No, this does not mean it is not accurate it just means that there are two different people telling a story. One chose to mention a part of Jesus's sermon and another chose to quote another part. It's like if two people witnessed a traffic accident and each one saw the same thing but each one may choose to tell what they saw according to what they perceive as the important points of the accident. It's from different points of view but it still doesn't mean it wasn't accurate. ------------------ Ni ai chou mei!
Jetta, Actually, in regards to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in Matthew...many of the teachings of Jesus are offered in this scene, yet Luke’s equivalent is a much reduced Sermon on the Plain, with many of the Mount sayings distributed all through the course of his version of Jesus’s ministry. Look at the Lord’s Prayer itself. Matthew includes it in the Sermon in front of vast crowds; Luke offers it at a private moment to his disciples who ask Jesus to teach them how to pray. These are big differences, not just different tellings of the same event. Both of these also contradict Paul, who said " For we do not know how to pray as we should"(Romans 8:26..had to look it up, hehe). What about other differences, such as post-resurrection appearances? Can they be at all reconciled? Matthew and Luke do not even agree on where such appearances took place. Matthew locates them in Galilee, Luke in Jerusalem. Mark ends his Gospel with no appearances at all. Then John is completely different. It has been well documented that John is more different than similar to the synoptics. Jesus is portrayed with a different personality, more forceful, more in control. He scarcely seems to suffer or show any weakness at all. John leaves out the entire Gethsemane scene, there is no suffering. The content of Jesus’s teaching in John is also different, with Jesus declaring openly his links with the Father, making blatant claims about himself, like I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, or, I am the Resurrection and the Life. If John is an eyewitness, what are the odds that this apostle would just happen to choose to record memories of Jesus that were entirely different from those of the other evangelists? For example, the "I am" sayings, several of which appear in John and make bold claims to some kind of exalted status for Jesus? None of the synoptics have any of these sayings. At the last meal Jesus shares with his disciples, John has him merely talk with them, making no mention at all about the establishment of the Eucharist. All the other evangelists record it. How could an apostle who was at the scene simply leave out this fundamentally important aspect of the event? This is different than just different accounts of a traffic accident, to use your example. How would it fly If I said the accident occured in Houston and you said it occured in Waco? ------------------ I have just realized that the stakes are myself I have no other ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over the roulette table, I recoup what I can nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move as we slither over this go board, stepping always (we hope) between the lines
Was Jesus a black man? ------------------ "Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever."
tacoma -- I hate to debate this, because it doesn't seem totally pertinent...but someone earlier called you to task for your presentation of Marx and other communist philosophers as coming from a faith background. I have to call you on your posts about the similarities between Christ and the mythical Osiris of Egypt. I was interested in your post, so I've done some research on the web and elsewhere. You said his mother, Nut, was a virgin. Not true. She was a goddess and was impregnated by another god, Seb/Geb/Keb (his name kept changing!). You said that Seb was a man (earthly father). He was not...he was one of a group of 9 gods. Thus, like in many other myths from around the world, his parents were both gods. Osiris was not Seb's only son, either...he had lots. I read of no evidence of a baptism or any of the talk of disciples that you posted. I checked numerous sources on this, and there was nothing about that at all. He was referred to as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords in hymn in the Book of Dead...but we see that kind of majestic imagery for gods in all religions...you could take swipes at any religion with that. There was no evidence of a transfiguration on amount or a sermon on the mount. In fact, it seems that his real work came after he was dead. He was not crucified by 2 thieves. He was killed by a jealous brother by being trapped in a huge chest that was pushed out to sea. That chest eventually washed up on the shore and was trapped in a huge tree...that's the only tree imagery I ran across at all...certainly far from a crucifixion. His body was found by his brother who quickly cut it up in little pieces and scattered it to the wind. Some people found it, waxed it and gave it to priests to be worshipped. It was not consumed. It was nothing like communion or the imagery of the Last Supper that we get from Christ. The only connection I could gather is that he was the god of resurrection because another god chose to turn herself into a fan to breath life back into his body. His son Horus...I don't know where you got the KRST stuff, particularly since they communicated not with a standard alphabet type written communication, but rather with picture-based hieroglypics....again, no mention of that from what I read of the Book of Dead (indexed) or other reference sources. Horus was known as the avenger because he avenged his father's death. He was said to look like a man-hawk. Obviously, I did not find the connections you did. I have seen stretches made to try to make Christ appear like those in myth to discredit him. That appears to me to be what has happened here. ------------------
rimbaud -- wait a second...I've got Romans 8:26 right in front of me (NIV). Paul doesn't say, "we do not know how to pray."...he says, "In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know WHAT WE OUGHT TO PRAY FOR, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express." How to pray and what to pray for seem entirely different to me. Let's keep scripture in its context, please. As for different pictures of how Jesus is portrayed. I will agree that the disciples all portray Jesus A BIT differently. In Mark we see a suffering servant...in John we see a triumphant king. I believe this is exactly what God intended. Because in Jesus there is clearly the God who humbled Himself, while still becoming triumphant through resurrection. These are not inconsistent. You misspeake when you say Mark ends with no post-resurrection experiences at all. He appears and gives the Great Commission in Mark 16:15...it speaks in verse 9 of him appearing to Mary Magdalene, though some argue that these verses were not in the most ancient manuscripts. I've read they appear, at least in part, in some of those translations...there is at least mention of post-resurrection contact with his apostles there. But, again, people tell stories differently. Perhaps Mark found the story complete at verse 8 where Mary Magdalene was told that Jesus' body was no longer in the tomb...He had been resurrected!! A nice place to end, quite frankly. I certainly don't think you can discredit the Bible because someone chooses to tell that part of the story and someone doesn't. There could be a million reasons for that! ------------------
it all depends which version you believe is the right one. like you said you were quoting the NIV. Here's what the RSV (Revised Standard Version) says "Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words." I don't think anyone knows what the original bible truly said as there have been so many translations and versions released. ------------------ [This message has been edited by outlaw (edited June 20, 2001).]
