a "lie of the Devil?"

[ForHisglory]

You need to read the Scriptures better, brother, because there are numerous occasions in which 2 or 3 of the synoptic authors present the same story *in the same place,* and use different wording, whether different words or different word arrangements, or involve omissions, etc. They communicate the *same truths,* but use slightly different wording.

This is not a "lie of the Devil," but rather, the truth about human beings. They don't do anything perfect, but they can present accurate truths.

Fallible human beings, even regenerate ones, would have trouble remembering perfectly what Jesus said, word for word. But as human beings God gave them grace to accurately present the same general truths, using words that accurately reflected what Jesus said. And I call that "divinely inspired," as well as *true.*

Almost 100% agree with you.
Knowing the issue from the other thread, I know that what is referred to is not an example like those given where one has stated "Blessed is the poor" and another has put "Blessed is the poor in spirit". Nor like the example I gave from the resurrection.

It is NOT when the claim is made that a gospel author omitted words said, nor where they substituted a word with another word of similar meaning, nor when not exactly stating who is in a particular scene. The claim was made when the position was made that the author INTERPRETED Jesus's words with their own words, writing them AS IF Jesus said them, but knowing full well that Jesus did NOT say those words in any way shape or form. That is what the point about being a "lie of the devil" was made about.

We do NOT find a SINGLE occasion where you can say a single author wrote words which Jesus did not say EXCEPT in the ONE place which is in dispute.
IOW we do not find an author writing "Jesus said 'Yes'" If Jesus did not say anything nor indicate such a thing.

We may find the equivalent of Jesus nodding his head AND saying 'yes', and one author notes that Jesus nodded his head, and another notes that Jesus said 'yes'. This though is not the same thing.

Where the issue remains is that an EXACT prophecy is made by Jesus, which was fulfilled as Jesus said, yet that EXACT prophecy is claimed to be a paraphrase of another statement which has yet to be fulfilled and does NOT say the same thing in the slightest. The ONLY way to say they are the same thing is to go BEYOND simple abbreviations and alternative eye-witness reports and even beyond a paraphrase and to say that it was INTERPRETED by the author.
This is akin to an author explaining what one of the parables meant when Jesus did NOT explain that parable.

[randyk]

Almost 100% agree with you.
Knowing the issue from the other thread, I know that what is referred to is not an example like those given where one has stated "Blessed is the poor" and another has put "Blessed is the poor in spirit". Nor like the example I gave from the resurrection.

It is NOT when the claim is made that a gospel author omitted words said, nor where they substituted a word with another word of similar meaning, nor when not exactly stating who is in a particular scene. The claim was made when the position was made that the author INTERPRETED Jesus's words with their own words, writing them AS IF Jesus said them, but knowing full well that Jesus did NOT say those words in any way shape or form. That is what the point about being a "lie of the devil" was made about.

The fact is, this is how you *interpret* what I said, and *not* what I said. I'm saying that Luke "interpreted" what Matthew and Mark said about the AoD to be the *same thing* as his own version of it, which was the "encirclement of Jerusalem by [Roman] armies."

I've told you plainly that I believe Jesus, in his original address, likely mentioned *both* the AoD and the encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman armies. In selecting only the part about the "encirclement of Jerusalem," Luke "interpreted" it to be the equivalent of the AoD.

Again, I'm not saying, and I've never said, that Jesus didn't mention *both* things. I believe he likely said both things, and have said so. So I don't see the relevance of your argument here?

I believe that Matthew and Mark's associate and mentor, Peter, both heard exactly what Jesus said in his original Address. And I believe they both heard Jesus mention the AoD in terms of the "encirclement of Jerusalem by [Roman] armies." Matthew and Mark may have written their gospels first, referring only to the AoD as something originating from Dan 9.27. But Luke may have seen fit to give a clearer interpretation of this for Christian readers, substituting Jesus' comments about the "encirclement of Jerusalem" for the AoD, so that we would understand that they are *the same thing.*

However, my argument in this thread is about the legitimate use of *paraphrases,* and not about the Olivet Discourse. We can discuss that elsewhere, assuming you decide to no longer refer to my use of *paraphrases* as a "lie of the Devil.* I have never said that the "encirclement of Jerusalem" is Luke's intentional corruption of Jesus' reference to the AoD! Rather, I've plainly said that I believe Jesus said *both things,* ie the "encirclement of Jerusalem" and the AoD. Luke paraphrased by substituting one quote of Jesus for another so that we could interpret one as the equivalent of the other.

Sometimes one version simply omits a word, a phrase, or a story. Many times the versions are almost word for word alike. But in many, many cases there are more than just omissions. Sometimes a different word is used--a synonym, or a synonymous phrase. The quotations are not always *exactly alike, in words and in arrangement,* from version to version. I refer to them, for short, as "paraphrases."

At issue with us is whether the AoD of Matthew and Mark were meant by Luke to be synonymous with the "encirclement of Jerusalem." I believe Luke interpreted it as such. He undoubtedly heard from the apostles who were there. And they likely recounted how Jesus described the AoD as the "encirclement of Jerusalem." Thus, Luke interpreted the one to be synonymous with the other, and gave his own paraphrased, or abbreviated, version.

We do NOT find a SINGLE occasion where you can say a single author wrote words which Jesus did not say EXCEPT in the ONE place which is in dispute.
IOW we do not find an author writing "Jesus said 'Yes'" If Jesus did not say anything nor indicate such a thing.

Reference to "THE holy place" is consistently applied to the temple, and possibly also to the city of Jerusalem, where the temple was located, because Jerusalem is also referred to as "THE holy city." But my purpose in this thread has to do with how we look at the Bible overall, and its inspiration. Does it require *exact replicas" of Jesus' words, when he is quoted? No. From version to version there are slight differences, which were not inaccurate if they were only intended to be close representations of what he said, and not a playback of an actual recording (an exact transcript).

We may find the equivalent of Jesus nodding his head AND saying 'yes', and one author notes that Jesus nodded his head, and another notes that Jesus said 'yes'. This though is not the same thing.

Where the issue remains is that an EXACT prophecy is made by Jesus, which was fulfilled as Jesus said, yet that EXACT prophecy is claimed to be a paraphrase of another statement which has yet to be fulfilled and does NOT say the same thing in the slightest. The ONLY way to say they are the same thing is to go BEYOND simple abbreviations and alternative eye-witness reports and even beyond a paraphrase and to say that it was INTERPRETED by the author.
This is akin to an author explaining what one of the parables meant when Jesus did NOT explain that parable.

Discussion of the Olivet Discourse is not my main focus here. It has to do with the legitimate use of paraphrases. Please see how I'm applying that to Luke's version above. He did *not* corrupt Jesus' reference to the AoD. Rather, he *omitted* this, and substituted in its place, something Jesus also really said. Jesus had also said "encirclement of Jerusalem, and had likely indicated to his Disciples that this was, in fact, the AoD. And so Luke could legitimately substitute "encirclement of Jerusalem" for reference to the AoD.

In my view, this is a legitimate use of a "paraphrase." Words and phrases can be omitted, or re-arranged, so long as they express the right idea, or the equivalency. It's like saying, The government said, "yes," when in actuality the government only gave me permission. I'm not corrupting the truth in saying the government said, "yes." Yes refers to a government affirmation, and not necessarily to the literal word. It is what the word "yes" really means in context.

Neither is it corrupt for Luke to substitute "when you see Jerusalem encircled by armies" for "when you see the Abomination of Desolation." If they are equivalencies, and both were actually said, then Luke's version is a legitimate *paraphrased account" of Jesus' original version. One phrase may be substituted for another when they are synonyms for the same thing!

[randyk]

Almost 100% agree with you.
Knowing the issue from the other thread, I know that what is referred to is not an example like those given where one has stated "Blessed is the poor" and another has put "Blessed is the poor in spirit". Nor like the example I gave from the resurrection.

It is NOT when the claim is made that a gospel author omitted words said, nor where they substituted a word with another word of similar meaning, nor when not exactly stating who is in a particular scene. The claim was made when the position was made that the author INTERPRETED Jesus's words with their own words, writing them AS IF Jesus said them, but knowing full well that Jesus did NOT say those words in any way shape or form. That is what the point about being a "lie of the devil" was made about.

The fact is, this is how you *interpret* what I said, and *not* what I said. I'm saying that Luke "interpreted" what Matthew and Mark said about the AoD to be the *same thing* as his own version of it, which was the "encirclement of Jerusalem by [Roman] armies."

I've told you plainly that I believe Jesus, in his original address, likely mentioned *both* the AoD and the encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman armies. In selecting only the part about the "encirclement of Jerusalem," Luke "interpreted" it to be the equivalent of the AoD.

Again, I'm not saying, and I've never said, that Jesus didn't mention *both* things. I believe he likely said both things, and have said so. So I don't see the relevance of your argument here?

I believe that Matthew and Mark's associate and mentor, Peter, both heard exactly what Jesus said in his original Address. And I believe they both heard Jesus mention the AoD in terms of the "encirclement of Jerusalem by [Roman] armies." Matthew and Mark may have written their gospels first, referring only to the AoD as something originating from Dan 9.27. But Luke may have seen fit to give a clearer interpretation of this for Christian readers, substituting Jesus' comments about the "encirclement of Jerusalem" for the AoD, so that we would understand that they are *the same thing.*

However, my argument in this thread is about the legitimate use of *paraphrases,* and not about the Olivet Discourse. We can discuss that elsewhere, assuming you decide to no longer refer to my use of *paraphrases* as a "lie of the Devil.* I have never said that the "encirclement of Jerusalem" is Luke's intentional corruption of Jesus' reference to the AoD! Rather, I've plainly said that I believe Jesus said *both things,* ie the "encirclement of Jerusalem" and the AoD. Luke paraphrased by substituting one quote of Jesus for another so that we could interpret one as the equivalent of the other.

Sometimes one version simply omits a word, a phrase, or a story. Many times the versions are almost word for word alike. But in many, many cases there are more than just omissions. Sometimes a different word is used--a synonym, or a synonymous phrase. The quotations are not always *exactly alike, in words and in arrangement,* from version to version. I refer to them, for short, as "paraphrases."

At issue with us is whether the AoD of Matthew and Mark were meant by Luke to be synonymous with the "encirclement of Jerusalem." I believe Luke interpreted it as such. He undoubtedly heard from the apostles who were there. And they likely recounted how Jesus described the AoD as the "encirclement of Jerusalem." Thus, Luke interpreted the one to be synonymous with the other, and gave his own paraphrased, or abbreviated, version.

We do NOT find a SINGLE occasion where you can say a single author wrote words which Jesus did not say EXCEPT in the ONE place which is in dispute.
IOW we do not find an author writing "Jesus said 'Yes'" If Jesus did not say anything nor indicate such a thing.

Reference to "THE holy place" is consistently applied to the temple, and possibly also to the city of Jerusalem, where the temple was located, because Jerusalem is also referred to as "THE holy city." But my purpose in this thread has to do with how we look at the Bible overall, and its inspiration. Does it require *exact replicas" of Jesus' words, when he is quoted? No. From version to version there are slight differences, which were not inaccurate if they were only intended to be close representations of what he said, and not a playback of an actual recording (an exact transcript).

