i think jesus was confused...or maybe luke and john were

[sincerly]

......and then we have him crying out to god, 'why have you forsaken me?'

Isn't this opening up another thread?? However, the answer is Jesus, as HIS Mission was, became/took on the sins of all mankind.

 

[waitasec]

Hi waitasec, the strawnan you built with phrases and out of context opinions has been explained by the consistantcy of the entire senario presented by the various writers of the Gospels.

the opinion based on each gospel are not out of context

Because one "Witness"/Writer emphysizes or speaks concerning a situation doesn't make anothers recording of the same event contradictory or inconsistant. Especially when the overall picture is expressed by all. That is why context is important in answering and obtaining/forming an Question and opinion.

the gospel of john is not a part of the synoptic gospels...can you tell me why that is...

Matthew and John were the two writers who were at the incidents under review.

moot

The disciples were asked to "watch and pray that you enter not into temption."(Matt.26:41)

the temptation of falling asleep...and watch for what?
again, if the hour is at hand why not turn himself in?

Peter had been warned that before the night was over he would deny Jesus three times.

right, so if jesus was able to predict that, why was he not able to predict his servant would fight to prevent his arrest in the gospel of john?

And the "Going" was to meet those who Jesus had been betrayed to---in fulfillment of the Scriptures.

it certainly doesn't matter if they fell asleep or not...the ball was in motion regardless had they fallen asleep or not if that is the case...

But also, They would be persecuted in the future as they presented the Gospel message to the world.

what does that have anything to do with what jesus said in the prevention of his arrest....nothing.

Yes, His "hour had come" for the fulfillment of the Scriptures to be the sacrifice/redemptiom for all of mankind who would believe.

moot

Physical swords will not prevent the arrest/ceasing of the Salvation message. However, by the restoration of the "whole man" by the truth of the sword"/"word of GOD" will prevent one from dying the "second death".

physical swords...salvation message...
wow... you are moving goal posts here :redcard:

Jesus was the fulfilling of the prophecies which HE showed in Luke 24:27, 44-48.
Jesus kept HIS appointment with "His hour had come".
Peter still hadn't understood Jesus mission as being to redeem fallen mankind.(rather than freeing the nation of Israel from the Roman Empire.)

moot...self fulfilling prophecy nonetheless.

still, why would he say that his servants wouldn't fight to prevent his arrest...it's there in luke, i didn't make it up, i promise.

Hey, don't let the context of the Scriptural truths keep you from believing that which you have conceived.

a legend may have truths in them, like king arthur and robin hood...still doesn't make the story fact... and what we see here are contradicting narratives if you were to put the gospels side by side...they don't add up in certain places, and if this is the purpose for which jesus came to earth then at least god should have made sure people reading this would get it straight

 

[waitasec]

Isn't this opening up another thread?? However, the answer is Jesus, as HIS Mission was, became/took on the sins of all mankind.

so? what does that have to do with him asking why he was forsaken...
didn't he already know that would happen, if he was the son of god?

 

[sincerly]

so? what does that have to do with him asking why he was forsaken...
didn't he already know that would happen, if he was the son of god?

Hi waitasec, In Christ's humanity and having taken onto HIMself all the sins committed by all persons who have ever lived and those who are yet to live prior to HIS return, He could NOT be in the presence of the sovereign GOD. Jesus Christ is figurative asking the question of those who HE Died for who refused to accept HIS Saving sacrifice. From Adam to the last person to be born.

You might consider Matt.7:21-23, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

He was/is the "Son of GOD" and His teachings showed that HE knew. The sad part is many had rather continue in disobedience than "Believe"---and they knowing the consequences.

 

[waitasec]

Hi waitasec, In Christ's humanity and having taken onto HIMself all the sins committed by all persons who have ever lived and those who are yet to live prior to HIS return, He could NOT be in the presence of the sovereign GOD. Jesus Christ is figurative asking the question of those who HE Died for who refused to accept HIS Saving sacrifice. From Adam to the last person to be born.

as jesus, son of god who is a part of the god head, he knew this was going to be the case... as jesus, son of god who is a part of the god head, he was able to predict peter denying him 3 times yet he was unable to know what would happen when he wasn't in the presence of himself?

