Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

The Lamsa bible translates Matthew 27:46 from the Aramaic as, "Eli, Eli, lemana shabakthani! My God, my God for this I was spared!" "For this was my destiny." It was a statement of victory and not a question.


0

Seems like a lot to take in all at once. One other reference I would use to illustrate this is Luke 20:1-8. Here he was also pointing out an inconsistency in the Pharisees reasoning. By doing so, he also exposed their incompetence of determinining matters they should be experts at.


-4

I am of the opinion that Jesus spoke any language He desired, or that was needed to converse with people He was talking to at the time.. Probably, however he spoke Greek for the most part, as that was the most common language in use at the time. However, His first words from the Cross were used for a special purpose. Those Words are of course, also the ...


1

The reconciliation of the four accounts can be understood by knowing the histories of the New Testament gospels. John Dominic Crossan says in The Birth of Christianity, page 109, the theory that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were actually based on Mark's Gospel is held today by a fairly massive consensus of contemporary critical scholarship. However, ...


1

It reminds me of Jesus telling the seventy in Luke 10 to "greet no-one". One could translate Mark 16:8 as "They fled, speaking to no-one". I think that could mean the women went straight to the disciples without speaking to anyone on the way. They were understandably afraid to tell people on the way because it would produce danger with the authorities to ...


0

We can now say that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were substantially based on Mark's Gospel and that additional material the Gospels of Matthew and Luke have in common have come from the hypothetical 'Q' document. John Dominic Crossan, in The Birth of Christianity, page 110-111, speaks of a massive consensus among scholars in favour of Markan priority. He ...



Top 50 recent answers are included