i think jesus was confused...or maybe luke and john were

[waitasec]

No not at all! why would even think that? all the prophecy says is that the messiah would dye im not sure what your trying to do with this.

what are you talking about?
luke 22:36
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

there is no mention of the messiah dying in this particular passage in isaiah...but that he would be counted as a transgressor... in this case roman law. for if anyone were to call them self god that would be a case for capital punishment as this act is in defiance to caesar's divinity...cearsar was understood as the only true god on earth rome....you know that right?
your argument for the need for swords to fend off animals doesn't jive with this context...
in the narrative jesus knew the time had come, he was on the run...not from animals or criminals but from his betrayer...

you quoted Luke were Jesus healed the Ear of the priest didnt you?

but that is AFTER the act of a servant of his PREVENTING his arrest...
an act jesus should have had a premonition of as in simon's denial

I am not seeing man.

what can i say...?

I have re read your question at the start just to make sure that I did not misunderstand. However I still see no contradiction in those it was customary to buy swords for self defence purposes. Peter was an overzealous idiot. There does not seem much left to be said.

then jesus should have seen that coming, s he foresaw many other things and not contradict himself in the gospel of john...

the cutting off of an ear was a deliberate act of the attempt to prevent the arrest...

i hope that you realize that there is no way of knowing what jesus actually said...i am only pointing out the contradictions the gospels have in regards to what the gospel of john claims jesus said to have said...

 

[sincerly]

you are 'sincerly' mistaken...

Authorship and sources
The Gospel of Matthew does not name its author. The Christian bishop, Papias of Hierapolis, about 100–140 AD, in a passage with several ambiguous phrases, wrote: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia—sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialektōi—perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen—or "translated") them as best he could."[4] On the surface this implies that Matthew was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, but Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation."[5] Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language.[4]
Papias does not identify his Matthew, but by the end of the 2nd century the tradition of Matthew the tax-collector had become widely accepted, and the line "The Gospel According to Matthew" began to be added to manuscripts.[6]

(I had to omit your source identification-----sincerly)

Waitasec, Wikipedia isn't authoritative. Anyone can write opinions/articles or edit it. Yes, they would like for factual material to be presented, but that isn't a guarantee.
However, that article disproves your assertion that all the writers of the gospels were illiterate. It claims that Matthew may have written in Hebrew and Greek.(And doesn't rule out Matthew.)

here is an interesting piece you may be interested in

(Again, I had to delete that site you posted---sincerly)
it will give you an insight that not many pastors talk about...

Waitasec, I really prefer to get my information from the Holy Spirit inspired writings of the Bible.(Even though "compiled" after many years of debate by those various councils).

 

[sincerly]

what are you talking about?
luke 22:36
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

there is no mention of the messiah dying in this particular passage in isaiah...but that he would be counted as a transgressor... in this case roman law. for if anyone were to call them self god that would be a case for capital punishment as this act is in defiance to caesar's divinity...cearsar was understood as the only true god on earth rome....you know that right?
your argument for the need for swords to fend off animals doesn't jive with this context...
in the narrative jesus knew the time had come, he was on the run...not from animals or criminals but from his betrayer...

Waitasec, When one places all the various prophecies concerning Jesus Christ together--- they were fulfilled. Did you read all of Isa.53 ?? It reveals that Jesus did die. vss.8,9,12. And the verse in Luke, also, states that HE was "numbered among the transgresors". again---FULFILLED.

There were no Roman soldiers in that mob who "arrested" HIM. Pilate found no fault in Jesus. Jesus didn't say HE was a king much less a GOD.(even though HE IS) Those were accusations to Pilate from the Jews. Your continued distortion is welcome. Thanks, because the longer this topic continues the more who will read and make their decision for or against Jesus and HIS Mission. Again, Thanks.

As Jesus said, Matt.26:2, "Ye know that after two days is [the feast of] the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified."

Matt.27:22, "Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? [They] all say unto him, Let him be crucified."

Mark 15:15, "And [so] Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged [him], to be crucified.

