bluebell Posted January 5, 2017 Author Posted January 5, 2017 5 hours ago, snowflake said: Just my thoughts..... The old testament often prophecies of things that are to come in the future, usually in abstract ways that are not understood until they come to pass. David writes in psalms 41:9 “Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.” (Psalm 41:9) I know this doesn't specifically answer your question but reveals that Jesus was to be betrayed. On the night of his betrayal he states in John 13:18. “I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.'” (John 13:18) I was listening to Mark 14 today and in it Christ actually answers my question, and then uses the existence of OT prophecy to explain it, as you did. 48 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me? 49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled. I thought that was interesting.
bluebell Posted January 5, 2017 Author Posted January 5, 2017 Next random question- When Jesus refuses to answer Pilot. Is He silent so that He doesn't cause Pilot to let Him go, making the Atonement as we know it impossible?
Calm Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 I think he is silent to remove any rationalization that others might put on him. In condemning him, it must be triggered by their own thoughts. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I was listening to Mark 14 today and in it Christ actually answers my question, and then uses the existence of OT prophecy to explain it, as you did. 48 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me? 49 I was daily wit h you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled. I thought that was interesting. Just some food for thought. ..Mark is somewhat notorious for proof texting the Old Testament. He takes the approach of "proving" the message of Christ by attempting to show how the events of Jesus' life and surrounding events are fulfillment of prophesy. Biblical scholars seem to be a bit skeptical about Mark's actual knowledge of the OT because his proof texts are often way off base. ETA- Also, if I'm not mistaken, John doesn't mention Judas kissing Jesus to notify the guards of who he is. The guards comes, Jesus says "I am he", and the guards swoon Edited January 5, 2017 by HappyJackWagon 1
HappyJackWagon Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Next random question- When Jesus refuses to answer Pilot. Is He silent so that He doesn't cause Pilot to let Him go, making the Atonement as we know it impossible? In Luke and John, Jesus does respond to Pilate Edited January 5, 2017 by HappyJackWagon 1
Calm Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 One doesn't need to harmonize all details to examine what a particular verse might have meant to its author, whoever that might be. 1
Gray Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 18 hours ago, pogi said: I see what you are saying, but just as a matter of clarity, seers can reveal the past (history), as well as the present, and future. Having said that, I don't think there has been a revelation given about Judas specifically. Paul had no association with Judas that we are aware of, and certainly not as an apostle. I wouldn't expect him to write much if anything about Judas. History is an academic discipline, with clear rules. History is not derived from revelation. Revelation instead gives you doctrine and theology. In any case, while Judas is a common enough name, it may be a symbol for the Jews (that's what Judas means). The issue with Paul is he says that Jesus appeared to the 12 after his resurrection, not to the 11. So he doesn't seem to be aware of the Judas story. The earliest source for it is Mark, 40 years after the fact. Now, Judas could still be a historical figure, but there is reason for doubt. 2
Gray Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 13 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Just some food for thought. ..Mark is somewhat notorious for proof texting the Old Testament. He takes the approach of "proving" the message of Christ by attempting to show how the events of Jesus' life and surrounding events are fulfillment of prophesy. Biblical scholars seem to be a bit skeptical about Mark's actual knowledge of the OT because his proof texts are often way off base. Do you mean Matthew? 2
HappyJackWagon Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 19 minutes ago, Gray said: Do you mean Matthew? Yeah
Abulafia Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 What an interesting thread. I tend to go with the view that Judas is an invention designed to portray Jesus as fulfillment of prophecy as outlined above. Same with the nativity accounts. The strongest evidence for this is that Paul is writing early, he had met Peter and James and yet he makes no mention of a betrayer. 1 Cor 15 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve..... No mention of a betrayer. 2
bluebell Posted January 5, 2017 Author Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: History is an academic discipline, with clear rules. History is not derived from revelation. Revelation instead gives you doctrine and theology. In any case, while Judas is a common enough name, it may be a symbol for the Jews (that's what Judas means). The issue with Paul is he says that Jesus appeared to the 12 after his resurrection, not to the 11. So he doesn't seem to be aware of the Judas story. The earliest source for it is Mark, 40 years after the fact. Now, Judas could still be a historical figure, but there is reason for doubt. It could also just be a common way to refer to the apostles. I noticed that when we lose one of our apostles due to death, people still refer to the group as 'the 12'. But i get your point. 1
Gray Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: It could also just be a common way to refer to the apostles. I noticed that when we lose one of our apostles due to death, people still refer to the group as 'the 12'. But i get your point. Matthew (28:16) and Luke (24:33) say that Jesus appeared to "the eleven." The idea that "the 12" was just a general way to refer to the apostles regardless of number is of course possible, but has no foundation (ie we don't have an example of people referring to them that way, that I know of), and so it doesn't really work as a historical argument. Personally I lean towards a fictional Judas, but there could be some historicity behind the story. Who knows? 2
