Another comparative question

I believe this can be explained in this way: They asked him the question, but Jesus read their minds and thus knew the motivation for the question. It was not an honest seeking of information; the question was intended to set a trap for Jesus.

 

Jesus read their hearts. He knew their intentions.

 

It is a matter of perspective, xdisciplex: To recall an event and write it down as the Spirit brings it to one's remembrance does not mean that each person present was aware of the event in exactly the same way (perception). First of all, Jesus had a troop of followers to witness these events, but each one had his own perception. None of them were stenographers to take down exactly, word for word, every thing that was said and everything which was done.

The fact that the accounts are separately written, but in the important details are essentially the same, is evidence that each witness in the gospel is giving his own testimony without collaboration with another to force an agreement, when people can and do perceive or witness differently: An example: In a court of law, witnesses to the same event are isolated and are not supposed to discuss their testimony with each other. They may not be allowed in the courtroom at the same time when another is giving testimony. One witness may remember an identifying scar on the face and a speech impediment. Another witness recalls none of those items in his testimony but remembers the person holding a pen in his left hand and walking with a limp as he entered the room. Neither alone has given sufficient proof of the identity of the person but each has presented enough characteristics for the judge and jury to determine whether the defendant matches the discription of both witnesses to increase the likelihood that it is one and the same person.

A mention in a previous thread asks if it was the day Kennedy was shot, and one person says he heard one shot but another says he heard two.....they can't both be right? Yes they can, because each is reporting his own witness to events. The one who only heard one shot cannot know that the wail of a nearby baby kept him from hearing the second shot: Nor the one who perceived two shots, may not know that a car backfired from the same direction. The statements are put together with the evidence to determine the truth.

In the case of Matthew, I can see how he seemed to take interest in the snares which were set for our Lord, i.e. the leading questions of the religious leaders of his day. Matthew, himself of the house of Levi (if my understanding is correct) was acquainted with the tactics used against those who were not complacent and politically correct: Futhermore he was aware of the corruption entering into the priesthood to patronize the Romans and retain power, and at the same time to pacify the people to prevent trouble from causing undue attention or acceleration of control from Rome. Mark, attending in the same crowd, may not have been positioned to hear the inquiry, but his attention might have gone to the man with the withered hand as he was not concealed by the people but was where he could readily be seen.

Dear and precious xdisciplex, it is our difficulty with knowledge and asking questions which raise these doubts, but it is the pursuit of answers to establish faith. But all the knowledge and wisdom of the world will not make faith come alive. What is the faith of a child? A child lives in the present, unaware of what he might need tomorrow, and seldom reflective on a day or two past: A child lives in security, knowing and trusting those who take care of him will meet his needs, and provide for his safety, and love him, and restrain him from doing those things which would endanger himself. As long as authority over the child has not been misused, the child will naturally trust that authority's love and benevolence and recognize that directives and restraints require his submission, even when feeling rebellious, and are not mean spirited or with intention to harm or impede his progress.

Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God? Then whether the pharisees spoke a question matters not to him as it might to some who witnessed this event as he was able to read their heart and their motivations. Is this enough to cause one to question his diety? Must the report agree so exactly before doubt can be removed? Is it inspiration to set these remembrances forth almost 2000 years ago, so we can know what it was like to be with the master, and to have them retained to the present?

I recently learned of a fragment of the Psalms, a parchment of the 150th psalm being found an on exhibit at a musemn in Israel. The parchment belonging to the 90th scroll of the psalms has portion thereafter which is customary in the Hebrew at the end of a book. The translation of that psalm into English agrees with the English Bible, KJV: The KJV consulted with the Massorettic text, rather than the Greek Septuagint. Over 90% of the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the Masorettic text. However, the DSS also have 151 Psalms which was part of the Greek Septuagint, but not part of the Hebrew. Some of the DSS were found in conditions of exposure which was more carefully prevented in the preservation of faultless religious documents of that time, so was there some error and if so to what degree does it become significant?

Personally I like the KJV, as I cannot decifer the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek text: and I don't knnow Latin. But just as I made a 'typo' in this last sentence doesn't cause it to loose meaning, so it is with other translations, which have their appeal to some people more than the KJV; they find another translation easier to read, and it is important that the Bible be read: Not merely protected as a perfect icon of inspiration, which does us no good if we fail to study it. What is more important, we see agreement in the scriptures concerning the spirit or content.

Shalom,

 

I know the answer again, but want to give the chance to the others.

 

Windcatcher,

You are very much correct in your post. It is a very good advice to XDX. You know correctly regarding KJV/LXX/DSS as well. Thanks.

 

Xdisciplex: I have noticed lately that you get easily disconcerted over what you believe are Bible discrepancies. About a decade ago, I had a preoccupation with them as well.

Please allow me to give you some suggestions.

1) When the Bible was written, it was not expected that the Bible would be doubted by God's people. The human secretary-authors did not pay great attention to how others would view their consistency. Since they wrote on behalf of God, evidently God did not either.​

2) Do you believe God wrote the Bible? That is what got me to drop my preoccupation with skeptics' proposed discrepancies. Since I believe that the Christians' God wrote every unit of text in the Bible, then whatever He wrote is fine. I know this is not logic-based but faith-based, but: am I going to question what God wrote on the basis of my own limited knowledge and understanding? No. It is what He chose to be written -- good enough for me.​

3) The Gospel does not depend on the accuracy of every part of Scripture. During the New Testament period, God did not provide every new believer their own personal copy of Scripture; He evidently saw no need to. Since God did not see fit to give every individual New Testament-era convert a copy of Scripture, it is apparent that one can be a good Christian without all of it. Christianity is about Christ -- New Testament Scripture describes Him, His work to save us, and how we should serve Him. I have known Bible skeptics who live good Christian lives for the Lord because they believe the parts about Christ. Even if was true that not every single solitary detail of Scripture is correct -- which is a proposition I reject as false -- you can still follow Christ.​

 

xdisciplex:

"Did the pharisees ask Jesus if it is lawful to heal on the sabbath or did Jesus read their minds? "

GE:

I find everything true and correct in the Gospels here; in fact, all the differences are but true to life of a real disagreement between various parties.

Someone talked of 'perspective' (I think it was Dustin). That too, is correct. But that brings me to my old theory (developed in 'Proclamation', the fourth volume of my book 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of Grace' - obtainable free from http://www.biblestudents.co.za). My theory (you may call it a 'thesis' if you like), is that the Gospels are the Reflection of the Church of its own history and doctrine. It came last in terms of time, and are the most advanced in thought of all the books of the New Testament. One must expect to find the voice of the CHURCH, in the Gospels - they are not purely reciting the original words or acts of Jesus.
Hope it explains. If not, please tell me why it won't?

 

Thank you, Windcatcher and Darron Steele. :thumbs: