Did Jesus lie?

[Jon reign]

Y'know, I don't know what 'scholars', you're talking about, nor do I particularly care. The Apostles would have known what Jesus said, and I believe they wrote much of that in time, not later, when they compiled the texts.

Why are you offended? I've literally only asked you questions and made non inflammtory comments.

 

[Jon reign]

There is a 'yet', in the Greek text.

The KJV preserves this, one might say it's a good translation.

Would you agree that the kjv has serious errors as well, according to biblical scholars?

 

[siti]

I was just wondering if you could contextualize this in its original language

I think it is impossible to tell - Westcott and Hort, Nestle-Aland and Tischendorf's texts seem to use οὐκ (in the first part of John 7:8) which is most often translated "not" where it occurs in other places, but most other Greek texts including the Textus Receptus use the Greek word οὔπω which does indeed mean "not yet". I have absolutely no idea whether there is any compelling evidence for one over the other - or whether it really makes any difference.

 

[Ingledsva]

This does sound like a a lie to me.
John 7:6-10 NLT
Jesus replied, "Now is not the right time for me to go, but you can go anytime. [7] The world can't hate you, but it does hate me because I accuse it of doing evil. [8] You go on. I'm not going to this festival, because my time has not yet come." [9] After saying these things, Jesus remained in Galilee. [10] But after his brothers left for the festival, Jesus also went, though secretly, staying out of public view.
This proves Jesus is a sinner. Or does it not?

The Strong's numbers are G305 and G3768, so it is -

305. go up/come up/rise up - 3768. not yet/as yet not/

Joh 7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.

So it just means - go up at a later time.

In 7 he tells us he is in danger, but they are still safe to go without him. In 8-10 he is saying he will come later, alone - draw less attention, - because it wasn't time to make his stand yet.

*

 

[Jon reign]

You need to reference verses, that question is too vague.

The KJV has some non literal word and name translations, and since it is in the English language, the intent of meaning, may not be particularly clear, going from language to language.
When read contextually, I have found perhaps a few verses that I would personally revise, for non contradiction, clarity.
I also disagree with the modern idea of LORD, to Lord differentiation, as that can be argued, via verses in the New Testament, and, generally, I just find it odd.

And a virgin shall be with child and call his name Immanuel. Virgin being a translation error. John 1:1 ho theos vs ton theos scholarly debate. Definite or indefinite particle

 

[Desert Snake]

And a virgin shall be with child and call his name Immanuel. Virgin being a translation error. John 1:1 ho theos vs ton theos scholarly debate. Definite or indefinite particle

You might be interested in these threads, where I discuss various verses in the book of John:

Something I wrote, concerning contradictions in the Bible. In this context, same faith debates. I believe that many Christians might be interpreting some verses incorrectly, and, this is a good example:

The Gospels were written by different people, they may present slightly different wording concerning God. The reason why this isn't a problem, is because Jesus Himself informs the religion, at various places. In other words, you default to what you know the religion is, by direct inference, even if there is confusion from gospel to gospel, because of wording. This always informs the correct interpretation, and, brings a realness to the Gospels, as one realizes that they truly are personal gospels, concerning Jesus.

Now, in the instance of an argument, or wrong, contradictory interpretation, you default to textual direct inference. Most of the contradictions actually, are from a wrong methodology in the first place, rather than an actual 'contradiction'. The Greek language word usage can be utilized to determine whether something is contradicting, or, the word in English needs specific interpretation, /to negate a contradiction/. In the instance where you don't know, or it is either or, you have to interpret according to what it should mean.
Now, in the Greek language, Jesus is 'God', in the text. Hence, at John 1:18
We would surmise that 'God', here, means Jesus form, Himself, not the Abba, for example.
Hence , 'Jesus is one with the Abba', we know that Jesus declaring God, means Jesus as God, in JESUS form, and in Yisrael.


Hence, the God that wasn't perceived, is JESUS, not the Abba.

Thusly, even though at first, it might seem like there is a contradiction there, there isn't one, and, Yochanan, isn't making a 'mistake', either.

Common interpretations of this verse, and it seems a few other verses, in the book of John, present a contradiction; whether they can be interpreted without contradiction , is the objective of this thread.

Meatball verses in the Book of John, that many, it seems interpret in a manner, that contradicts Scripture, Jesus's own allusions to Scripture, and, traditional belief.

