a "lie of the Devil?"

[ForHisglory]

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.

You again confuse what a paraphrase is.
A paraphrase:
express the meaning of (something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.

Matthew and Mark are NOT writing different words in order to achieve greater clarity than the original. They are simply reporting the original as it makes a point.
Mark was not present and is reliant on eye-witness statements, which means that he relies on the report given to him, which doesn't mean he paraphrases, but simply that he phrases things.

IOW a paraphrase is taking a KNOWN original and then changing that original to get a new thing which is meant to make that thing clearer (or an aspect of it).
Matthew and Mark are not taking Jesus' words and making them clearer, they are ordering and noting the results etc of the event. Further Jesus may have said ALL the words recorded by Matthew and Mark, but one notes some and the other others.

However NONE of this is the same as your INTERPRETATION which is something different.

[ForHisglory]

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.”

Nope, not a paraphrase.
"Whom I have chosen" does NOT mean "whom I love".
A paraphrase would take the words "whom I love" and change them to make them clearer, but that has not happened here.
Therefore this is almost certainly omission for God may have said "This is my Son, my chosen whom I love, with Him I am well pleased. Listen to Him!"

[ForHisglory]

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.

Where you do your brother a MASSIVE disservice is to misrepresent and claim things contrary to what was stated.
A paraphrase is a massive issue, but the "LIE of the Devil" is an entire INTERPRETATION, which is a COMPLETE rewording without any reference to the other words.
It is ONLY claimed for the SINGLE passage, though appeals to omissions, abbreviations and different foci is made which misleads.

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.

The point which you REFUSE to commit yourself on is whether there were TWO statements made by Jesus, which if this is true THEN there is NO INTERPRETATION and NO PARAPHRASING going on, and therefore NO "LIE of the Devil" and therefore nothing further on that to be discussed - unless you want to discuss the question of is INTERPRETATION ever happening, which could be discussed without any rancour or heat.

However IF you claim there is ONLY ONE statement made which Matthew and Mark accurately record and Luke then INTERPRETS according to his own thinking, THEN we have an issue to clarify.

So which are REALLY saying?
1) Two statements, and thus no lie
2) One statement, and thus a lie

[randyk]

Where you do your brother a MASSIVE disservice is to misrepresent and claim things contrary to what was stated.
A paraphrase is a massive issue, but the "LIE of the Devil" is an entire INTERPRETATION, which is a COMPLETE rewording without any reference to the other words.
It is ONLY claimed for the SINGLE passage, though appeals to omissions, abbreviations and different foci is made which misleads.


The point which you REFUSE to commit yourself on is whether there were TWO statements made by Jesus, which if this is true THEN there is NO INTERPRETATION and NO PARAPHRASING going on, and therefore NO "LIE of the Devil" and therefore nothing further on that to be discussed - unless you want to discuss the question of is INTERPRETATION ever happening, which could be discussed without any rancour or heat.

However IF you claim there is ONLY ONE statement made which Matthew and Mark accurately record and Luke then INTERPRETS according to his own thinking, THEN we have an issue to clarify.

So which are REALLY saying?
1) Two statements, and thus no lie
2) One statement, and thus a lie

I have been saying, regularly, 2 statements. Jesus said both 1) the AoD, and 2) the encirclement of Jerusalem by foreign armies. By saying Luke "interpreted the AoD for us" I mean that he saw no need to include both #1 and #2. Either one presented the same event.

By saying Luke used a paraphrase I don't mean that he misquoted Jesus--only that he selected the #2, instead of both #1 and #2. Perhaps this isn't best presented as a "paraphrase." Perhaps it is best expressed as an intentional "omission?"

But the gospel authors did not always use the exact words of Jesus, although it's plain to me that they collaborated. Otherwise, they had perfect, photographic memories.

I do not find that they always presented exact representations of what was said in another gospel. They did choose acceptable synonyms and their own arrangements, as long as Jesus' words and their meanings were preserved.

As for Luke's choice to use "encirclement of Jerusalem by armies," I would find this strange unless Luke saw it as the same thing presented in the other gospels as the "abomination of desolation." Thus, Luke's version "interprets" #1 and #2 as the same event. And it provides us with an interpretation of what the AoD is, namely the "encirclement of Jerusalem by foreign forces."