yet...
he asked for swords
he was hiding out
he tried to flee
and he never flat out and told everyone who he was because he didn't want to die

over and over again he says he has come to do the will of his father...not his. and what was that exactly?

sure we can have a story of a man who performed miracles, taught us how to pray and then taught us how to treat one another and then become the ultimate human sacrifice and then proclaim, 'i am god the creator of this universe.' for he would know, as god the creator of the universe, that caesar (the roman authorities) would have him killed for saying such a thing and there would be the opportunity for him to sacrifice himself willingly. and that would be that. but we don't have that in any of the narratives. just a lot of apologetics and excuses for the inconsistencies found when comparing the 4 gospel stories, and certain theologies.

never mind the tension the jewish people were going through after the destruction of the temple and the revolt against the jewish leaders that happen to birth a new cult. no that could never it now can it...:sarcastic

 

[tarasan]

john18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

but then we have...

luke 22:36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.


...49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.


so then why did he ask his servants to get swords and why did his servants fight if his kingdom was not of this world?

I dont see the difficulty here, in those days robbers and wild animals populated the roads to and from places and it was customary to be armed. the only way i think these verses can be thought to be in contradiction is if you dont see the difference between self defence and attacking.

if we accept that the bible accepts that there are cases where people can legitimately defend themselves then these verses are easily interpreted.

The first verses were Jesus asking his disciples to defend themselves against wild animals and robbers while the last verse Peter was chastised for attacking.

the thing the main issue is biblically how do be determine between defending ourselves and attacking?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I rather doubt Jesus was ever confused....
However his Disciples were so, on many occasions.
And those who later recorded the various events, even more so.

Jesus became a legend soon after his death. It was never part of his mission to codify a religion or he would have done so.
Those that collected and wrote down his story had many problems, and we are left with many gaps and alternative versions of events.
Jesus worshipped God, he made it clear we were to worship God, and his teachings give us structure in how we should do this.
I rather doubt Jesus would recognise modern Christianity as following the pattern he left for us.

If anything, is is we that are the most confused.

 

[waitasec]

I dont see the difficulty here, in those days robbers and wild animals populated the roads to and from places and it was customary to be armed. the only way i think these verses can be thought to be in contradiction is if you dont see the difference between self defence and attacking.
if we accept that the bible accepts that there are cases where people can legitimately defend themselves then these verses are easily interpreted.
The first verses were Jesus asking his disciples to defend themselves against wild animals and robbers while the last verse Peter was chastised for attacking.

the thing the main issue is biblically how do be determine between defending ourselves and attacking?

well here is where is see the problem with your argument; jesus mentions isaiah 53:12.

luke 22:36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

 

[waitasec]

I rather doubt Jesus was ever confused....
However his Disciples were so, on many occasions.
And those who later recorded the various events, even more so.

Jesus became a legend soon after his death. It was never part of his mission to codify a religion or he would have done so.
Those that collected and wrote down his story had many problems, and we are left with many gaps and alternative versions of events.
Jesus worshipped God, he made it clear we were to worship God, and his teachings give us structure in how we should do this.
I rather doubt Jesus would recognise modern Christianity as following the pattern he left for us.

If anything, is is we that are the most confused.

well said indeed....

edit:
i just figured it was a eye catching title
the truth is, we don't know what jesus, whom ever he was, thought and it's ridiculous to even think we can

 

[outhouse]

If anything, is is we that are the most confused.

as we should be.

its my thought he had to many peyotes and shrooms out fasting in the desert, the way he talked in parables reminds me so much of schizophrenia

the man had to explain his parables with parables lol

 

[tarasan]

well here is where is see the problem with your argument; jesus mentions isaiah 53:12.

luke 22:36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

now if you could explain your point please
.

 

[waitasec]

now if you could explain your point please
.

my point being it has nothing to do with defensive measures, it's being targeted with the offenders of roman rule.

 

[sincerly]

as jesus, son of god who is a part of the god head, he knew this was going to be the case... as jesus, son of god who is a part of the god head, he was able to predict peter denying him 3 times yet he was unable to know what would happen when he wasn't in the presence of himself?

yet...
he asked for swords
he was hiding out
he tried to flee
and he never flat out and told everyone who he was because he didn't want to die

over and over again he says he has come to do the will of his father...not his. and what was that exactly?

sure we can have a story of a man who performed miracles, taught us how to pray and then taught us how to treat one another and then become the ultimate human sacrifice and then proclaim, 'i am god the creator of this universe.' for he would know, as god the creator of the universe, that caesar (the roman authorities) would have him killed for saying such a thing and there would be the opportunity for him to sacrifice himself willingly. and that would be that. but we don't have that in any of the narratives. just a lot of apologetics and excuses for the inconsistencies found when comparing the 4 gospel stories, and certain theologies.

