It's actually an interesting subject that in part led me to affirmatively reject my fundamentalist upbringing. Let me ask you this. How many letters did Paul write to the Corinthians? Who decided which one's made it into your bible, and when did they decide it? What about the deutero-canonical books, they made it all the way to the early versions of the KJV, are you familiar with their contents? Heck, who decided what to put in the the entire new testament and when did they decide? And I'll ask again, what were the last words of Jesus? That would seem to be a pretty important quote, if nothing else a divinely inspired infallible book certainly would have gotten that right. Can you enlighten us on what those words were? This big question is why so few fundamentalists have even stopped to think about where the book they believe is infallibly true to the last word came from, when the answers are trivially easy to come by. You can call me a lot of things, but if you're going to call me uninformed about the origins of the christian religion you'll need to provide some backing for that assertion and ideally you won't have just googled it given that you're basing your entire worldview on this.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Four in One Gospel of Jeshua HaMashiach
- Thread starter expiated
- Start date
There's no reason to doubt that a guy named Jesus existed (although quite clearly with that name he was probably hispanic!). Maybe not a guy named Luke, more likely a group of guys. Probably around 2000 years ago. The hispanic guy was probably charismatic and may very well have had a small following. Probably didn't walk on water, or turn water into wine, or raise himself from the dead. Might not have even been crucified (what exactly were the last words of Jesus, by the way, for the scriptural literalists among us?) Clearly the story was modified over the last 2000 years to meet various political aims of various leaders, as well as ease it's acceptance among those following various earlier religions. But I think it does a disservice to rational thinking to claim that an actual guy roughly matching the description provided and a group of people somewhat contemporaneous to him definitely didn't exist. Like all urban legends, this one probably is formed around a small kernel of truth, if for no other reason than that it's just easier than making it up from nothing.
There's a theory that Jesus was also black. How would so many Europeans feel about that?
Well... he didn't get much of a fair trial.... so at least that part fits.There's a theory that Jesus was also black.
And I'll ask again, what were the last words of Jesus?
As He gave up his spirit on the cross, "It is Finished".
Forty days after His resurrection, as He ascended back to the Father, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
Later he asked Saul, "Why do you persecute Me? Is it hard for you to kick against the goads?
He spoke to the Apostle John in a vision in His letter to the seven Churches. A letter that was written to both literally seven historical churches of the time, but we now understand it was also prophetic and a symbolic history of the spiritual decline of the modern Church. Sadly to the Laodicean Church (the last Church before Jesus' 2nd coming) Christ is seen standing at the door knocking, asking to enter.
That's what we have recorded, but as for the living 2nd person of the divine Godhead? What did my High Priest say as He interceded on my behalf yesterday?
What will he say when He returns to judge the nations?
What will the Judge say to you? "Well done, or depart from me, I never knew you.
Last edited:
First off it's interesting that you made up your own version of that verse rather than quoting the actual verse, or is that some version of the bible I'm unfamiliar with? Generally John 19:30 goes something like "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." (KJV) But more importantly, according to Luke 23:46, "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." (also KJV) and according to Matthew 27 his last words were "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (also KJV)As He gave up his spirit on the cross, "It is Finished".
Wow, we have allegations that three completely different things were the last words of Jesus. Talk about internal inconsistency! I can see maybe a little transcription error on some unimportant citation of who begat whom in Genesis, but something as important as the last words of Jesus and the infallible holy book that was written by god and is accurate to the last word that we must follow literally, claims three completely different utterances for something this crucial? Just think how many other internal inconsistencies there must be (lots, for those of you who haven't actually critically read the entire book you believe we should follow word for word).