We may find the equivalent of Jesus nodding his head AND saying 'yes', and one author notes that Jesus nodded his head, and another notes that Jesus said 'yes'. This though is not the same thing.

Where the issue remains is that an EXACT prophecy is made by Jesus, which was fulfilled as Jesus said, yet that EXACT prophecy is claimed to be a paraphrase of another statement which has yet to be fulfilled and does NOT say the same thing in the slightest. The ONLY way to say they are the same thing is to go BEYOND simple abbreviations and alternative eye-witness reports and even beyond a paraphrase and to say that it was INTERPRETED by the author.
This is akin to an author explaining what one of the parables meant when Jesus did NOT explain that parable.

Discussion of the Olivet Discourse is not my main focus here. It has to do with the legitimate use of paraphrases. Please see how I'm applying that to Luke's version above. He did *not* corrupt Jesus' reference to the AoD. Rather, he *omitted* this, and substituted in its place, something Jesus also really said. Jesus had also said "encirclement of Jerusalem, and had likely indicated to his Disciples that this was, in fact, the AoD. And so Luke could legitimately substitute "encirclement of Jerusalem" for reference to the AoD.

In my view, this is a legitimate use of a "paraphrase." Words and phrases can be omitted, or re-arranged, so long as they express the right idea, or the equivalency. It's like saying, The government said, "yes," when in actuality the government only gave me permission. I'm not corrupting the truth in saying the government said, "yes." Yes refers to a government affirmation, and not necessarily to the literal word. It is what the word "yes" really means in context.

Neither is it corrupt for Luke to substitute "when you see Jerusalem encircled by armies" for "when you see the Abomination of Desolation." If they are equivalencies, and both were actually said, then Luke's version is a legitimate *paraphrased account" of Jesus' original version. One phrase may be substituted for another when they are synonyms for the same thing!

[randyk]

Matt 13.57 And they took offense at him.
But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.” 58 And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.

Mark 6.3 And they took offense at him.
4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.” 5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6 He was amazed at their lack of faith.

Luke 4.23 Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’”
24 “Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. 25 I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27 And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”
28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff.

Notice the similarties and the differences. Everything quoted as from Jesus was actually said by Jesus. But not everything was equally reported by each synoptic author. Matthew mentioned that a prophet is "dishonored" in his town and home. Mark also mentions a prophet "dishonored" in town and home, but adds "relatives." And Luke mentions that a prophet is not "accepted" in his town.

We know these were the same event, and not different events. They all begin with his town taking offense at Jesus. Mark says simply that "they took offense at him." Mark says the exact same thing. But Luke actually notes what the hostile town said to Jesus, complaining that he wasn't healing in his own town when he healed in other towns.

All three accounts present Jesus' hostile town people taking offense at Jesus, and then having Jesus respond, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own town." Luke's choice to use the word "unaccepted" does not improperly characterize what Jesus said, even though Matthew and Mark used the word "dishonored."

And all three accounts end with Jesus reacting to their lack of faith. Matthew indicated Jesus wouldn't do many miracles there because of their lack of faith. Mark simply said Jesus was amazed at their lack of faith. And Luke gives examples of God's choice to only heal certain worthy people. This caused the town synagogue to react with hostility.

Certainly, these three accounts are recording the same event, but use different words. As such, it may be less a "paraphrase" than different versions, each containing an accurate account. The author is able to pick and choose which words to quote Jesus on. It is accurate, but it is not an exact transcript. All accounts give Jesus' actual words. But the word choice, and the arrangement, belong to each author.

It is *not* the "Devil's lie" to say that each version is different. Each version presents what Jesus said accurately. It's just that each author chose which words to include, and how to present them.

It is the same with the Olivet Discourse of Jesus in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 17 and 21. They all provide quotations from Jesus. But each author chose which words to include, and how to say them. Jesus told his Apostles to look for the "abomination of desolation." Both Matthew and Mark record this. But Luke indicated that Jesus told his Apostles to look for the "encirclement of Jerusalem by armies."

Both terms occur in the *same place in the Discourse.* The same items occurs before and after in each version. The thing Jesus called for his Disciples to "look for" had to be the same thing. And yet Matthew and Mark use "abomination of desolation," and Luke uses "encircling armies."

Both of these statements were true quotations of Jesus. But Luke decided to insert "encircling armies" where Matthew and Mark inserted "abomination of desolation." The only way I can justify putting two separate terms Jesus used in the *same place* in the Discourse is if Matthew, Mark, and Luke all saw the "abomination of desolation" as the same thing as the "encircling armies." Clearly, Jesus had made both statements synonymous such that Matthew, Mark, and Luke could insert one for the other!

This is the product of "paraphrasing." People are able to say things the way they best can do it. It isn't saying that people are corrupting what Jesus said. It's just a matter of omitting certain things, or not.

In the case of Matthew and Mark, the "encircling armies" are omitted. In the case of Luke, the "abomination of desolation" is omitted. But that doesn't make each version corrupt. They are all saying essentially the same thing, because the "abomination of desolation" *is* the "encircling armies!" Jesus said both things, but Matthew and Mark chose to use one, and Luke chose to use another. Since they understood Jesus to use both terms synonymously, each author felt justified in omitting the other term.

Matthew had clearly heard this, being a disciple of Jesus. Mark probably heard it from Peter, who was also witness to Jesus when he gave this Discourse. Luke probably interviewed all of the sources, except Jesus. They all apparently believed they were saying the same thing that Jesus told the Apostles to look out for.