Waitasec, the Lord Jesus Christ wasn't "Fleeing"/ "trying to avoid arrest" but was "going" the meet the betrayer and those who came to arrest HIM. Just as it was prophesied. And just as HE said it was HIS Will in pleasing the Father.

but that is AFTER the act of a servant of his PREVENTING his arrest...
an act jesus should have had a premonition of as in simon's denial
then jesus should have seen that coming, s he foresaw many other things and not contradict himself in the gospel of john...
i hope that you realize that there is no way of knowing what jesus actually said...i am only pointing out the contradictions the gospels have in regards to what the gospel of john claims jesus said to have said...

There is no contradictions---only your surmisings of such. When one looks at all the reports from the writers and the prophesied events---The Prophecies were Fulfilled. Jesus is Who HE declared HIMSELF to be with HIS Mission being completed on "time" and the Scriptures are valid.

 

[waitasec]

Waitasec, When one places all the various prophecies concerning Jesus Christ together--- they were fulfilled. Did you read all of Isa.53 ?? It reveals that Jesus did die. vss.8,9,12. And the verse in Luke, also, states that HE was "numbered among the transgresors". again---FULFILLED.

There were no Roman soldiers in that mob who "arrested" HIM. Pilate found no fault in Jesus. Jesus didn't say HE was a king much less a GOD.(even though HE IS) Those were accusations to Pilate from the Jews. Your continued distortion is welcome. Thanks, because the longer this topic continues the more who will read and make their decision for or against Jesus and HIS Mission. Again, Thanks.

As Jesus said, Matt.26:2, "Ye know that after two days is [the feast of] the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified."

Matt.27:22, "Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? [They] all say unto him, Let him be crucified."

Mark 15:15, "And [so] Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged [him], to be crucified.


There is no contradictions---only your surmisings of such. When one looks at all the reports from the writers and the prophesied events---The Prophecies were Fulfilled. Jesus is Who HE declared HIMSELF to be with HIS Mission being completed on "time" and the Scriptures are valid.

moot.
i'm not talking about the prophecies being fulfilled...
i'm talking about what jesus said in john doesn't jive with the ear being cut off as a preventive measure for his arrest.
so was the ear cut off or not...? and why was it cut off...?
does this part of the story in luke, matthew and mark jive with john's jesus saying:
"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
:no:

Waitasec, the Lord Jesus Christ wasn't "Fleeing"/ "trying to avoid arrest" but was "going" the meet the betrayer and those who came to arrest HIM. Just as it was prophesied. And just as HE said it was HIS Will in pleasing the Father.

john 18
2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. 3 So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.

4 Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?”

5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied.

“I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) 6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

in johns account it is clear that jesus was meeting his betrayer...
no kiss was mentioned

now compare john's account with mark's account:

41 Returning the third time, he said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!”

43 Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.
44 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” 45 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. 46 The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47 Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
'just as he was speaking' is describing the urgency in this scene as he said let us go...here comes my betrayer!!!

he didn't say i am the one you are looking for as was described in john.

now matthew's account:

45 Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour has come, and the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. 46 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!”

Jesus Arrested

47 While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people. 48 Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him.” 49 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed him.

same here, 'while he was still speaking' the words 'let us go...here comes my betrayer' you get the urgency of the moment that he wanted to flee
again not consistent with the gospel of john where we are told:

Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?”

5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied.

“I am he,”


and luke:

47 While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, 48 but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”

these accounts do not match john's...
:no:

even john contradicts himself...:areyoucra
why was the ear cut off? you have yet to refute my argument that the ear being cut off was an act of preventing his arrest...thusly a contradiction
:yes:

 

[sincerly]

moot.

NO, there is no debate concerning the events, But, for the reason you are suggesting.

i'm not talking about the prophecies being fulfilled...
i'm talking about what jesus said in john doesn't jive with the ear being cut off as a preventive measure for his arrest.
so was the ear cut off or not...? and why was it cut off...?
does this part of the story in luke, matthew and mark jive with john's jesus saying:
"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
:no:

waitasec, The events occurred as written, but your spin as to why it occurred is false. All the Scriptures point to this moment/event in history as the culmination of the Plan of Salvation for mankind.