Now that kind of thing is entirely expected if this book is a compilation of stories that were put together some time after the death of this Jesus fellow, based on cherry picked oral stories that just might have seen some embellishment over the years, modified by various rulers to fit their aims from Constantine to the ever famous King James I, who personally oversaw torturing of women he thought were witches, along with commissioning the KJV of the bible that so many fundamentalists seem to oddly believe is superior to any other version, given how enlightened we all were in 1600. It's entirely inconsistent with the idea that it's some divine perfect book direct from gods lips to the fundamentalists ears. No doubt there are some tortured explanations by apologists for these inconsistencies ("Luke was further down the hill so what he thought were his words immediately before he "gave up the ghost" were different from what John heard immediately before he "gave up the ghost"". And how dare you question the bible, you do know what GOD thinks about those who question him don't you" was the response I got when asking the question.) I'll go with Occam's Razor and decline to base my life and morals on a book written by a bunch of folks who couldn't make it out of 3rd grade today. Turns out I don't need a sacred book to tell me I can't murder, steal, and rape in order to refrain from doing so, but then I'm just "uninformed" aren't I?
First off it's interesting that you made up your own version of that verse rather than quoting the actual verse, or is that some version of the bible I'm unfamiliar with? Generally John 19:30 goes something like "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." (KJV) But more importantly, according to Luke 23:46, "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." (also KJV) and according to Matthew 27 his last words were "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (also KJV)
Wow, we have allegations that three completely different things were the last words of Jesus. Talk about internal inconsistency! I can see maybe a little transcription error on some unimportant citation of who begat whom in Genesis, but something as important as the last words of Jesus and the infallible holy book that was written by god and is accurate to the last word that we must follow literally, claims three completely different utterances for something this crucial? Just think how many other internal inconsistencies there must be (lots, for those of you who haven't actually critically read the entire book you believe we should follow word for word).
Now that kind of thing is entirely expected if this book is a compilation of stories that were put together some time after the death of this Jesus fellow, based on cherry picked oral stories that just might have seen some embellishment over the years, modified by various rulers to fit their aims from Constantine to the ever famous King James I, who personally oversaw torturing of women he thought were witches, along with commissioning the KJV of the bible that so many fundamentalists seem to oddly believe is superior to any other version, given how enlightened we all were in 1600. It's entirely inconsistent with the idea that it's some divine perfect book direct from gods lips to the fundamentalists ears. No doubt there are some tortured explanations by apologists for these inconsistencies ("Luke was further down the hill so what he thought were his words immediately before he "gave up the ghost" were different from what John heard immediately before he "gave up the ghost"". And how dare you question the bible, you do know what GOD thinks about those who question him don't you" was the response I got when asking the question.) I'll go with Occam's Razor and decline to base my life and morals on a book written by a bunch of folks who couldn't make it out of 3rd grade today. Turns out I don't need a sacred book to tell me I can't murder, steal, and rape in order to refrain from doing so, but then I'm just "uninformed" aren't I?
I didn't know I needed to provide chapter and verse. You quote Matthew 27:48, And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
But you look past verse 50. Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
Matthew under inspiration from the Holy Spirit didn't record Jesus' words at this moment. Regardless of which Gospel, your so called inconsistencies change neither the subject or meaning of what happened. FYI each Gospel was originally written to specific but difference audiences. Hence details, language structure, etc. were specifically written for the benefit of the intended reader and to portray Christ in a specific manner.
You missed the entire meaning of my post, these are not Jesus' last words.
I will agree with you on one thing. Man fails miserably when he operates from the flesh.
You don't need to provide chapter and verse, I already know them. Providing your version of a verse that doesn't appear in any bible is, as I pointed out, interesting given that we're talking about a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible in which every word is perfect and placed there by god. Apparently you don't subscribe to that theory, given that you put the verse in your own words, but then neither do I so I don't criticize just point it out.I didn't know I needed to provide chapter and verse. You quote Matthew 27:48, And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
But you look past verse 50. Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
Matthew under inspiration from the Holy Spirit didn't record Jesus' words at this moment. Regardless of which Gospel, your so called inconsistencies change neither the subject or meaning of what happened. FYI each Gospel was originally written to specific but difference audiences. Hence details, language structure, etc. were specifically written for the benefit of the intended reader and to portray Christ in a specific manner.