Just as important, both Matthew and Mark warn that the "abomination of desolation" had more behind the term. Daniel had to be referenced, according to Matthew. Mark indicated understanding this required careful reading.

The key, then, is Daniel, if we are to understand what the "abomination of desolation" was. It was in Daniel that the "abomination of desolation" is associated with armies coming to desolate Jerusalem and the temple. It is in Daniel that both terms "encircling armies" and "abomination of desolation" come together. And I would assume that since Jesus used both terms, he described them as one event.

Understanding this, we can recognize that the "abomination of desolation" in both Matthew and Mark had to do with "encircling armies." And we can then recognize that in Luke, the "encircling armies" are the interpretation of the "abomination of desolation."

[ForHisglory]

The fact is, this is how you *interpret* what I said, and *not* what I said. I'm saying that Luke "interpreted" what Matthew and Mark said about the AoD to be the *same thing* as his own version of it, which was the "encirclement of Jerusalem by [Roman] armies."

I thought the purpose of this thread wasn't to rehash what is stated elsewhere?

[ForHisglory]

Matt 13.57 And they took offense at him.
But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.” 58 And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.

Mark 6.3 And they took offense at him.
4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.” 5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6 He was amazed at their lack of faith.

Luke 4.23 Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to me: ‘Physician, heal yourself!’ And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.’”
24 “Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. 25 I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27 And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”
28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff.

Notice the similarties and the differences. Everything quoted as from Jesus was actually said by Jesus. But not everything was equally reported by each synoptic author. Matthew mentioned that a prophet is "dishonored" in his town and home. Mark also mentions a prophet "dishonored" in town and home, but adds "relatives." And Luke mentions that a prophet is not "accepted" in his town.

I feel you didn't pay attention to my post or the points I made.
The point is that NONE of these is an INTERPRETATION nor a PARAPHRASE.

It is *not* the "Devil's lie" to say that each version is different. Each version presents what Jesus said accurately. It's just that each author chose which words to include, and how to present them.

Indeed, and this was not called a lie of the Devil.

It is the same with the Olivet Discourse of Jesus in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 17 and 21. They all provide quotations from Jesus. But each author chose which words to include, and how to say them. Jesus told his Apostles to look for the "abomination of desolation." Both Matthew and Mark record this. But Luke indicated that Jesus told his Apostles to look for the "encirclement of Jerusalem by armies."

You still seem to be in denial or wilfully misinterpreting what the lie of the Devil is.

There is ZERO disagreement that they all provide quotations and each chose which words to include and which to omit. That is NOT a problem or even being said isn't so. In fact the opposite has been stated numerous times.
Where you REMAIN wrong is that you claim a TOTAL rewording, with NOTHING connected, and which you call an INTERPRETATION is the "Lie of the Devil."
Luke chose which words to record, but he did NOT make up words or choose to put his own interpretation.

Both terms occur in the *same place in the Discourse.* The same items occurs before and after in each version. The thing Jesus called for his Disciples to "look for" had to be the same thing. And yet Matthew and Mark use "abomination of desolation," and Luke uses "encircling armies."

Actually it is IRRELEVANT whether or not the same things are stated before and after - though the TRUTH is that they are NOT the same.
What is relevant is whether changing a word from "be afraid" to "be alarmed" is of no consequence as it is not an interpretation, but simply a choice of words.
However to ENTIRELY replace EVERY word and put ENTIRELY different words, is going beyond simple omission or choosing of words, but actually stating something as being said which was NEVER said.

Both of these statements were true quotations of Jesus.

WHEN you say that BOTH were said by Jesus then it means ONE statement is NOT an INTERPRETATION of the other, but rather that this is simply a question of omission, which has been noted is NOT a "Lie of the Devil."
You change your goalposts because one moment you say BOTH statements were made, but then you say ONLY ONE is made, and that the OTHER is an INTERPRETATION.

You need to be clear WHICH of these two views you hold to.
IF you are saying Jesus spoke BOTH statements, and one being in one gospel and the other being in the other gospel is simply a question of omission - then you can argue the merits of such an omission and the possibility of it being so.
However IF you are saying that Jesus made ONLY ONE statement - as recorded in Matthew and Mark - then you are accusing Luke of making up his own INTERPRETATION of what Jesus meant. It is this claim that ANY of the authors of the gospels made things up, and gave their own private INTERPRETATION which is noted as a LIE or a DECEPTION of the Devil.

Please clarify WHICH of these two positions you hold, so that the merits of that position can then be dealt with.

[randyk]

Matt 15.21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”
23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

Mark 7.24 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”
29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”
30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

Let's compare the stories of the Caananite/Syrophoenecian Woman in Matthew and Mark. This will show that the stories consistently agree with each other without having to give an exact duplicate of one another, telling the same story using different words without having to actually make a "transcript" of the account. Paraphrasing is allowed, with respect to quotations, because we can see that not just in the quotations themselves, but also in the flexibility shown in how each author chose to describe what was important to him.

We know it is the same story because in both versions Jesus left one place to go to the region of Tyre. Matthew says it is the "region of Tyre and Sidon. And Mark says "the vicinity of Tyre." "Region" and "vicinity" are two different words, but relay the same general understanding in each author.

At the end of the story Matthew writes, "28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment." And Mark writes, "29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”
30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone."

Though Matthew and Mark use different words, they express the same things in the form of a paraphrase. Either Jesus said, "for such a reply, you may go," or he said, "you have great faith." One version may be a paraphrase of the other, indicating what Jesus meant as much as what he said.