Let's go back about a week to Matt.20:18-19, "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify [him]: and the third day he shall rise again. "

Let's go to the event of cutting off the ear. (Matt.26:52-53), "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? "
One asked, but no order was given by Jesus to do any "striking with the sword". Jesus came to "fulfill those prophecies"---NOT to "flee", as you surmise.
Another factor in that "prevention claim of yours" is asked /answered by Jesus. Matt.26:54, "But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? ". Jesus was "fulfilling---NOT "fleeing". Mark(14:49) phrased it thusly, Jesus said, "I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled."

these accounts do not match john's...
:no:

Why should four persons writing concerning the life and death of Jesus independantly need to use the very same words/sentences/phrases or even not write about another event not expressed by the others?? Some descriptinons and events are similar. However, none of their writings express the conotation in context that you have adamately insisted occurred---for your expressed reasoning.

i hope that you realize that there is no way of knowing what jesus actually said...i am only pointing out the contradictions the gospels have in regards to what the gospel of john claims jesus said to have said...

Waitasec, taking scripture out of context makes understanding of what is present and in context even more a "contradiction" in your own mind. Jesus's words to Pilate cannot be retrofitted to Peter's actions. Peter if anything was acting on his own impulsive understanding, rather than any orders by Jesus to restrict/prevent HIS Arrest. For "this cause and this hour came HE into the world". Therefore, "Not an obedient servant".

 

[waitasec]

NO, there is no debate concerning the events, But, for the reason you are suggesting.



waitasec, The events occurred as written, but your spin as to why it occurred is false. All the Scriptures point to this moment/event in history as the culmination of the Plan of Salvation for mankind.

Let's go back about a week to Matt.20:18-19, "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify [him]: and the third day he shall rise again. "

Let's go to the event of cutting off the ear. (Matt.26:52-53), "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? "
One asked, but no order was given by Jesus to do any "striking with the sword". Jesus came to "fulfill those prophecies"---NOT to "flee", as you surmise.
Another factor in that "prevention claim of yours" is asked /answered by Jesus. Matt.26:54, "But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? ". Jesus was "fulfilling---NOT "fleeing". Mark(14:49) phrased it thusly, Jesus said, "I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled."

lets go to john where jesus says:
"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."
was an ear cut off? yes. why? to prevent his arrest. isn't that the context...his arrest...?

Why should four persons writing concerning the life and death of Jesus independantly need to use the very same words/sentences/phrases or even not write about another event not expressed by the others?? Some descriptinons and events are similar. However, none of their writings express the conotation in context that you have adamately insisted occurred---for your expressed reasoning.

it wasn't four people who wrote these four different stories...ask your pastor.

Waitasec, taking scripture out of context makes understanding of what is present and in context even more a "contradiction" in your own mind. Jesus's words to Pilate cannot be retrofitted to Peter's actions.

yet it can be when peter denied christ 3 times?
then what was the purpose of jesus making that statement to pilate?

Peter if anything was acting on his own impulsive understanding, rather than any orders by Jesus to restrict/prevent HIS Arrest. For "this cause and this hour came HE into the world". Therefore, "Not an obedient servant".

peter had already chopped off the ear before jesus said that, making jesus claim even more suspect
i am not taking scripture out of context
did jesus say this or not:
"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."
was an ear cut off? yes it was, and why, to prevent his arrest.

 

[sincerly]

lets go to john where jesus says:
"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."
was an ear cut off? yes. why? to prevent his arrest. isn't that the context...his arrest...?

The context of this portion of the story is Pilate attempting to get some answers. The Jewish leaders had tried to falsely show Pilate that Jesus claimed to have a kingdom in contrast to Caesar's. It wasn't true and Jesus denied such. Just as the first seven words you wrote attest.

Pilate didn't believe those Jewish lies and publically expressed that sentiments. and washed his hands of the matter. Consenting to the mob who said, Matt.27:25, " Then answered all the people, and said, His blood [be] on us, and on our children."

