Thanks for the replies. I knew there had to be a "logical" explanation that JWs could use to explain away that question.
Why did Jesus tell the convict on the cross next to his, that he would be joining him in Heaven TODAY??
by Faithful Witness 45 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
designs
Some Bishops were trying to figure out all the dogmas of their new religion. Crap happens.
-
Band on the Run
I can't remember all my reading on this verse. Jesus' "heaven" might be different than our notion of "heaven." As a Jew, Jesus would not believe in heaven where the dead zip around. Not all Jews believed in resurrection. A bodily resurrection counted. I can see where Jesus may have meant that the thief would be in the kingdom with him. The Today part is interesting. As a Christian, not a Witness, I love this scripture. It sounds like the addition of Greek Christians.
Jesus talked of the kingdom as the present and the future. I have no idea what the Witnesses teach. Prob a manuscript error.
-
kepler
Well, it's Holy Week and Friday - and this verse has come up again as a topic of discussion.
I have to say that it was a very meaningful verse in my life, since it ended my relationship with my former fiancee about five years ago.
That anyone could believe that the text was intended to mean that Christ was promising presence in paradise with him on that day, was just too much to abide. That poseurs could come into my house under the guise of bringing "glad tidings" and argue anything else struck me the same way.
As a result much of what I have had to say on this forum has rested on that moment and the issue raised. Below is an example in which we had the good fortune to have good contributions pro and con. In this particular instance, I was examining Christ's statement in the context of other times he prefaced his remarks with "Amen, amen I say unto you..."
If that doesn't work, try search Luke, Luke 23, Kepler and Luke...
Since we sit near 2000 years after the events of Christ's life and the various accounts of it, we have reason to wonder about all manner of things. Whether he lived as described or which account is closest to the heart of matters. And since there are four Gospel accounts, we have to wonder why that number. Clearly as testimony they have different perspectives. Matthew seems to finish the story started by Mark - and which we wonder whether Mark had ever finished. And Luke seems like the synoptic straggler, not as far afield in his account as John, but distinctly different, nonetheles - especially since he includes a sequel known as Acts (Now how come we don't have four versions of that?).
But the point I am getting to is that it is Luke that makes the claim that Jesus conversed with the two thiefs at all. The other two Gospel writers simply said that they mocked him (Mark 15:32 "Event those who were crucified with him, taunted him" - ditto, Matthew 27:44 with elaboration). There was no mention of an apology from either one of the thiefs.
The point is that Luke clearly meant to make this additon. If Mark's account says Christ's last words were "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mark 15:33), Matthew adds that Jesus crying out in a loud voice gave up his spirit (27:50). If Mark did not recall any further utterances or Matthew neglected to say exactly what it was, then Luke supplies: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." Luke 23: 46.
Since we are taking testimony from ancient writers and we all have different points of view, nothing definitive can be said by any of us except on the basis of faith or lack of it. But it is clear to me that Luke INCLUDED in his testimony the specific details that he did with clear intent. The intent being that these details were not included in the other two accounts. Whether he just happened to notice that from memory or it made more sense to say these things on account of what transpired in the sequel - I leave that open to conjecture. Either way though, it was an important point to the third Gospel writer, perhaps important enough to compel him to write it the account in the first place.
So, was it that Christ was making an important announcement like the typical Memorial service, that he was making an announcement like a politician at a press conference?
Or was he saying that the thief had been saved and he would be with him in paradise that same day?
That Christ's message remained to this day is because most people took notice of the second explanation. The first explanation is of benefit only to certain religious hierarchies.
-
-
Gentledawn
JWs actually mistranslate Luke 23:43. They move the comma to after the word "today", changing what Jesus was saying.
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/bi12/books/luke/23/
42 And he went on to say: “Jesus, remember me when you get into your kingdom.” 43 And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today, * You will be with me in Paradise.”
* Footnote
“Today.” Although WH puts a comma in the Gr. text before the word for “today,” commas were not used in Gr. uncial mss. In keeping with the context, we omit the comma before “today.” Syc (fifth cent. C.E.) renders this text: “Amen, I say to thee to-day that with me thou shalt be in the Garden of Eden.”—F. C. Burkitt, The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, Vol. I, Cambridge, 1904.
======================
http://mmoutreachinc.com/jehovahs_witnesses/dr_mantey_lt.html
Why the attempt to deliberately deceive people by mispunctuation by placing a comma after "today" in Luke 23:43 when in the Greek, Latin, German and all English translations except yours, in the Greek in even your KIT, the comma occurs after lego (I say)?-- "Today you will be with me, in Paradise". 2 Cor. 5:8, "to be out of the body and at home with the lord'' These passages teach that the redeemed go immediately to heaven after death , which does not agree with your teachings that death ends all life until the resurrection (Ps. 23:6 and Heb. 1: 10 ) .
=====================================
Punctuation 101:
"Let's eat grandpa!"
"Let's eat, grandpa!"
Two phrases. Two entirely different meanings.
-
Band on the Run
Witnesses are pathetic. Everyone else discusses the problems with this verse. Bibles add footnotes. The Witnesses change the language so that it exists with their preexisting theology. Jesus is so low why do we even care about his death.
-
FlyingHighNow
Now, let's all get together and watch Jesus Christ Superstar, the Ted Neeley as Jesus version from 1973.
-
Kaltas1
matthew 27:38 Two rebels were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left.
matthew 27:44 In the same way the rebels who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
mark 15:27 They crucified two rebels with him, one on his right and one on his left.
john 19:18 There they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle.
Luke obviously just made shit up. the other stories don't mention that at all and in matthew they both insulted jesus. 3 vs 1. but then again these were all just collections of stories passed through decades of word of mouth illiteracy to later be penned by other people and then collected together into nameless books that we later assigned names to. So most of everything in the gospels either didn't happen or is vastly exagerrated.
A more interesting question is what were jesus last words?
-
Rattigan350
"Since Jesus took this guy with him to heaven immediately, would he be considered "annointed" and qualified to sit as a judge with Christ, even though he was a criminal who "deserved" the death penalty?"
I missed this part of the OPs comment. Jesus did not go to heaven immediately. He was dead. If he went to heaven immediately, then why was he resurrected on Sunday?
If people would even think, they would understand things.