So we know it is the same place and the same story. The subject is a woman who in Matthew is called a "Canaanite woman," and in Luke is described as a woman who "was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia." They are relating different words about the same woman, because the descriptions are not incompatible with one another.

The woman, according to Matthew, "came" to Jesus on behalf of her daughter, who was "demon-possessed, and suffering terribly." By contrast, the woman, according to Luke, "fell at [Jesus'] feet" on behalf of her daughter, who was "possessed by an impure spirit." In this case, Matthew provides more detail than Luke, indicating how much the demon-possessed daughter was suffering. Again, additional material provided by Matthew is not incompatible with Mark, and still expresses the same account.

So, now let's look at the actual quotations, of all concerned. 1st, here is Matthew's version.
23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

And here is Mark's version.
24 He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”
29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”
30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

In Matthew's version, we read, "Jesus did not answer a word." In Mark's version, we read, "He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it." Matthew and Mark together convey the idea of Jesus' resistance to helping the Canaanite woman. He may have been trying to show that the Israelites were supposed to keep themselves from polluting themselves with Canaanite ways. Clearly, the different accounts are trying to explain these things in the author's own way. Matthew's version even indicates additional information, the Disciples urging Jesus to send them away. Mark omits this.

Both Matthew and Mark's version have Jesus saying. "It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” Matthew has the woman replying, "Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” Mark has the woman replying, "even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” Dogs under the table" is a little different from dogs that eat crumbs that fall from the table. Again, it is a paraphrase, or a personal version giving the basic idea of what Jesus said, and not an exact quotation. Otherwise, either Matthew or Mark would've been deficient in giving a perfect transcript of the account.

I hope this shows you how flexibly God allowed the gospel authors to relate the events and quotations during Jesus' ministry? Some have questioned my claims that paraphrases are allowed, and perhaps there is confusion about how paraphrases are to be interpreted as such in this manner. And since I've been asked to provided examples, here is another example of this. If it is of interest to you, please give it some thought.

[randyk]

I feel you didn't pay attention to my post or the points I made.
The point is that NONE of these is an INTERPRETATION nor a PARAPHRASE.

The examples I gave show the diverse ways that Jesus is quoted. Sometimes parts of it are omitted. Sometimes synonymous statements are used. As I show elsewhere, the following comparison shows that either Matthew or Mark "interpreted," or "paraphrased" what Jesus said. It was an inexact quote, and yet accurate enough to have been called a "quote."

Matt 15.28 28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.”
Mar 7.29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”

Indeed, and this was not called a lie of the Devil.
You still seem to be in denial or wilfully misinterpreting what the lie of the Devil is.

I don't think you ever understood what I meant by Luke "interpreting" what Jesus said? As I said, I believe in the inspiration of Scriptures. I believe Luke truthfully accounted for what Jesus said. I just don't believe the words have to be *exact* quotations. As long as the quotations accurately represent what Jesus said they are legitimate "interpretations" of what Jesus said.

I think you have a problem with the word "interpretation." I deliberately used the word "interpretation" because I believe the Holy Spirit used Luke to *interpret* for us what the AoD was in Matthew and Mark. Luke inadvertently explained this, in my opinion.

I really don't care to discuss the word "interpretation" any more, since you just seem to want to fight over words. If I say you're "interpreting" my intentions wrong, does this mean you're creating a commentary on my beliefs? No.

Neither am I saying that Luke was creating a "commentary" on Jesus' Discourse. He was, in fact, quoting the Discourse, albeit in a non-transcripted way that enables us to see how he "interpreted" what Jesus said, namely that the AoD was in fact the "encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman armies." He was quoting only a part of what Jesus said, such that he inadvertently "interpreted" for us what the AoD was! In omitting the part where Jesus described the AoD, and only including the part about the "encircling Armies," he unconsciously identified the two, or "interpreted" them.

There is ZERO disagreement that they all provide quotations and each chose which words to include and which to omit. That is NOT a problem or even being said isn't so. In fact the opposite has been stated numerous times.
Where you REMAIN wrong is that you claim a TOTAL rewording, with NOTHING connected, and which you call an INTERPRETATION is the "Lie of the Devil."
Luke chose which words to record, but he did NOT make up words or choose to put his own interpretation.

I *never said* Luke made up words. That is a dishonest statement. Please quote me where I said that? I've *never* believed that. I've *never* believed that Luke *made up* words! If that's what you're promoting on this Forum, you're slandering me, saying Luke made up words for Jesus, and thus produced "lies of the Devil," as you call it. If you're going to accuse me of something so hideous, you should produce the evidence immediately! How could I have said something I've never believed?

No, what you're doing is *claiming* I'm saying Luke made up words. And you're basing this on the fact I said Luke "interpreted" what Jesus said. And I'm just saying that Luke, in hearing the full quotation of what Jesus said, picked one of two synonymous phrases, and chose to only select one, thus "interpreting" for us what that phrase meant. In choosing between the AoD and the "encirclement of Jerusalem" Luke selected the "encirclement," which indicated for us that it was the same as the AoD in the other gospels.

Actually it is IRRELEVANT whether or not the same things are stated before and after - though the TRUTH is that they are NOT the same.
What is relevant is whether changing a word from "be afraid" to "be alarmed" is of no consequence as it is not an interpretation, but simply a choice of words.
However to ENTIRELY replace EVERY word and put ENTIRELY different words, is going beyond simple omission or choosing of words, but actually stating something as being said which was NEVER said.

Please see the example above. How many examples will it take to prove this to you? And much of a change in wording will it take to prove this is more than just an omission or synonym?

What do you do with the following?