Hi waitasec, we don't have your version/opinion/spin on the combined reports of the last events in Jesus Christ's life because in context of the events as a whole you view is just a concoction of your imagination----which you certainly have the option/right to freely do. However, a truth seeker sees the point Luke has emphasized---the truths of the events in the life of Jesus and how they relate to the salvation/redemption of disobedient mankind.

Waitasec, Yes, HE WILLINGLY]/b] did take the sins of mankind in order that HE might save those who believe. There is NO Forcing of any to accept and submit to the Father's Will---that is by Faith and a desire to have GOD as one's GOD.

Again, believe that which pleases you. Everyone will respond to the question asked by Pilate,(Matt.27:22), "What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?"

never mind the tension the jewish people were going through after the destruction of the temple and the revolt against the jewish leaders that happen to birth a new cult. no that could never it now can it...:sarcastic

Waitasec, There was no "new cult", The temple wasn't destroyed until A.D.70---some 40 years after the Crucifixion. Jesus' "church" had stated that the remnant of Jewish believers would continue in the "Oracles of GOD" and the Nation of Israel would no longer be considered HIS People. OT prophecy/fulfilled. The "followers of the Way" were hunted down by the Jewish people and the Roman Empire destroyed the Temple/Jerusalem because of continued revolts. No, your surmisings do not fulfill the prophecies.

 

[waitasec]

hi sincerly...

Hi waitasec, we don't have your version/opinion/spin on the combined reports of the last events in Jesus Christ's life because in context of the events as a whole you view
----which you certainly have the option/right to freely do. However, a truth seeker sees the point Luke has emphasized---the truths of the events in the life of Jesus and how they relate to the salvation/redemption of disobedient mankind.

can you elaborate

and let me ask you this, do you read the gospels from top to bottom rather than side to side by comparing each story?

Waitasec, Yes, HE WILLINGLY]/b] did take the sins of mankind in order that HE might save those who believe. There is NO Forcing of any to accept and submit to the Father's Will---that is by Faith and a desire to have GOD as one's GOD.

not my will but yours will be done....take this cup away

these are not statements of a person who is willing to be sacrificed...
what you are speaking of is a newer theology...

Again, believe that which pleases you. Everyone will respond to the question asked by Pilate,(Matt.27:22), "What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?"

moot..proves nothing and is circular reasoning.

Waitasec, There was no "new cult", The temple wasn't destroyed until A.D.70---some 40 years after the Crucifixion. Jesus' "church" had stated that the remnant of Jewish believers would continue in the "Oracles of GOD" and the Nation of Israel would no longer be considered HIS People. OT prophecy/fulfilled. The "followers of the Way" were hunted down by the Jewish people and the Roman Empire destroyed the Temple/Jerusalem because of continued revolts. No, your surmisings do not fulfill the prophecies.

again moot and your using circular logic here.
you should ask yourself, when were these gospels stories written....? after the destruction of the temple.

matthew wasn't written by matthew...the gospel was orally passed down until someone, who happened to be literate came along and wrote matthew's gospel...it's heresay, legend...and the same applies to the other gospels.
historically speaking, the jews were confused- why had god allowed for it's destruction AGAIN...
the jesus movement helped reconcile that dilemma as this was a pivotal point in judaism.. synagogues were now a place of worship and the pharisees were the ones that were against this new movement...which is why you see jesus depicted as being so hard on them. think about it, the christians were not going to side themselves with the jews. consider the gospel of john where he has pilate ask 3 times if he should let jesus free and pretty much blames the jews for crucifying jesus...that way they can distance themselves from the jews by blaming them for killing the messiah and not be associated with them as strife continued on after the destruction of the temple and guess when the gospel of john was written...between 90-100 CE...

 

[tarasan]

my point being it has nothing to do with defensive measures, it's being targeted with the offenders of roman rule.