[randyk]

Nope, not a paraphrase.
"Whom I have chosen" does NOT mean "whom I love".
A paraphrase would take the words "whom I love" and change them to make them clearer, but that has not happened here.
Therefore this is almost certainly omission for God may have said "This is my Son, my chosen whom I love, with Him I am well pleased. Listen to Him!"

Trouble is, we don't really know how much is an exact quote and how much is an abbreviated representation of what Jesus said. My point is that the synoptic gospels had their own variations, which showed a lack of exact correlation.

These differences may be justified in the way you describe, or in other ways. For example, Jesus could use one word that had several different meanings, each applying in several different ways.

Jesus may have said both "chosen" and "beloved." Or he may have only said "beloved." In the latter case, "beloved" could include the sense of "chosen," because in context that is what God was doing by calling him His "beloved."

I just call it a paraphrase for lack of a better word.

[randyk]

You again confuse what a paraphrase is.
A paraphrase:
express the meaning of (something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.

Matthew and Mark are NOT writing different words in order to achieve greater clarity than the original. They are simply reporting the original as it makes a point.
Mark was not present and is reliant on eye-witness statements, which means that he relies on the report given to him, which doesn't mean he paraphrases, but simply that he phrases things.

IOW a paraphrase is taking a KNOWN original and then changing that original to get a new thing which is meant to make that thing clearer (or an aspect of it).
Matthew and Mark are not taking Jesus' words and making them clearer, they are ordering and noting the results etc of the event. Further Jesus may have said ALL the words recorded by Matthew and Mark, but one notes some and the other others.

However NONE of this is the same as your INTERPRETATION which is something different.

I don't agree with this. Just because Mark couldn't know what Jesus said, because he wasn't there, doesn't mean he isn't using a paraphrase! He had to have been told what Jesus said if he was going to present what he thought Jesus said. And if he didn't present things the exact way Peter explained it to him, then he felt comfortable giving a basic paraphrase, presenting it as accurately as possible.

Or, we might just say Mark tried to write down what he remembered. At any rate, there was no effort to copy what other gospel authors wrote. Either that, or the other gospel authors didn't care to duplicate what he wrote. They tended to present what Jesus said in terms that were as close to what Jesus meant as would be communicable to their respective audiences.

It is entirely possible that the slight deviations in these accounts were an attempt, by the authors, to extract from Jesus' words how they applied to their own understanding, as they attempted to reach their own particular audiences. This might explain the amazing similarity of the words from one author to another, yet with real differences.

[randyk]

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.

Yes, in my view they *have to* be the same! If not, then Luke was deliberately confusing Christians who would read his account. Christians would read Matthew and Mark and read, "When you see the abomination of desolation." But then they would read, "When you see the encircling of Jerusalem by besieging armies." Wouldn't this confuse readers unless all the synoptic authors had collaborated and had understood that they were both the same thing?

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.

I agree nothing was *put in the temple.* That's why I don't interpret it this way. The "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" is the Roman Army standing in the vicinity of Jerusalem, or in the general location of the temple.

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

For me, the Great Tribulation began in in 70 AD and ends with the Return of Christ. We both see the 2nd Coming as the end of the Great Tribulation.

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.

Yes, in my view they *have to* be the same! If not, then Luke was deliberately confusing Christians who would read his account. Christians would read Matthew and Mark and read, "When you see the abomination of desolation." But then they would read, "When you see the encircling of Jerusalem by besieging armies." Wouldn't this confuse readers unless all the synoptic authors had collaborated and had understood that they were both the same thing?

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.

I agree nothing was *put in the temple.* That's why I don't interpret it this way. The "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" is the Roman Army standing in the vicinity of Jerusalem, or in the general location of the temple.

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

For me, the Great Tribulation began in in 70 AD and ends with the Return of Christ. We both see the 2nd Coming as the end of the Great Tribulation.

[ForHisglory]

I don't agree with this. Just because Mark couldn't know what Jesus said, because he wasn't there, doesn't mean he isn't using a paraphrase! He had to have been told what Jesus said if he was going to present what he thought Jesus said. And if he didn't present things the exact way Peter explained it to him, then he felt comfortable giving a basic paraphrase, presenting it as accurately as possible.

Or, we might just say Mark tried to write down what he remembered. At any rate, there was no effort to copy what other gospel authors wrote. Either that, or the other gospel authors didn't care to duplicate what he wrote. They tended to present what Jesus said in terms that were as close to what Jesus meant as would be communicable to their respective audiences.