Matt 15.28 28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.”
Mar 7.29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”

WHEN you say that BOTH were said by Jesus then it means ONE statement is NOT an INTERPRETATION of the other, but rather that this is simply a question of omission, which has been noted is NOT a "Lie of the Devil."
You change your goalposts because one moment you say BOTH statements were made, but then you say ONLY ONE is made, and that the OTHER is an INTERPRETATION.

I have *not* changed the goalposts! How I use the word "interpretation" seems to be *your problem,* and not mine. You impose what you want to believe I mean by "interpretation," and refuse to listen to how *I* mean to use it. As I said, Luke "interpreted" what Jesus meant by the AoD by only quoting the part about the "encircling armies." He did this inadvertently--he did not explain this to be his intention. By choosing one and not the other, we can see how he interpreted the "encircling armies" to be. He saw no discrepancy in applying "encircling armies" where Matthew and Mark inserted the AoD! If he saw a discrepancy, he would've changed it. But since he saw no inconsistency, he didn't change it, and thus "interpreted" the meaning of the AoD for us!

You need to be clear WHICH of these two views you hold to.
IF you are saying Jesus spoke BOTH statements, and one being in one gospel and the other being in the other gospel is simply a question of omission - then you can argue the merits of such an omission and the possibility of it being so.
However IF you are saying that Jesus made ONLY ONE statement - as recorded in Matthew and Mark - then you are accusing Luke of making up his own INTERPRETATION of what Jesus meant. It is this claim that ANY of the authors of the gospels made things up, and gave their own private INTERPRETATION which is noted as a LIE or a DECEPTION of the Devil.

Please clarify WHICH of these two positions you hold, so that the merits of that position can then be dealt with.

This last statement of yours indicate you *finally* get what I've been saying all along, that Jesus said *both things,* and that in choosing only one of the phrases Luke "interpreted" for us what the other phrase meant. You make it very difficult for me, brother! I hope we're finally on the same page, and you can stop calling me the "Devil?"

[Aristarkos]

A brother on this Forum has repeatedly accused me of enabling a "lie of the Devil" by claiming that the Gospel authors sometimes quoted Jesus in a "paraphrase" or in an "abbreviated" way. This explains, for me, some of the discrepancies in the different versions, and does not sacrifice divine inspiration. Such paraphrases properly express what Jesus said in an accurate depiction of the substance of what he said, rather than a perfect recitation of what he said in full, and in perfect arrangement.

I am being regularly trashed as one who "makes stuff up" and "changes the meaning of words." So I'm asking for some feedback on this, and perhaps a reconciliation with this brother, so that we can continue in meaningful discussions, without the accusation. He is a good debater, and has a lot of facts. But this time I think he's a bit out in left field. But I leave it up to you and your good will to settle this?

Here are a few quotes a snipped off the of Web to prove my point...


http://christianworldviewpress.com/d...isquote-jesus/
As we have seen, many critics point to the variation in recording Jesus’ words and deeds. What many of them do not realize is that the Greco-Roman biographer/historian had greater literary freedom to paraphrase and even slightly alter the words of a person for stylistic reasons. The writers of the Gospels were simply doing what biographers and historians did in their day. No one would have accused them of doing anything bad. “The early Christians [along with non-Christians] didn’t see these variations as a problem because that’s what they were accustomed to in their biographical and historical writings.”

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/b...ons-explained/
So how do we account for the apparent discrepancies in the Gospel accounts? A lot of the problem stems from our expectations. If we expect a level of historical precision that the Gospels didn’t intend to provide, we’re going to run into problems. The truth is that it’s completely normal for ancient (and modern) historical accounts to summarize, paraphrase, omit details, and explain events in a way that highlights their specific points and perspectives.

https://www.christiancourier.com/art...from-jesus-the
First, it has long been recognized that in referring to another’s audible use of language, or his written words, it is not necessary to quote verbatim in order to accurately represent his thoughts. This principle has been recognized from the very earliest times of human communication, in connection with both the spoken word and the written message.
...The citations from the Old Testament, as employed by the writers of the New Testament, constitute another example of variety in language presentation without the sacrifice of truth. A conservative estimate suggests there are some 295 references from the Old Testament in the New Testament. If one adds allusions as well, the estimates escalate from slightly over 600 to somewhat over 4,000 (depending upon the scholar)! About 10% of the New Testament, in some form, is taken from the Old Testament (Roger, 137-138).
But the quotations vary considerably in form; some are from the Hebrew Old Testament, while others (the majority) are from the Greek translation (the Septuagint). Some are fairly complete; others are abbreviated. Some represent a whole text; others only a phrase or so. In some passages a single writer is quoted, in other texts multiple citations from different sources are blended together. In some of the quotations the verbiage is fairly precise; in others the wording has been paraphrased or deliberately changed. These facts are indisputable...
Minor alterations do not sacrifice substance. A paraphrase or the emendation of an original author or speaker does not impair the sense of the primary source if the citation is accurately conveyed. In fact, as one relatively modern journalistic authority expressed it, “A careful paraphrase that does complete justice to the source is preferable to a long quotation” (Campbell, 15).

What surprises me is that the quotes you supplied, do not seem to take the inspiration of the Scriptures serious. To whom the Scriptures are not Gods Word in human language ..., what can I say? Yes translations are notoriously wrong in many things that matter, but we can get across that by looking (seriously, not with a preconceived opinion) at the source text.

I wouldn't bother to much by this mysterious brother, who agrees on anything when it's about Scripture? What we should all more do, is look at the source text and not so much at the translation, which for many seem to have become Gods word, it isn't, it is a translation and they all are full or errors.

