The sign said, "This is Jesus of Galilae, the lion of Judah" in Persian and chinese.
What did the sign over Jesus say?
17 Comments - 3198 Views
Errors
Submitted By ben on 09/02/21
Ninnies
According to Matthew 27:37
And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS
THE KING OF THE JEWS.
According to Mark 15:26
And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE
KING OF THE JEWS.
According to Luke 23:38
And a superscription also was written over him in letters of
Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
According to John 19:19
And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the
writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Which one is right? We could look at contemporaneous historians but, well there are none. The closest was Josephus but he is silent on the details (and it is disputed if he even wrote of Jesus at all).
» Reply to CommentThe sign said, "This is Jesus of Galilae, the
9tails
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/02/21 - 3:10 GMT
» Reply to CommentSure. The rest is made up so you may as well
Sure. The rest is made up so you may as well have a go as well.
» Reply to CommentThose who trust GOD have no problem harmonizing th
Those who trust GOD have no problem harmonizing the Gospels. There is no contradiction if the sign simply said, “This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews.” The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all scripture is given by inspiration of GOD” (2 Timothy 3:16)’ and 2) an elementary rule of scripture is that GOD has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes (the common people)” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (Corinthians 1:27). It’s interesting to note that the SEEMING contradictions in the four Gospels attest to the fact that there was no corroboration between the writers. I will google some scholarly picks though.
» Reply to CommentAw...! Check this out. Dr. F. Furman Kearley on th
Aw...! Check this out. Dr. F. Furman Kearley on this scholarly article explains it much better than I. Just scroll down to page 12 and 13 and there is clearly no problem or contradiction.
http://apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Alleged-Contradictions-in-the-G.pdf
» Reply to CommentI like how he says it is okay because they mu
I like how he says it is okay because they must have just thought it was understood. The divine word of God is not complete but that is okay.
It is also funny that he says if it was different then people would have rejected those books as canon. If he were a scholar he would have known about the council of Nicaea right?
» Reply to CommentSure you can trust that God is deceitful. How
Sure you can trust that God is deceitful. How interesting that you use that as an example of them not working together but clearly Matthew and Luke were copied from the earlier Mark. Matthew embellished more than Luke but those two have more contradictions with each other such as placing the birth of Jesus at least 10 years apart.
» Reply to CommentDid you check out that article? It may help. Let m
Did you check out the article? It may help. Let me know if you can understand it. Have a good night angrily blogging away. (Here it is again if you missed it). http://apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Alleged-Contradictions-in-the-G.pdf
» Reply to CommentOf course I can understand it. The bible is r
Of course I can understand it. The bible is right even when wrong because God wants to trick us. That is why God puts evidence of a Big Bang that didn't happen or puts evidence of evolution that doesn't happen. He wants us to have faith and not use logic and reason.
It is not sound but it is theology.
» Reply to CommentI dont understand why people would believe in
I dont understand why people would believe in a deceiful God. Its clear that if there is a god, he uses evolution as his creative tool. Why is that so hard for the apologists to deal with?
» Reply to CommentBasically you are saying, even though they're
Basically you are saying, even though they're all different and contradict each other, we are able to ignore the obvious, glaring flaws because we BELIIIEEEEVVEE!!!!
If the book were really written by a god, it would have predicted general relativity, it would leave us in awe, and it would not have a single mistake. The bible fails every one of those tests.
» Reply to CommentYes Mathew had to copy the story of his own life f
Yes Mathew had to copy the story of his own life from an outstanding apprentice he helped train. Ben your so funny I dont even watch Red Green any more.
» Reply to CommentSo he wrote it when he was 90? Come on, you d
So he wrote it when he was 90? Come on, you don't honestly think Matthew was written by Matthew the apostle. It was not until the 2nd century that they put Matthew's name on it.
It is actually clear linguistically that Matthew was written using Mark and Q.
You have to know more about the history of the bible given your extensive knowledge of Greek. ;)
» Reply to CommentAlthough the author is anonymous. The reasons why
Although the author is anonymous. The reasons why the early church bishops believed the author was matthew is because of the account of the call of Matthew in chapter 9 followed by the meal taken by Jesus in the company of "publicans and sinners." One valid translation of this says this feast took place "at home." The paralell account in Mark 2:15 clearly says this feast took place in Levi's (Matthew's) house. The phrase 'at home' would then mean "in his (that is , in the author's ) house."
» Reply to CommentThat is an interesting claim. It doesn't fit the s
That is an interesting claim. It doesn't fit the style of Greek used but interesting anyway. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Matthew)
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/SFS/an0196.asp
While they are Christian they also say that Matthew didn't actually write Matthew. They assert that some of Matthew's notes were incorporated (giving the one verse that you state).
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/SFS/an0196.asp
While they are Christian they also say that Matthew didn't actually write Matthew. They assert that some of Matthew's notes were incorporated (giving the one verse that you state).
Have you ever wondered why Peter and James don't write about all of those miracles when they were the ones that see them. Mark is the one that starts that and the later books really expand upon those. John is the only outlier and that is only if you think John wrote that gospel and that is a huge presumption.
» Reply to CommentThere is evidence that some of the gospels were pi
There is evidence that some of the gospels were pieced together from previous works but it is certainly not conclusive. Mathews name was put on the gospel because the best research of the time indicated him as the author. Origen named him 185-254 AD. He quotes a long standing tradition in doing so. I can give you the exact quote if you want it. Its a paragraph. So did Eusebius. Mathew was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and is believed by most to be one of the first gospels. I have noticed several dates that put it around AD 50. Was Mathew 90? Perhaps if he met Jesus when he was 70. The synoptic problem you mention has been largely discredited. Because 4 people tell the same story and it sounds like the same story does not indicate literary dependency. Boy am I glad they found that out before the rest of the world found out they were total idiots. Sadly some Biblical scholars could exist in no other discipline, theyre that bad. I would like to read your research Ben if you recall it, I might have missed something and I am always interested in keeping up to speed. it is no secret that some of the books were anonamous. The research I have in front of me doesnt indicate Mathew was one of these.
» Reply to CommentDo you want a published (peer reviewed) artic
Do you want a published (peer reviewed) article or just web articles from universities?
» Reply to CommentPeer reviewed would be great. I like opposing po
Peer reviewed would be great. I like opposing points of view but tend to allot a bunch of guys tripping over themselves to agree to an undisclosed finding as humour. Dont need to go to the bother of the article, just a quote or site will be fine. Thanx
None of this site's content is copyrighted, unless it specifically says otherwise.