It is entirely possible that the slight deviations in these accounts were an attempt, by the authors, to extract from Jesus' words how they applied to their own understanding, as they attempted to reach their own particular audiences. This might explain the amazing similarity of the words from one author to another, yet with real differences.

Where we differ considerably is that I don't believe the authors were trying to apply their own understanding, but were trying to allow His words to come forth.

[ForHisglory]

Trouble is, we don't really know how much is an exact quote and how much is an abbreviated representation of what Jesus said. My point is that the synoptic gospels had their own variations, which showed a lack of exact correlation.

These differences may be justified in the way you describe, or in other ways. For example, Jesus could use one word that had several different meanings, each applying in several different ways.

Jesus may have said both "chosen" and "beloved." Or he may have only said "beloved." In the latter case, "beloved" could include the sense of "chosen," because in context that is what God was doing by calling him His "beloved."

I just call it a paraphrase for lack of a better word.

The choice of calling it a paraphrase is a cause for issues which may be shouldn't exist.
A paraphrase AS I read you using it, is not an INTERPRETATION, it is simply presenting what is basically said without demanding an EXACTNESS of wording.
If used in that way, then I could agree with you.

It is when you interpose the author between Jesus and what He said that the issue starts, especially if you have that Jesus did NOT say those words at all.

[ForHisglory]

I have been saying, regularly, 2 statements. Jesus said both 1) the AoD, and 2) the encirclement of Jerusalem by foreign armies. By saying Luke "interpreted the AoD for us" I mean that he saw no need to include both #1 and #2. Either one presented the same event.

By saying Luke used a paraphrase I don't mean that he misquoted Jesus--only that he selected the #2, instead of both #1 and #2. Perhaps this isn't best presented as a "paraphrase." Perhaps it is best expressed as an intentional "omission?"

Starting to get on the same page.

But the gospel authors did not always use the exact words of Jesus, although it's plain to me that they collaborated. Otherwise, they had perfect, photographic memories.

This is why some refer to "Q". It could just be that some of the disciples repeated the same story over and over.

As for Luke's choice to use "encirclement of Jerusalem by armies," I would find this strange unless Luke saw it as the same thing presented in the other gospels as the "abomination of desolation." Thus, Luke's version "interprets" #1 and #2 as the same event. And it provides us with an interpretation of what the AoD is, namely the "encirclement of Jerusalem by foreign forces."

This is a DIFFERENT question and one worthy of its OWN thread.
It is REALLY a KEY question for your ENTIRE foundation.

What is FAR stranger for me, is that IF Jesus said these words AT THE SAME TIME as He spoke of the armies encircling Jerusalem, then why do Matthew and Mark have NO knowledge of them IN RELATION TO THIS, and further how come one is seen fulfilled 4 years BEFORE the other can be considered fulfilled?
As I say that is a DIFFERENT question.

[randyk]

Where we differ considerably is that I don't believe the authors were trying to apply their own understanding, but were trying to allow His words to come forth.

Again, you assume the worst! You assume that when I say they "apply their own understanding" that they somehow changed Jesus' words substantially.

But I'm not saying this. This is purely your suspicious mind. I'm saying that some words that Jesus used could've been explained using synonyms that applied equally in context to mean the same thing. The difference may be due to an effort to communicate to a particular audience, or to bring out a particular truth.

Consider modern, more "readable," versions of the Bible. They paraphrase all of the time, using words based on the authors' understanding of how modern people will read it. They are no less quotations of what the Bible actually said, although making use of paraphrases to explain what Jesus meant better in the language of the audience.

[randyk]

The choice of calling it a paraphrase is a cause for issues which may be shouldn't exist.
A paraphrase AS I read you using it, is not an INTERPRETATION, it is simply presenting what is basically said without demanding an EXACTNESS of wording.
If used in that way, then I could agree with you.

It is when you interpose the author between Jesus and what He said that the issue starts, especially if you have that Jesus did NOT say those words at all.

It really depends, brother, on how you use the word "interpretation." From the start, you've misread how I applied "interpretation" to Luke. Every paraphrased version of the Bible, such as the Good News Bible, or the Amplified Bible, are an "interpretation" by the various scholars and translators. And yet they are attempts at preserving the actual words and meanings of the Bible.

As for my reference to Luke "interpreting" Jesus' Discourse, all I ever meant was that Luke produced his own unique version of the Olivet Discourse as a reduction in the original Account. It was his editing that caused me to call it "his interpretation." I *never* meant to say that he inserted his own words in place of Jesus' words! This is your own malicious thinking!