Aristarkos

[randyk]

What surprises me is that the quotes you supplied, do not seem to take the inspiration of the Scriptures serious. To whom the Scriptures are not Gods Word in human language ..., what can I say? Yes translations are notoriously wrong in many things that matter, but we can get across that by looking (seriously, not with a preconceived opinion) at the source text.

I wouldn't bother to much by this mysterious brother, who agrees on anything when it's about Scripture? What we should all more do, is look at the source text and not so much at the translation, which for many seem to have become Gods word, it isn't, it is a translation and they all are full or errors.

Aristarkos

I don't know who you're referring to when you mention a "mysterious brother?" And I don't know why you mention "translations," when I'm showing that the *source material* itself indicates discrepancies between Matthew's version, Mark's version, and Luke's version? All 3 quote Jesus, and in the *same story* they each quote Jesus differently at times. This is not a lack of inspiration, but rather, a *paraphrase* of sorts. Omissions, abbreviations, etc. are perfectly allowable in this kind of medium, since the idea is more to accurately portray what Jesus said than to use his exact words. Often they are his exact words. But sometimes, they are artistic license to convey the meaning in different words, still "quoting" him. I've given a few examples. And here are reminders.

Story of the Canaanite Woman.
Matt 15.24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.”

Mar 7.27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”
29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”

A. Matt 15.24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

Mar 7.27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

B. Matt 15.28 28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.”

Mar 7.29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”

Please carefully compare *Jesus' quoted statements* here in Matthew and in Mark, recognizing that the same thing is being said without using the same exact words. The argument is *not* against divine inspiration, but against the discrediting of "paraphrasing" under divine inspiration. No attempt to give an exact *transcript* of what Jesus said, but only to *accurately represent* what Jesus actually said. These may be omissions, synonyms, or abbreviated wording, but in fact these quotations are slightly different, while saying the same things.

In the following example I will show that Jesus, in the original Discourse, likely mentioned two things, and the synoptic authors, in covering this Discourse, only mentioned one thing in the same place. Jesus, in the same Discourse, and in the same place in the Discourse, told his Disciples to watch out for a very important event.

In the original Discourse Jesus likely mentioned both the "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" and the "encirclement of Jerusalem by armies." However, Matthew mentions only the AoD, and Mark mentions only the AoD, while Luke mentions only the "encirclement of Jerusalem." All 3 versions appear to be examples of paraphrasing by *omission.* And yet all 3 are equally inspired, I believe.

In providing all 3 versions, Luke's version appears to *interpret* for us what the AoD is! In inserting *only* the "encirclement" phrase he inadvertently "interprets* what the AoD in Matthew and Mark is! Please compare:

Matt 24.15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

Mark 13.14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

[randyk]

Here is another example of "licensed rights to paraphrase under inspiration."

Matthew 17.5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”

Mark 9.7 Then a cloud appeared and covered them, and a voice came from the cloud: “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!”

Luke 9.35 A voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.”

[randyk]

Here is another example of "licensed rights to paraphrase under inspiration."

Matthew 10.42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.”

Mark 9.41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

Here is another example of "licensed rights to paraphrase under inspiration."

Matthew 10.42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.”

Mark 9.41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

[Aristarkos]

I don't know who you're referring to when you mention a "mysterious brother?" And I don't know why you mention "translations," when I'm showing that the *source material* itself indicates discrepancies between Matthew's version, Mark's version, and Luke's version? All 3 quote Jesus, and in the *same story* they each quote Jesus differently at times. This is not a lack of inspiration, but rather, a *paraphrase* of sorts. Omissions, abbreviations, etc. are perfectly allowable in this kind of medium, since the idea is more to accurately portray what Jesus said than to use his exact words. Often they are his exact words. But sometimes, they are artistic license to convey the meaning in different words, still "quoting" him. I've given a few examples. And here are reminders.

Story of the Canaanite Woman.
Matt 15.24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.”

Mar 7.27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”
29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”

A. Matt 15.24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

Mar 7.27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

B. Matt 15.28 28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.”

Mar 7.29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”

Please carefully compare *Jesus' quoted statements* here in Matthew and in Mark, recognizing that the same thing is being said without using the same exact words. The argument is *not* against divine inspiration, but against the discrediting of "paraphrasing" under divine inspiration. No attempt to give an exact *transcript* of what Jesus said, but only to *accurately represent* what Jesus actually said. These may be omissions, synonyms, or abbreviated wording, but in fact these quotations are slightly different, while saying the same things.

In the following example I will show that Jesus, in the original Discourse, likely mentioned two things, and the synoptic authors, in covering this Discourse, only mentioned one thing in the same place. Jesus, in the same Discourse, and in the same place in the Discourse, told his Disciples to watch out for a very important event.

In the original Discourse Jesus likely mentioned both the "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" and the "encirclement of Jerusalem by armies." However, Matthew mentions only the AoD, and Mark mentions only the AoD, while Luke mentions only the "encirclement of Jerusalem." All 3 versions appear to be examples of paraphrasing by *omission.* And yet all 3 are equally inspired, I believe.

In providing all 3 versions, Luke's version appears to *interpret* for us what the AoD is! In inserting *only* the "encirclement" phrase he inadvertently "interprets* what the AoD in Matthew and Mark is! Please compare:

Matt 24.15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

Mark 13.14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."

Is that so difficult when we read your first post which starts with these words « A brother on this Forum has repeatedly accused me of enabling a "lie of the Devil" by claiming that the Gospel authors sometimes quoted Jesus in a "paraphrase" or in an "abbreviated" way ». To me his identity is a mystery and that is good I don't need to know.