You missed the entire meaning of my post, these are not Jesus' last words.
I will agree with you on one thing. Man fails miserably when he operates from the flesh.
Also very interesting that you first implicitly agree that it is important that the bible represents the literal last words of Jesus by pointing out that "cried" could have meant "said one of two mutually exclusive phrases otherwise reported". And then go on to say that "so called inconsistencies" (what exactly is "so called" about them again, the fact that they're inconvenient for you?) are there because what matters is the "subject or meaning of what happened" and "each Gospel was originally written to specific but difference audiences. Hence details, language structure, etc. were specifically written for the benefit of the intended reader and to portray Christ in a specific manner." That explanation makes some sort of sense, but is entirely inconsistent with a literal reading of the bible and all fundamentalist belief systems. If you believe that, then sorry, you're going to have to give up the whole set of religious based bigotry aimed at gay folks, anti-birth control, anti-HPV vaccine, creationism....and the rest of the garbage the religious right pedals based on a literal reading of every word as perfect and sacred. And if you're the type of Christian who believes that the "subject or meaning of what happened" is what matters, not the literal words, to be honest I've got no problem with that. Just don't claim that every word must be read literally and then with the next breath claim it's all about "the subject or meaning" or even more laughable that the difference between John and Luke is "language structure" (give me a break!).
Last edited:
You don't need to provide chapter and verse, I already know them. Providing your version of a verse that doesn't appear in any bible is, as I pointed out, interesting given that we're talking about a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible in which every word is perfect and placed there by god. Apparently you don't subscribe to that theory, given that you put the verse in your own words, but then neither do I so I don't criticize just point it out.
Also very interesting that you first implicitly agree that it is important that the bible represents the literal last words of Jesus by pointing out that "cried" could have meant "said one of two mutually exclusive phrases otherwise reported". And then go on to say that "so called inconsistencies" (what exactly is "so called" about them again, the fact that they're inconvenient for you?) are there because what matters is the "subject or meaning of what happened" and "each Gospel was originally written to specific but difference audiences. Hence details, language structure, etc. were specifically written for the benefit of the intended reader and to portray Christ in a specific manner." That explanation makes some sort of sense, but is entirely inconsistent with a literal reading of the bible and all fundamentalist belief systems. If you believe that, then sorry, you're going to have to give up the whole set of religious based bigotry aimed at gay folks, anti-birth control, anti-HPV vaccine, creationism....and the rest of the garbage the religious right pedals based on a literal reading of every word as perfect and sacred. And if you're the type of Christian who believes that the "subject or meaning of what happened" is what matters, not the literal words, to be honest I've got no problem with that. Just don't claim that every word must be read literally and then with the next breath claim it's all about "the subject or meaning" or even more laughable that the difference between John and Luke is "language structure" (give me a break!).
????
John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
I said, not quoting a specific scripture but relating to his last words on the cross, "as He gave up his Spirit on the cross, It is Finished".
"It is Finished" was the subject and answer to your question. You seem to have a habit of taking things "literally" out of context.
When John said he saw a beast with 7 heads and 10 horns, was that symbolic or literal?
When Jesus was asked what was the greatest commandment he replied, staying in Matthew here....." Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment".... Was that symbolic or literal?
If you want a deeper understanding of scripture I'd suggest you brush up on your Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, but you'll just come to the same basic translation, although things may be labeled or translated a bit differently here and there the message remains still the same. And yes there's a huge difference in style, structure, content, reasons why Jesus' origin/lineage or lack thereof are recorded as they are. And why each Gospel's account and choice of ending points differs. It was written to different peoples - Jews, Romans, Greeks and a melting pot called The Church, portraing Jesus Christ as The Jewish "Messiah", a Servant, The "Son of Man" and The Divine "Son of God". Each of those are unique and uniquely reflected in the different gospels.
The Bible doesn't contain inconsistencies, tis just our limited knowledge and lack of willingness to let God instruct us.