Even if Luke chose certain words they were his perception of what Jesus *actually said* by the use of synonyms selected to communicate to the needs of his audience. In choosing to edit out the AoD and insert only the part about Jerusalem being encircled he may have chosen that particular editorial work to communicate to non-Jews, who would not have understood the AoD.

[randyk]

Starting to get on the same page.


This is why some refer to "Q". It could just be that some of the disciples repeated the same story over and over.

Right. I don't particularly go for the Q source theory. However, I do believe the Disciples and Apostles of Jesus in the early Church knew each other and collaborated with each other. They likely read each other's accounts of Jesus' life and words. The decision to not conform perfectly with other accounts, therefore, were purely artistic license. It was designed by how the Spirit led each author, and by what each author perceived the needs were of their own unique audience.

Luke knew that Matthew and Mark saw the sign to look for in the Olivet Discourse as the "abomination of desolation." He deliberately chose to use other words of Jesus and omit the AoD to communicate to his audience, being led by the Spirit to do so.

At any rate, as I shoed you elsewhere, the phrases are nearly identical in meaning, although clearly different in words used. Both phrases were no doubt used by Jesus.

Dan 9.26 The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
9.27 ….at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation.

The "people" are the Roman Army. The "ruler" is the Roman general. The "desolation" is the destruction of the city and the temple.

Matt 24.15 “So when you see in the holy place standing ‘the abomination that causes desolation."

Luke 21.20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near."

You can see how these 4 things are correlated:
1) the holy place = Jerusalem
2) the abomination standing = armies surrounding Jerusalem
3) the abomination = armies
4) desolation = Jerusalem's destruction

This is a DIFFERENT question and one worthy of its OWN thread.
It is REALLY a KEY question for your ENTIRE foundation.

What is FAR stranger for me, is that IF Jesus said these words AT THE SAME TIME as He spoke of the armies encircling Jerusalem, then why do Matthew and Mark have NO knowledge of them IN RELATION TO THIS, and further how come one is seen fulfilled 4 years BEFORE the other can be considered fulfilled?
As I say that is a DIFFERENT question.

I've answered this before, although it's just my opinion. The emphasis Jesus gave was as a *sign* to his Disciples to flee Jerusalem. Therefore, the sign had to do with Cestius Gallus, whose departure from the siege of Jerusalem gave occasion for Jesus' Disciples to flee.

The fact this sign would lead to the imminent destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was irrelevant. What was relevant was seeing the sign and fleeing!

On the other hand, the fact that the destruction was imminent is relevant in a different sense. To tell his Disciples that Jewish religion was coming to a complete end is of incredible significance to the Christian faith. Christianity began among the Jews, but their faith was about to become much less "Jewish!" I think both the writer to the Hebrews and Paul's epistles explain this pretty well!

As for Luke's choice of words about the sign to be looked for, I repeat--Jesus likely said both things, the AoD and the encirclement of Jerusalem by Roman armies. Luke's choice made it an "interpretation," a "paraphrase," but only in a kind of way such as in a paraphrased and edited version of the Bible. As we all know Bible translations must choose among a variety of sources, and differences occur with a mind to preserve true quotations.

These were Jesus' actual words, formatted to present the same truth to a different audience and by a different author. Word orders changed. Discourses were abbreviated with different selections of words. But the quotes of Jesus were essentially accurate, given for these slight deviations from one author to the next.

[ForHisglory]

Right. I don't particularly go for the Q source theory. However, I do believe the Disciples and Apostles of Jesus in the early Church knew each other and collaborated with each other. They likely read each other's accounts of Jesus' life and words. The decision to not conform perfectly with other accounts, therefore, were purely artistic license. It was designed by how the Spirit led each author, and by what each author perceived the needs were of their own unique audience.

They were INTENSELY together for a period of a few short years - about 4.

Luke knew that Matthew and Mark saw the sign to look for in the Olivet Discourse as the "abomination of desolation." He deliberately chose to use other words of Jesus and omit the AoD to communicate to his audience, being led by the Spirit to do so.[/QUOTE]
Luke knew this, and so presumably did Matthew and Mark, know the other as BOTH were stated.
Therefore as I noted for another thread, so this can be ended, is the question WHY Matthew and Mark did NOT connect an army surrounding Jerusalem WITH the AoD, which would clarify instead of the cryptic - let the reader understand!