I'm aware of those differences between the Gospels, that is not without reason. I've posted this here before but the four Gospels represent Christ in different ways. They are not just copies with errors in them.

The quote from Mark and Matthew speak of the same event, Luke speaks only of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The Temple is where it ought not to be, isn't it? These are days of vengeance, because God kicked Israel out of their country through the Romans and they did this violently.

You seem to believe they were the same events, but is their any proof for that? Many believe the Lord was only tempted three times by the devil but He was at least 6 times and they are in a rising line as for the temptations. In Mat. 4:8 the devil shows the Lord the kingdoms of the whole cosmos. In Luke 4:5 however we read the devil showed Him the kingdoms of the oikoumene, the inhabited earth around Israel. These are two different events, no error. Therefore the event in Luke took place before Matthew. This also is clear form Luke 4:13 « And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season ». So he would come back, in Mat. 4:11 we read « Then the devil leaveth him ... », so this also was after the event in Matthew. Just saying.

Aristarkos

[randyk]

Is that so difficult when we read your first post which starts with these words « A brother on this Forum has repeatedly accused me of enabling a "lie of the Devil" by claiming that the Gospel authors sometimes quoted Jesus in a "paraphrase" or in an "abbreviated" way ». To me his identity is a mystery and that is good I don't need to know.

I'm aware of those differences between the Gospels, that is not without reason. I've posted this here before but the four Gospels represent Christ in different ways. They are not just copies with errors in them.

The quote from Mark and Matthew speak of the same event, Luke speaks only of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The Temple is where it ought not to be, isn't it? These are days of vengeance, because God kicked Israel out of their country through the Romans and they did this violently.

You seem to believe they were the same events, but is their any proof for that? Many believe the Lord was only tempted three times by the devil but He was at least 6 times and they are in a rising line as for the temptations. In Mat. 4:8 the devil shows the Lord the kingdoms of the whole cosmos. In Luke 4:5 however we read the devil showed Him the kingdoms of the oikoumene, the inhabited earth around Israel. These are two different events, no error. Therefore the event in Luke took place before Matthew. This also is clear form Luke 4:13 « And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season ». So he would come back, in Mat. 4:11 we read « Then the devil leaveth him ... », so this also was after the event in Matthew. Just saying.

Aristarkos

I'd have to study that particular passage, to see what the Greek allows. It's not a big secret that a brother believes I'm lying from the Devil, because he has stated that his belief is that I'm corrupting the Scriptures by considering that they include "paraphrases." In some respects that may be a legitimate pov.

However, it irritates me because I've repeatedly said that my application of "paraphrase" does not imply the alteration of inspired *meaning* in the text. I'm seeking to prove words can change without significantly altering meaning. In that case, I'm *not* lying from the Devil. For example, the use of synonymous phrases or words can be used without altering meaning.

In the case of the AoD and the "encirclement of Jerusalem," these were 2 different phrases, both of which were likely spoken by Jesus. In referring to these, Matthew, Mark, and Luke shortened Jesus' Discourse to use only one of two phrases, both of which represented a single event. This is why they felt that only one phrase was necessary. None of them thought it inconsonant for any of them to include only one of the terms.

But thanks for your thoughts. I wouldn't say that the *temple* was where it was not supposed to be. Rather, I think that the pagan Roman Army was within the vicinity of the holy city of Jerusalem. As such, pagan armies were not viewed as anything less than a sacrilege if their purpose was to defile the sacred territory around the temple with pagan infiltration.

[Aristarkos]

I'd have to study that particular passage, to see what the Greek allows. It's not a big secret that a brother believes I'm lying from the Devil, because he has stated that his belief is that I'm corrupting the Scriptures by considering that they include "paraphrases." In some respects that may be a legitimate pov.

However, it irritates me because I've repeatedly said that my application of "paraphrase" does not imply the alteration of inspired *meaning* in the text. I'm seeking to prove words can change without significantly altering meaning. In that case, I'm *not* lying from the Devil. For example, the use of synonymous phrases or words can be used without altering meaning.

In the case of the AoD and the "encirclement of Jerusalem," these were 2 different phrases, both of which were likely spoken by Jesus. In referring to these, Matthew, Mark, and Luke shortened Jesus' Discourse to use only one of two phrases, both of which represented a single event. This is why they felt that only one phrase was necessary. None of them thought it inconsonant for any of them to include only one of the terms.

But thanks for your thoughts. I wouldn't say that the *temple* was where it was not supposed to be. Rather, I think that the pagan Roman Army was within the vicinity of the holy city of Jerusalem. As such, pagan armies were not viewed as anything less than a sacrilege if their purpose was to defile the sacred territory around the temple with pagan infiltration.

Since the Gospels are about Israel and their announced Kingdom, of course the temple is meant in both texts, Markus and Matthew are about the Temple, but we can all believe as we please, can't we? What you fail to see is the events in Mark and Matthew point to a different event then Luke and apparently you want them to be the same.

Luke says « When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near », this was in 70 AD when the Roman army surrounded the city and utterly destroyed it. They didn't put anything in the Temple, they just burned it to the ground. Luke 21:12 starts with this text « But before all these ... », the context demands this is about what the Lord just said, therefore Luke 21:8 — 11, before all that happens they will be persecuted, and they were back then pretty badly, believing in Christ was back then what we now call a felony, anyway they would kill you for it, there was only one god, the Cesar.

Matthew says « Immediately after the tribulation of those days ... », immediately after Luke's tribulation the Jews were sold as slaves and scatterd all over the Roman empire, so this is still future now, because what Mat. 34:29 — 31 says never happened yet, i.e. the Return of the Lord.

Aristarkos