Really because being numbered with the transgressors means that essentially the Messianic prophecy was about to be fulfilled that is it.

This shows nothing about Jesus expecting them to defend him once they came, in fact as you cited later on Jesus in fact did not want them to defend him at that time.

So again why cant them buying swords be out of tradition as well as defence from bandits and animals rather than fighting the Romans?

 

[waitasec]

Really because being numbered with the transgressors means that essentially the Messianic prophecy was about to be fulfilled that is it.

which makes what jesus said in john inconsistent with the messianic prophecy, don't you think?
“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

This shows nothing about Jesus expecting them to defend him once they came, in fact as you cited later on Jesus in fact did not want them to defend him at that time.

where did i say that?

So again why cant them buying swords be out of tradition as well as defence from bandits and animals rather than fighting the Romans?

because it doesn't fit in the context of the story as it was being laid out...nor would it fit the supposed prophecy in Is.

this is the context in luke:

14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”

17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.[a] 21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22 The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!” 23 They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.
24 A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

33 But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.”

34 Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

“Nothing,” they answered.

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.

 

[sincerly]

hi sincerly...

matthew wasn't written by matthew...the gospel was orally passed down until someone, who happened to be literate came along and wrote matthew's gospel...it's heresay, legend...and the same applies to the other gospels.
historically speaking, the jews were confused- why had god allowed for it's destruction AGAIN...

To the contrary, Matthew had been a tax collecter, Hardly one who was "illiterate". The "mootness" is seen in your replies which are not factual. The Gospels were written and expressed in the language to give the principles of the events and not to be verbatum for another's expressions. That fact actually strengthens the validity of the report. In this case, that these writings were concerning the validity of what all believers "BELIEVED". The Principles- not a repertition of words---per se.






the jesus movement helped reconcile that dilemma as this was a pivotal point in judaism.. synagogues were now a place of worship and the pharisees were the ones that were against this new movement...which is why you see jesus depicted as being so hard on them. think about it, the christians were not going to side themselves with the jews. consider the gospel of john where he has pilate ask 3 times if he should let jesus free and pretty much blames the jews for crucifying jesus...that way they can distance themselves from the jews by blaming them for killing the messiah and not be associated with them as strife continued on after the destruction of the temple and guess when the gospel of john was written...between 90-100 CE...[/quote]

 

[waitasec]

To the contrary, Matthew had been a tax collecter, Hardly one who was "illiterate". The "mootness" is seen in your replies which are not factual. The Gospels were written and expressed in the language to give the principles of the events and not to be verbatum for another's expressions. That fact actually strengthens the validity of the report. In this case, that these writings were concerning the validity of what all believers "BELIEVED". The Principles- not a repertition of words---per se.

you are 'sincerly' mistaken...

Authorship and sources
The Gospel of Matthew does not name its author. The Christian bishop, Papias of Hierapolis, about 100–140 AD, in a passage with several ambiguous phrases, wrote: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia—sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialektōi—perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen—or "translated") them as best he could."[4] On the surface this implies that Matthew was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, but Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation."[5] Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language.[4]
Papias does not identify his Matthew, but by the end of the 2nd century the tradition of Matthew the tax-collector had become widely accepted, and the line "The Gospel According to Matthew" began to be added to manuscripts.[6]

Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



here is an interesting piece you may be interested in
Watch The Full Program Online | From Jesus To Christ - The First Christians | FRONTLINE | PBS

it will give you an insight that not many pastors talk about...

 

[tarasan]

which makes what jesus said in john inconsistent with the messianic prophecy, don't you think?
“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

No not at all! why would even think that? all the prophecy says is that the messiah would dye im not sure what your trying to do with this.

where did i say that?

you quoted Luke were Jesus healed the Ear of the priest didnt you?

because it doesn't fit in the context of the story as it was being laid out...nor would it fit the supposed prophecy in Is.

this is the context in luke:

14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”

17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.[a] 21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22 The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!” 23 They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.
24 A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

33 But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.”

34 Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

“Nothing,” they answered.

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.

I am not seeing man.

 

[tarasan]

I have re read your question at the start just to make sure that I did not misunderstand. However I still see no contradiction in those it was customary to buy swords for self defence purposes. Peter was an overzealous idiot. There does not seem much left to be said.