If you have any miscellaneous comments on the davnet.org web site, not related to a particular blog entry, post them here.
Search
-
Recent articles
- Fixing things
- Habitat redo
- A red radio — the Prunus J-429SW
- The radio nobody wanted Kaide KK-MP903
- Zhiwhis ZWS-603 vs Kaito KA29
- Radio nostalgia
- ZHIWHIS ZWS-603 Shortwave Radio Review
- Unboxing the ZHIWHIS ZWS-603
- Great price?
- Deciphering the Kchibo KK-9615
- Keepers
- Comparing 3 Tecsun radios: PL-660, PL-380, PL-330
Merry Christmas, Truth.
MERRY CHRISTMAS Kevin
I presume the Romans were responsible for all three.
Now that I think of it, I have heard the Romans left unclaimed bodies out for the dogs to eat.
the other two guys that were hung with Jesus on the day. there is no information that I have been able to find that says who would have seen to them.
Cheryl:
What two bodies?
Kevin
I had a read of the Jonah story and alot about all the different things it ment and none come close to what I think it is about.
On day five god made the great sea creatures like the one said to have swallowed Jonah, but, on day six god gave us dominion over everything but.I beleive that Jesus was put in the villains grave till it was safe to move him and the villain was put in the tomb.
I have been unable to find out who was or could have been responsible for the other two bodies.
just a thought from Cheryl
Second reply to Jason:
OK, I see what you mean now. I wrote my article many years ago and it’s not all that clear there at the end.
Yes, you might argue that John is not an evolutionary understanding of Jesus, but a saying in a different context. Indeed we are making much the same argument, that the sayings are for different people. It’s just that my different people are from a different time, and it’s the disciples of John, not Jesus who are doing the talking.
It’s really important to compare the way Jesus appears in John vs Mark. Jesus in Mark keeps his identity a secret and only teaches in parables. In John Jesus must be proclaimed openly and he speaks in complex theological discourses. I think that there is much to be learned by comparing the Gospels and trying to understand why they are different.
My reply to Jason:
I can hardly be expected to retract what I didn’t say. “Contradiction” is your word not mine. It does not appear on my page.
The word I used was “contrast”, which simply says to look at one in the light of the other. The point is not that the two scriptures contradict each other (they don’t) but that one could be considered a source for the other.
In your analysis, you explain the difference between the two scriptures being two different audiences. It’s certainly reasonable to understand different things being said in different contexts. But here the context is identical. Let me quote the scriptures:
Jesus is not speaking about the faithful in Luke 11.
Now what is perhaps more interesting is to contrast Matthew and Luke in their longer context:
Luke understands repentance to be the sign of Jonah, where Matthew has found significance in the three-day ordeal of Jonah in the whale in the added quotation (in caps) from the Old Testament. (Personally, I find the Matthew insertion rather awkward. Rather than explaining the sign of Jonah, Matthew comes up with two of them. If Matthew was first, perhaps Luke felt the same way I did when he edited it out.)
I believe that the early Christian community, under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit, grew in understanding of who Jesus was, and that they used the occasion of a historical discourse of Jesus to insert things they knew Jesus would have said into what he actually said. This is not contradiction or forgery; it is inspired interpretation.
Email from Jason about my article.
David, Thank you so much, May God’s Grace and Mercy be absorbed into your heart.
A soldier in Iraq