How do you interpret these verses?
John 1:18
John 6:45
John 6:46
John 6:47

Is John contradicting the religion of Jesus? Is Jesus contradicting His own religion?

In another thread, I present interpretations that offer no contradictions, however, it can be noted that certain verses in the Book of John, seem to be commonly used, to present a contradictory, or questionable religious perspective. It is interesting that the book of John seems to the go to source, for these, seemingly contradictory, or false, concepts, commonly presented.

The thread in which I interpret these verses in a non contradictory manner, is same faith debates dir

 

[Ingledsva]

You might be interested in these threads, where I discuss various verses in the book of John:How do you interpret these verses?
John 1:18
John 6:45
John 6:46
John 6:47

Is John contradicting the religion of Jesus? Is Jesus contradicting His own religion?

In another thread, I present interpretations that offer no contradictions...

I find no contradiction because he never said he was God/YHVH.

He is claiming to be the awaited Messiah, imbued with the word of YHVH.

Thus when you see his actions, and hear his words (Tanakh,) you see and hear YHVH.

It does not in any way mean Jesus is God/YHVH, or part of a trinity, or that you are actually seeing YHVH.

*

 

[Jon reign]

If all of the prophecies of the messiah to come are from the old testament, isn't it strange that the Jews never held the belief that the messiah would be God incarnate. In other words, doesn't the fact that the Jews do not think that the messiah is God indicate that there is no scriptural evidence to suggest they should believe that. The fact that the Jews reject Jesus as the messiah is irrelevant. I mean in their religious understanding of the Torah, God cannot become a human incarnate. Why would they have reached such a conclusion?

 

[InChrist]

This does sound like a a lie to me.
John 7:6-10 NLT
Jesus replied, "Now is not the right time for me to go, but you can go anytime. [7] The world can't hate you, but it does hate me because I accuse it of doing evil. [8] You go on. I'm not going to this festival, because my time has not yet come." [9] After saying these things, Jesus remained in Galilee. [10] But after his brothers left for the festival, Jesus also went, though secretly, staying out of public view.
This proves Jesus is a sinner. Or does it not?

Other versions have the word 'yet"...

Then Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always ready. The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil. You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come.” When He had said these things to them, He remained in Galilee. But when His brothers had gone up, then He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret. John 7:6-10 NKJV

Also, there may be other things to consider, rather than that Jesus was lying...

"First of all, several early manuscripts of the gospel of John, including p66 and p75 (believed to be from as early as the late second and early third centuries), have Jesus saying, “I am not yet [oupo] going up to this feast,” rather than “I do not [ouk] go up to this feast.” Thus, it may be that the correct rendering is found in the KJV, NKJV, and NIV, rather than the ASV, NASB, and RSV.

Second, even if Jesus did say at one point to His brothers, “I do not go up to this feast,” but later He went, that still does not mean that He lied. Suppose a co-worker saw me leaving the office at 2:00 p.m. and asked me, “Are you going home?” and I said, “No,” but later went home that day at 5:00 p.m. Have I lied? Not at all. When I left the office at 2:00 p.m., I went to run a quick errand—I did not go home. When I departed the office at 5:00 p.m., however, I went home. “No” is often truthfully used in a time-sensitive manner. Simply because at 2:00 p.m. I said I was not going home, does not mean I could not go home at 5:00 p.m. My “no” meant “I’m not going home at the present.” Similarly, if Jesus used the term “not” [ouk] rather than “not yet” [oupo], He could just as easily been implying the same thing: “I am not going to the feast at the present.”
Did Jesus Lie to His Brothers?

 

[wizanda]

This proves Jesus is a sinner. Or does it not?

The Gospel of John is made up.

In my opinion.

 

[Desert Snake]

I find no contradiction because he never said he was God/YHVH.

He is claiming to be the awaited Messiah, imbued with the word of YHVH.

Thus when you see his actions, and hear his words (Tanakh,) you see and hear YHVH.

It does not in any way mean Jesus is God/YHVH, or part of a trinity, or that you are actually seeing YHVH.

*

The contradiction, might happen, if a church, say, claims that it is a litetal verse, then, does not explain how it can be literal, without contradicting other verses.

If they explain how they are reading that literally, without contradicting other verses, then, it is just their interpretation...