RevTestament Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 22 hours ago, Gray said: Matthew (28:16) and Luke (24:33) say that Jesus appeared to "the eleven." The idea that "the 12" was just a general way to refer to the apostles regardless of number is of course possible, but has no foundation (ie we don't have an example of people referring to them that way, that I know of), and so it doesn't really work as a historical argument. Personally I lean towards a fictional Judas, but there could be some historicity behind the story. Who knows? Judas is in too many other accounts to be a fictional character. Someone fictionalized wouldn't appear in all the various gospels throughout Jesus' ministry. As has been pointed out there may be small "inaccuracies" in the narratives, but those are largely do to slightly faulty memories or resulting from the telling of the stories from different points of view so that slightly different details come out each time. Such is the case with the details of the tomb scene of Jesus' resurrection. But all the gospels agree that Jesus was resurrected. Eye witness accounts of events are notoriously unreliable, and therefore history is "unreliable," but the gospels are an exception as they are remarkably consistent. The tiny details which may not be quite right make no difference to the meaning of the gospel and the truthfulness of the accounts at least in terms of their spiritual meaning, and what we are to understand from them. 1
stemelbow Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 15 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Judas is in too many other accounts to be a fictional character. Someone fictionalized wouldn't appear in all the various gospels throughout Jesus' ministry. As has been pointed out there may be small "inaccuracies" in the narratives, but those are largely do to slightly faulty memories or resulting from the telling of the stories from different points of view so that slightly different details come out each time. Such is the case with the details of the tomb scene of Jesus' resurrection. But all the gospels agree that Jesus was resurrected. Eye witness accounts of events are notoriously unreliable, and therefore history is "unreliable," but the gospels are an exception as they are remarkably consistent. The tiny details which may not be quite right make no difference to the meaning of the gospel and the truthfulness of the accounts at least in terms of their spiritual meaning, and what we are to understand from them. I wish something like this made sense to me. No offense intended. I'm curious what you mean when you use quotations around things like, inaccuracies and unreliable? is it because those judgments are impossible for us to make? If so how can we know the inaccuracies are "largely d[ue] to slightly faulty memories or resulting from the telling of the stories from different points of view"? And, if we don't know the degree of the "inaccuracies" how can we be sure "the tiny details which may not be quite right make no difference to the meaning of the gospel and the truthfulness of the accounts..."? I'm fine if that's what you believe, but the way you've put it is it seems you are saying what you believe about it all is reality because you believe it.
bluebell Posted January 6, 2017 Author Posted January 6, 2017 Next question- Why did the Jews only suffer thru 3 hours of darkness after Jesus died and the BOM people had 3 days of intense darkness, huge destruction, and huge loss of life? I mean, the Jews had actually crucified Him. Why did they get off so easy? 2
Gray Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) 37 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Judas is in too many other accounts to be a fictional character. Someone fictionalized wouldn't appear in all the various gospels throughout Jesus' ministry. As has been pointed out there may be small "inaccuracies" in the narratives, but those are largely do to slightly faulty memories or resulting from the telling of the stories from different points of view so that slightly different details come out each time. Such is the case with the details of the tomb scene of Jesus' resurrection. But all the gospels agree that Jesus was resurrected. Eye witness accounts of events are notoriously unreliable, and therefore history is "unreliable," but the gospels are an exception as they are remarkably consistent. The tiny details which may not be quite right make no difference to the meaning of the gospel and the truthfulness of the accounts at least in terms of their spiritual meaning, and what we are to understand from them. I don't think that follows. Lazarus begins as a fictional character in a parable, and then is portrayed as a real character in the life of Jesus. All four gospels contain a mixture of historical and non-historical information. As I said, Judas may have existed, but we would expect Paul to be aware of his existence given his contact with the apostles, and he appears not to have heard about the story (same goes for the virgin birth story). Edited January 6, 2017 by Gray
HappyJackWagon Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 7 minutes ago, bluebell said: Next question- Why did the Jews only suffer thru 3 hours of darkness after Jesus died and the BOM people had 3 days of intense darkness, huge destruction, and huge loss of life? I mean, the Jews had actually crucified Him. Why did they get off so easy? I love your questions. It probably won't surprise you to hear me say that I don't think those are literal responses to the death of Jesus. 3 is a very symbolic number. The number 3 is used 467 times in the Bible and is a symbol for completeness. If it's literal, God would seem to be a respecter of persons. He favors his "chosen" people while punishing the less favored people in the Americas. That doesn't jive with my understanding of God. 1
Gray Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, bluebell said: Next question- Why did the Jews only suffer thru 3 hours of darkness after Jesus died and the BOM people had 3 days of intense darkness, huge destruction, and huge loss of life? I mean, the Jews had actually crucified Him. Why did they get off so easy? Neither story is historical, but the theological implications of the stories are worth exploring. The gospel account may have been intended to be taken symbolically, to punctuate the theological significance of the death of the son of God. I'm not sure Joseph Smith was as metaphorically-minded as ancient writers, but you could interpret 3 Nephi an amplification of those old symbols. Jesus' death was such a significant event that it was three whole days of darkness. Perhaps you could think of it as the earth mourning the death of its creator. Edited January 6, 2017 by Gray 3
stemelbow Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 18 minutes ago, bluebell said: Next question- Why did the Jews only suffer thru 3 hours of darkness after Jesus died and the BOM people had 3 days of intense darkness, huge destruction, and huge loss of life? I mean, the Jews had actually crucified Him. Why did they get off so easy? Possibly, being metaphoric darkness and destruction, the length was meaningful in different ways to those who rehearsed the stories. So it was more meaningful to the society in the BOM that it was 3 days rather than 3 hours. to them, perhaps 3 hours didn't mean as much.
