched religious leadership, who were certainly "the establishment" in the religious sense, and acting as the middlemen people had to go through in matters concerning God. The hypocrites among them were particularly targeted by Jesus for scorn and harsh rebuke in his lectures, and as the Catholic Church felt about Martin Luther, they considered him a threat to their entrenched ways rather than a constructive critic trying to show them the way to get back on the right moral path.
I realize I'm being wordy, but I wanted to explain my reasoning fully - contemporary readers see "the establishment" as being the political establishment, but the Romans were not the ones out to get Jesus. If the word really needs to be replaced (and it doesn't seem like there's a real need here), I'd suggest "religious establishment" since that focuses the reader on the proper group who will eventually be behind Jesus' arrest and death sentence. --ChrisY 20:19, 20 February 2010 (EST)

You make valid points. "Religious establishment" seems more accurate in one sense, but in another it seems awkward: there's nothing "religious" about trying to kill Jesus. Perhaps "local authorities" or, more colloquially, "powers that be"?
By the way, it's interesting how this passage implies that the people provided a check and balance on the power of the leaders, which is analogous to the check and balance provided by democracy to tyranny in the modern era. Jesus was a populist of sorts, though a very principled one.--Andy Schlafly 20:29, 20 February 2010 (EST)

"Apostles" in Chapter 22 v3

Were these men considered "Apostles" before the event of Pentecost? Not sure, but I believe they would be better portrayed as "disciples" at this point in the narrative. --ChrisY 10:18, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Your point is fascinating, and you're probably right. Please revise as you think best.--Andy Schlafly 10:24, 23 February 2010 (EST)
I went to change it and then saw a reference to "apostles" in the original KJV text a few verses later. That doesn't mean the original authors were correct, but I've left these words alone for now. I'd be curious to hear what others think about this - the more you read the more you think --ChrisY 11:03, 23 February 2010 (EST)

"Benefactors" in 20:25

I read up on this, and the concept Jesus was apparently trying to establish was that people given leadership roles over other, and specifically power over others (versus charismatic, reputational or moral leadership), were called "benefactors" because they were supposedly serving in those roles to do good on behalf of others. This is like the principle of politicians being "public servants" or the heads of corporations being "employees" of the board of directors and tasked with serving the shareholders. Where He's going with this, of course, is that many in these roles seek power for it's own sake, and become more focused on maintaining their power and influence than in serving the actual interests of those they are supposed to.
That's why Jesus follows this with a reminder to serve others with humility. Greatness is defined by what is done humbly in God's service, and not by the rank or title you hold while serving. I mentioned Pentecost yesterday, and I don't think it was until then that these men really "got" that message. From that point forward, they did many great things, but without concern for who was the head of the church, or who could settle disagreements. Peter and Paul disagreed on some fundamentals, but that didn't lead to Peter "pulling rank" on Paul.
Sorry for ramble, but given the lack for humility so many leaders exhibit today it's a shame more people don't keep this in mind. George Washington was a great man, and an example of his greatness was recognizing that two terms of authority & power were enough. Too many of our "career" senators and representatives fail to follow the same example.
So in this context of what Jesus is trying to say and what He will say next, my suggestion is to replace "benefactors" with "rulers", or at the risk of this getting too political, "the ruling class". My reasoning is that rulers have power over others and can exert it against their will if they choose, where a leader does not necessarily have to rely on power to have other follow. In our context, Jesus is trying to tell these men that you can have greatness in the eyes of God by being a lifelong servant like Mother Theresa or a dedicated missionary in Haiti - you don't have to be a bishop or Pope. This also underpins the Catholic teaching that while women are not allowed certain roles in the Church, like the priesthood, that in no way diminishes their opportunities to be great in the eyes of God. Do great things with humility and others will follow your leadership without you having to have been appointed their ruler first. --ChrisY 10:38, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Thanks much for your insights. I learned immensely from your explanation above.
Your suggestion of "the ruling class" is superb. That connotes the "team" concept of politics well, which is often lacking in people's understanding of the topic.--Andy Schlafly 11:04, 24 February 2010 (EST)

Reaching closure on 23:34

When I finished the edits to chapter 23, I left the version of verse 34 intact. However, the deletion of a critical part of that verse still troubles me, so I re-read the discussion about it at the top of this talk page. Points for and against removing the statement were made, but I don't really believe that closure was reached on the issue. I'd like to see if that can be done at this time since chapter 23 is in full draft form now.
With all due respect to everyone who has weighed in on the matter, the evidence for retaining the original text is based more in fact than opinion, while the evidence for removing it is based more on opinion than fact.

  • The phrase came from the original Gospel of Luke, and was not an item added in later versions. The fact that this account does not exist in the other three Gospels is not enough to warrant removing it. Otherwise, we'd have to remove any Gospel verse that isn't present in at least a majority of the four versions.
  • The phrase provides the fulfillment of an important Old Testament prophesy. One of the most important threads of evidence for Jesus being the Messiah is the way that his words and actions fulfilled the prophesies about the Messiah. To redact this statement is to remove evidence for Jesus being the Messiah, and that can't possibly be a right choice when compiling a translated Bible. Unless a comparable verse fulfilling this prophesy can be identified, this alone is reason to leave the verse intact.
  • The argument that Jesus would not forgive anyone who did not express remorse first does not apply in this case. Jesus was sent on behalf of all mankind, and His sacrifice was on behalf of all humanity, not just those present at His crucifixion. This is the connection to the prophesy - at the very hour of His death, being in human form Himself, He is asking God the Father to forgive humanity and is interceding on all of our behalf. What Jesus does with individuals in individual encounters is different than what he is doing for mankind as a whole through His crucifixion.
  • I'm not alone in this viewpoint - others like Daniel have expressed their points so well I can only refer folks to read what they said rather than trying to paraphrase it again here.

The question, then, is how to reach closure on this issue. As a meritocracy, is there a way of defining an objective standard of evidence to settle matters like this? Thanks for considering this. --ChrisY 11:32, 2 March 2010 (EST)

ἀργύριον vs. ἄργυρος (Luke 22:5)

Isn't silver in lieu of money an archaic term and should be avoided? AugustO 08:28, 4 July 2012 (EDT)