At any rate, as I shoed you elsewhere, the phrases are nearly identical in meaning, although clearly different in words used. Both phrases were no doubt used by Jesus.

Whether they are have any relationship to each other is for another thread.

These were Jesus' actual words, formatted to present the same truth to a different audience and by a different author. Word orders changed. Discourses were abbreviated with different selections of words. But the quotes of Jesus were essentially accurate, given for these slight deviations from one author to the next.

Did you ever consider WHY Luke put part of the OD in chapter 17?

[randyk]

They were INTENSELY together for a period of a few short years - about 4.

Luke knew that Matthew and Mark saw the sign to look for in the Olivet Discourse as the "abomination of desolation." He deliberately chose to use other words of Jesus and omit the AoD to communicate to his audience, being led by the Spirit to do so.

Luke knew this, and so presumably did Matthew and Mark, know the other as BOTH were stated.
Therefore as I noted for another thread, so this can be ended, is the question WHY Matthew and Mark did NOT connect an army surrounding Jerusalem WITH the AoD, which would clarify instead of the cryptic - let the reader understand!
[/QUOTE]

I don't see the reference to Daniel to be "cryptic." It was just a reference, to refer more knowledgeable readers to the all-important source. It required *study.*

It would be like referring someone who knows some Greek back to a Greek reference book. This is very helpful to one who knows Greek. But to one who doesn't know Greek, a different kind of explanation would be needed.

Jews likely knew what the AoD was, having read and studied the book of Daniel. But Luke may have been writing for a less educated audience, with respect to biblical language. He therefore extracted from Jesus' comments those comments best suited to the "uneducated." Translating the AoD into a "Roman siege" would make sense, in this regard.

I'm not here saying that Luke literally translated the AoD. I'm only saying that the *effect* of his edition was to make clear what the AoD was in other gospels for those who wouldn't otherwise understand it.

Luke wasn't dismissing the clear reference to the AoD in Matthew and in Luke. He likely shared their belief that the AoD originates with Dan 9.

However, his mission may have been to reach those less knowledgeable of the terms that Jews would understand. He gave the language better suited to those not educated in biblical material. But I do believe Jesus spoke *all* of this quoted material, connecting the AoD with the encirclement of Jerusalem.

Whether they are have any relationship to each other is for another thread.
Did you ever consider WHY Luke put part of the OD in chapter 17?

Yes, I can answer that in another thread, if you wish?

They were INTENSELY together for a period of a few short years - about 4.

Luke knew that Matthew and Mark saw the sign to look for in the Olivet Discourse as the "abomination of desolation." He deliberately chose to use other words of Jesus and omit the AoD to communicate to his audience, being led by the Spirit to do so.

Luke knew this, and so presumably did Matthew and Mark, know the other as BOTH were stated.
Therefore as I noted for another thread, so this can be ended, is the question WHY Matthew and Mark did NOT connect an army surrounding Jerusalem WITH the AoD, which would clarify instead of the cryptic - let the reader understand!
[/QUOTE]

I don't see the reference to Daniel to be "cryptic." It was just a reference, to refer more knowledgeable readers to the all-important source. It required *study.*

It would be like referring someone who knows some Greek back to a Greek reference book. This is very helpful to one who knows Greek. But to one who doesn't know Greek, a different kind of explanation would be needed.

Jews likely knew what the AoD was, having read and studied the book of Daniel. But Luke may have been writing for a less educated audience, with respect to biblical language. He therefore extracted from Jesus' comments those comments best suited to the "uneducated." Translating the AoD into a "Roman siege" would make sense, in this regard.

I'm not here saying that Luke literally translated the AoD. I'm only saying that the *effect* of his edition was to make clear what the AoD was in other gospels for those who wouldn't otherwise understand it.

Luke wasn't dismissing the clear reference to the AoD in Matthew and in Luke. He likely shared their belief that the AoD originates with Dan 9.

However, his mission may have been to reach those less knowledgeable of the terms that Jews would understand. He gave the language better suited to those not educated in biblical material. But I do believe Jesus spoke *all* of this quoted material, connecting the AoD with the encirclement of Jerusalem.

Whether they are have any relationship to each other is for another thread.
Did you ever consider WHY Luke put part of the OD in chapter 17?

Yes, I can answer that in another thread, if you wish?