Peter's action as the scriptures reflect are the action's by one person to interfere with What Jesus have come to do and that was to by crucified as you have seen several passages attest to the fact.

None of the Gospels and none of the Scriptures by the Prophets even hint that your senario is correct as the reason for your concocted understanding. HE came and Fulfilled the "Atoning process" for the Salvation for as many as accept.

it wasn't four people who wrote these four different stories...ask your pastor.

Thanks again, the "Four Gospels" have given their witness and your response has been shown.

yet it can be when peter denied christ 3 times?
then what was the purpose of jesus making that statement to pilate?

See above and John 18:33, Pilate's question, "Art thou the king of the Jews?"

peter had already chopped off the ear before jesus said that, making jesus claim even more suspect

That fact has been pointed out to you in many posts and the only claim which is suspect is yours. Jesus didn't lie--HIS KINGDOM has never claimed to be of this world.
In John 14:1-3, those "mansions are in my Father's House"----NOT in this world or on this earth. The confusion is still in your claims.

 

[waitasec]

The context of this portion of the story is Pilate attempting to get some answers. The Jewish leaders had tried to falsely show Pilate that Jesus claimed to have a kingdom in contrast to Caesar's. It wasn't true and Jesus denied such. Just as the first seven words you wrote attest.

no i didn't. check again...

Peter's action as the scriptures reflect are the action's by one person to interfere with What Jesus have come to do and that was to by crucified as you have seen several passages attest to the fact.

None of the Gospels and none of the Scriptures by the Prophets even hint that your senario is correct as the reason for your concocted understanding. HE came and Fulfilled the "Atoning process" for the Salvation for as many as accept.

Thanks again, the "Four Gospels" have given their witness and your response has been shown.

See above and John 18:33, Pilate's question, "Art thou the king of the Jews?"

That fact has been pointed out to you in many posts and the only claim which is suspect is yours. Jesus didn't lie--HIS KINGDOM has never claimed to be of this world.
In John 14:1-3, those "mansions are in my Father's House"----NOT in this world or on this earth. The confusion is still in your claims.

did peter attempt to prevent jesus from being arrested?
yes or no...

"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."



36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.

i forgot, why did they need the swords again?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
The context of this portion of the story is Pilate attempting to get some answers. The Jewish leaders had tried to falsely show Pilate that Jesus claimed to have a kingdom in contrast to Caesar's. It wasn't true and Jesus denied such. Just as the first seven words you wrote attest

no i didn't. check again...

Waitasec, This is what you posted.

"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

Those first seven words(in blue) you attested to as being from Jesus and HIS denying the Accusation.

That conversation is out of context with the incident of Peter 's actions . At that time, Jesus said to Peter, "Matt.26:52-53,Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?"
And along with that fact is John's record of Jesus' rebuke of Peter's actions. John 18:11, "Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? "

did peter attempt to prevent jesus from being arrested?
yes or no...

As has been stated, impetuous Peter did cut the ear off , but it wasn't commanded by Jesus not was it sanctioned by Jesus to prevent HIS destiny with the cross as had been prophesied. And as is seen above---Which is opposite your contention.

i forgot, why did they need the swords again?

It was not stated nor implied in the context of the "Gospels"---It was you wrongful surmising in the first place.

 

[waitasec]

Originally Posted by sincerly
The context of this portion of the story is Pilate attempting to get some answers. The Jewish leaders had tried to falsely show Pilate that Jesus claimed to have a kingdom in contrast to Caesar's. It wasn't true and Jesus denied such. Just as the first seven words you wrote attest


Waitasec, This is what you posted.
Those first seven words(in blue) you attested to as being from Jesus and HIS denying the Accusation.