In other words, they need to explain their other interpretations, of the verses, so they don't contradict.

 

[Desert Snake]

I find no contradiction because he never said he was God/YHVH.

He is claiming to be the awaited Messiah, imbued with the word of YHVH.

Thus when you see his actions, and hear his words (Tanakh,) you see and hear YHVH.

It does not in any way mean Jesus is God/YHVH, or part of a trinity, or that you are actually seeing YHVH.

*

Whether John writes that Jesus is God, isn't going to affect my beliefs, regarding that. John could write that Jesus isn't God, and it wouldn't affect my beliefs, regarding that.

 

[Desert Snake]

If all of the prophecies of the messiah to come are from the old testament, isn't it strange that the Jews never held the belief that the messiah would be God incarnate. In other words, doesn't the fact that the Jews do not think that the messiah is God indicate that there is no scriptural evidence to suggest they should believe that. The fact that the Jews reject Jesus as the messiah is irrelevant. I mean in their religious understanding of the Torah, God cannot become a human incarnate. Why would they have reached such a conclusion?

I don't practice Judaism, that does not determine how I read the text, the Bible, or, my beliefs.

 

[Ingledsva]

I don't practice Judaism, that does not determine how I read the text, the Bible, or, my beliefs.

It also says the Messiah is supposed to be from the line of David. Jesus isn't.

*

 

[Desert Snake]

It also says the Messiah is supposed to be from the line of David. Jesus isn't.

*

Josephus calls Jesus, 'the Jewish Messiah'. So, your definition of Messiah, needs revision, or, you have a messiah belief that doesn't match anything, or, you are practicing Judaism, or, you just don't like Scripture, or, who knows.

I'm not going with your definition.

 

[Ingledsva]

Josephus calls Jesus, 'the Jewish Messiah'. So, your definition of Messiah, needs revision, or, you have a messiah belief that doesn't match anything, or, you are practicing Judaism, or, you just don't like Scripture, or, who knows.

I'm not going with your definition.

Are you referring to this - from Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews - "Testimonium Flavianum"

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Whitson, 379)

It is thought to be altered or totally written by Eusebius in the fourth century.

Also why would Josephus telling us something he heard about Jesus' followers actually make Jesus the "Jewish Messiah?"

Also, you do realize that Josephus wasn't always truthful - yes?

Jews don't believe he was their Messiah because he did not fulfill the requirements.

*

 

[Desert Snake]

Are you referring to this - from Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews - "Testimonium Flavianum"

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Whitson, 379)

It is thought to be altered or totally written by Eusebius in the fourth century.

So, everything is fake? Any thing written that doesn't agree with your religious beliefs, is just made up? That assertion really just seems random.

Also why would Josephus telling us something he heard about Jesus' followers actually make Jesus the "Jewish Messiah?"

Also, you do realize that Josephus wasn't always truthful - yes?

Jew don't believe he was their Messiah because he did not fulfill the requirements.

*

Josephus had no problem stating that, obviously he wouldn't make a statement that would be outright non word usage. No matter what Josephus believed religiously, it is bad for your argument.

 

[Neb]

I don't like the NLT myself.

In the KJV or YLT we read:

6 Jesus, therefore, saith to them, `My time is not yet present, but your time is always ready;
7 the world is not able to hate you, but me it doth hate, because I testify concerning it that its works are evil.
8 Ye -- go ye up to this feast; I do not yet go up to this feast, because my time hath not yet been fulfilled;'
9 and saying these things to them, he remained in Galilee.
10 And when his brethren went up, then also he himself went up to the feast, not manifestly, but as in secret;

I prefer the versions that say "I do not yet go up to this feast" There is no reason for me to doubt them. This is based off of the venerable and trusted Textus Receptus. The new translations use other sources that are not as trustworthy in my opinion. Their argument being that these documents are older. But just because something is older doesn't mean it's more trustworthy. After all it's still a so called copy. So a copy not the original source document. That means the Textus Receptus is more trustworthy because these other copies were not used likely for a very good reason.

In verse 1 it says: "He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him." Now, since His "time has not yet fully come" - verse 8, "He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as if, in secret." -verse 10, ie, because verses 1 and 8 is about HIS death so instead of showing "publicly" as suggested by His brothers in verses 3-4 He went "in secret". IOW, He did not lie because His time is predetermined by God, not by his brothers which is anytime.