Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated)

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: http://www.cai.org/faq/kvj-part-2) 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: http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/gospels/print.asp

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 by attempts by liberals to hijacking the text.Daniel1212 21:56, 26 October 2009 (EDT)