389
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 156:
Line 156: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated) (view source)
Revision as of 16:32, March 2, 2010
, 16:32, March 2, 2010→Reaching closure on 23:34: new section
: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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:04, 24 February 2010 (EST)
: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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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.<br/>
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. <br/>
*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.<br/>
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. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:32, 2 March 2010 (EST)