Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,414
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 36:
Line 36: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated) (view source)
Revision as of 04:42, October 19, 2009
, 04:42, October 19, 2009no edit summary
:: 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:54, 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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) 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 diligent inspired 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: http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/gospels/print.asp
3. As for Jesus not forgiving the railing criminal, that in no way disallows Him from doing it to others. Grace is owed to no man, and God could have even brought Tyre and 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. [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 00:42, 19 October 2009 (EDT)