I think that we all have strong feelings about our faiths. The real problem isn't debating correctness because we absolutely cannot know beyond a shadow of a doubt what is true and what is not. Truth exists beyond our grasp. Faith is the only thing we have and it is only truth to us. What I wonder is, for all of our personal pontification, how much experience we actually have in the scholarly pursuit of our faith. There are Jesuit Monks who have dedicated their entire lives to the pursuit of a Christian faith but have widely divergent views on Jesus and his teachings. I've had Christian teachers and professors in high school and college that ranged from down right new agey to absolutely right wing conservative. The best professor I ever had taught a Life and Teachings of Christ course at UT and was a Protestant minister of some 35 years. He found the view of most Christians to be rather myopic when it came to God and Christ, but still maintained a conservative ideology in his personal life. Just like the Apostles had differening views of events, so do we. Our perception plays a significant role in shaping our faith. It is the nature of being human. I just hope that we all aren't so confident that we feel like we have the answers (even for ourselves) that will last us a lifetime. To quote the Matrix: "It's the question that drives us," as it should be. ------------------ Things do not change; we change. - Henry David Thoreau
Jeff -- you're absolutely right, there. I had a pastor tell me at a very early age that if you're not struggling in your walk with God, you're not growing. I would tend to agree. ------------------
Max, outlaw hit it, I was referring to the RSV. I will see if I can find other translations, to see if there is any commonality. ------------------ I have just realized that the stakes are myself I have no other ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over the roulette table, I recoup what I can nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move as we slither over this go board, stepping always (we hope) between the lines
outlaw -- you're right...but let's take this statement in context. Paul knew the Lord's Prayer. He knew that Jesus taught it. So I doubt very seriously that this apostle meant what is being implied here. He goes on to say in verse 27..."and he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will." It would seem that Paul is clearly talking about knowing God's will and WHAT to pray for. Clearly a reading of the surrounding text indicates what we're talking about here. So a little common sense goes a long way in reading the Bible, just as it does in reading any book or letter. It doesn't seem hard to figure out what he's talking about here, given the context. You are right that translations account for minor differences in understanding of particular words...but it doesn't change the content of the story of Christ dying on the cross to pay the cost for the sins of humanity. ------------------
Yes, there are bible scholars who know how to read Greek and Hebrew which is what original manuscripts of the bible are written in. Since most of us don't know Greek or Hebrew they are translated into to English, Chinese, Spanish, etc. If you truly would like to know the meaning you have to look at what the root word is in the orginal language. Kind of like reading an English translation of the Little Prince (originally in French) or the Illiad or The Odyssey. ------------------ Ni ai chou mei!
JettaKnight: I didn't know much of Le Petit Prince was lost in translation . ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
yes but this was hebrew, greek and latin of 2000+ years ago. words change meaning within a language over time. look at the evolution of the english language from shakespeare to now. translators are not perfect and often inject their own biases into the work. ------------------ [This message has been edited by outlaw (edited June 20, 2001).]
Regarding the issue of variances in reporting by the apostles, the differences are substantive and numerous. When two apostles quote Jesus differently, as in the "Judge not" v. "condemn not" passages, we can readily conclude the substance of the statements. However, the differences should be our clue that placing too great a confidence in the language we read today is a mistake. It is on this issue that I depart from my brethren who believe they can divine the meaning of every passage in the good book. When one considers all the matters which have been properly raised by many on this thread, it should be sufficient to cause a thinking person to wonder about the weight one can attach to any particular verse. For me, it is a matter of reading it as a whole and gleaning from it the lessons which seem to endure. The story of David's sending Bathsheba's husband to the front lines to die, taking her as his own, and losing the resultant child is a moral lesson which transcends its truth vel non. From my perspective, it does not matter if there really never was a King David, or if there was, if that really happened. The lesson remains irrespective. I prefer to believe that if Jesus had wanted to make everything perfectly clear, he would have. It is supposed to be a constant moral struggle. ------------------ Some days you eat the bear. Some days the bear eats you.
Okay, what was Romeo and Juliet about to you then? The meaning is still the same. ------------------ Ni ai chou mei!
Our discussions have avoided the money question. What really sets apart people in their interpretation of the bible is this: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ANY PERSON WHO IS AN ADULT WHO HAS NOT ACCEPTED JESUS AS THEIR SAVIOR IS FATED TO ETERNAL DAMNATION? I do not believe that. How do you answer the question? ------------------ Some days you eat the bear. Some days the bear eats you.
I just read the story of the mother who drowned her five children, and it immediately made me think of this thread. Someone a couple of days ago said that God does care about the outcome of an NBA game. How is it God can care about the game, but not these 5 innocents? I do not buy it. God is simply not present in every action, every event. ------------------ Some days you eat the bear. Some days the bear eats you.
if someone says "God works in mysterious ways" or "God has a plan for all" about this situation I think I will puke. ------------------
To ask me to give you a definite answer on this would be assuming you thought I was God. Only God can bring judgement and decide who goes to Hell or Heaven. However, he has given us a guidebook and answer to know how to get to Heaven for sure (The Holy Bible). Believe in Christ, that he is the son of God(not just some prophet, teacher, etc), and that he died and rose again on the third day. Believe this and you have eternal salvation. Now, it would seem to me that if you don't believe this and Judgement Day comes you will probably end up in Hell and eternal separation from God. ("The wages of sin is death." -Romans 6:23) ------------------ Ni ai chou mei!