bluebell Posted January 6, 2017 Author Posted January 6, 2017 5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I love your questions. It probably won't surprise you to hear me say that I don't think those are literal responses to the death of Jesus. 3 is a very symbolic number. The number 3 is used 467 times in the Bible and is a symbol for completeness. If it's literal, God would seem to be a respecter of persons. He favors his "chosen" people while punishing the less favored people in the Americas. That doesn't jive with my understanding of God. I thought that the BOM people were also considered to be a part of the house of Israel and so just as much chosen as the Jews? 3
HappyJackWagon Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: I thought that the BOM people were also considered to be a part of the house of Israel and so just as much chosen as the Jews? Good catch. Although those of Lehite ancestry likely would have been a minority of the people who would have suffered in the Americas. 1
bluebell Posted January 6, 2017 Author Posted January 6, 2017 11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Good catch. Although those of Lehite ancestry likely would have been a minority of the people who would have suffered in the Americas. We probably can't overlook the issue of adoption. All who accept or had accepted Christ and His gospel would be a part of God's chosen people even if they weren't full blooded Israelites, right? 1
HappyJackWagon Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: We probably can't overlook the issue of adoption. All who accept or had accepted Christ and His gospel would be a part of God's chosen people even if they weren't full blooded Israelites, right? Maybe, but that seems to be a more modern doctrine. Even so, that wouldn't explain the differences in time. Christians would have been a minority both in the Americas and Jerusalem so adoption wouldn't have impacted them at the time.
pogi Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Next question- Why did the Jews only suffer thru 3 hours of darkness after Jesus died and the BOM people had 3 days of intense darkness, huge destruction, and huge loss of life? I mean, the Jews had actually crucified Him. Why did they get off so easy? The sign of Christ's birth was more remarkable in the Americas as well. In the Americas, there was a night with no darkness to signify his birth. Perhaps the signs were greater in the Americas because they did not have the advantage of witnessing the signs and miracles performed by Christ throughout his life, but to say that the Jews were not punished for crucifying their Savior is not accurate. Their prophesied destruction came to them as well, it just came 40 years later. Oh, they got theirs! There were prophesies made about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and that they would become a hiss and a bye word and hated among all nations. I for one do believe that the destruction and the events that followed in the Book of Mormon really happened. That Jesus visited his other sheep, and that the Book of Mormon is literally another witness and testament of Jesus Christ. Edited January 6, 2017 by pogi 1
bluebell Posted January 6, 2017 Author Posted January 6, 2017 43 minutes ago, pogi said: The sign of Christ's birth was more remarkable in the Americas as well. In the Americas, there was a night with no darkness to signify his birth. Perhaps the signs were greater in the Americas because they did not have the advantage of witnessing the signs and miracles performed by Christ throughout his life, but to say that the Jews were not punished for crucifying their Savior is not accurate. Their prophesied destruction came to them as well, it just came 40 years later. Oh, they got theirs! There were prophesies made about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and that they would become a hiss and a bye word and hated among all nations. I for one do believe that the destruction and the events that followed in the Book of Mormon really happened. That Jesus visited his other sheep, and that the Book of Mormon is literally another witness and testament of Jesus Christ. I was thinking about that. I was wondering if it wasn't an example of "where much is given much is required". They were greatly blessed to know more about the Messiah's coming than the people in the Old World, and they were, as a society, visited by the resurrected Savior Himself and taught by Him. Maybe the difference between the two sides of the world had to do with the differences between having greater light and knowledge and having lesser. The blessings were greater, but so were the consequences of rejecting the truth after having had it.
Recommended Posts