That conversation is out of context with the incident of Peter 's actions .

the context was jesus being arrested

why did peter cut the ear off?

as soon as you answer that we can go on

As has been stated, impetuous Peter did cut the ear off , but it wasn't commanded by Jesus not was it sanctioned by Jesus to prevent HIS destiny with the cross as had been prophesied. And as is seen above---Which is opposite your contention.

jesus' order has nothing to do with the passage in john
My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.
the passage doesn't say, 'if it were, i would have ordered the prevention of my arrest'

nice try though

 

[sincerly]

the context was jesus being arrested

why did peter cut the ear off?

as soon as you answer that we can go on

Waitasec, The context of the four Gospels concerns the life and ministry of Jesus Christ who came into this world to be a ranson for fallen mankind. Each was writing independently using their own words to express their ideas of what to tell others of the truths which they felt needed to be conveyed to their readers. Since the events were told over and over from the events actually occuring, there was the usage of the same phrases by the different writers. However, that doesn't make the accounting "confusing" or "suspect"---it actually gives greater deminsion/accounting.
That event alone has only a minute part in the "big Picture".
However, to one the refuses to see the "BIG PICTURE"----it can be made to be anything one chooses.

Peter's actions were not explained in any of the Gospels---or elsewhere, to my knowledge. And you assumption is just that. A one man attempt to stop an arrest which Jesus said must occur to fulfill the prophetic predictions.

jesus' order has nothing to do with the passage in john
My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.
the passage doesn't say, 'if it were, i would have ordered the prevention of my arrest'

nice try though

Waitasec, unfortunately, it is a sloppy try by you in attempting to link Matthew's account of the event with John's speaking to Pilate concerning the Jewish actions of wanting Jesus killed.
The "If it were" dispells your senario completely. Not just by Peter, but by the twenty legions of angels Jesus said HE could order as recorded in Matthew.

 

[waitasec]

Waitasec, The context of the four Gospels concerns the life and ministry of Jesus Christ <snip>
However, to one the refuses to see the "BIG PICTURE"----it can be made to be anything one chooses.

the big picture is the fallible accounts of the gospels...

you didn't answer the question...

did peter attempt the prevention of jesus' arrest by taking his sword and cutting off the ear of a priest's servant who was there to arrest jesus? :yes:

the context in mark, matthew, luke as well as in john was; jesus being arrested and peter's attempt to prevent it....:sorry1:

Peter's actions were not explained in any of the Gospels---or elsewhere, to my knowledge. And you assumption is just that. A one man attempt to stop an arrest which Jesus said must occur to fulfill the prophetic predictions.

did peter cut the ear off?
yes or no...
what was happening when peter cut the ear off?
1. a bbq
2. a mugging
3. jesus being arrested

when did peter cut the ear off

1. after jesus took the 1st bite
2. as a response to protect his belongings
3. when he was handed to the jewish leaders

who's ear was cut off?
1. a disciples
2. darth vader
3. a high priest&#8217;s servant

Waitasec, unfortunately, it is a sloppy try by you in attempting to link Matthew's account of the event with John's speaking to Pilate concerning the Jewish actions of wanting Jesus killed.

no it is a sloppy attempt to make them as the same account to explain the "big picture"...
they are not reconcilable...as i have pointed out.

The "If it were" dispells your senario completely. Not just by Peter, but by the twenty legions of angels Jesus said HE could order as recorded in Matthew.

i'm not so sure where the 20 legions of angeles come into play here in the context of jesus being arrested and peter attempting to prevent his arrest.

 

[sincerly]

the big picture is the fallible accounts of the gospels...

you didn't answer the question...

When one keeps Matthew's and John's accountings separate and not try to make the one a part of the other there is no problem. That is what you are alledging.
Matt.26:50-54, "And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out [his] hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? "

Luke gives this accounting, (22:48-53), "But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him. Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves? When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness."

Now for a look at John's point of writing that which you have misapplied. John18:33-37, "Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."

Your questions are answered in the above----but are contrary to your surmisings/opinions.

 

[waitasec]

When one keeps Matthew's and John's accountings separate and not try to make the one a part of the other there is no problem. That is what you are alledging.

if it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit.

Matt.26:50-54, "And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out [his] hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? "

did peter cut an ear off here? yes.

Luke gives this accounting, (22:48-53), "But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him. Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves? When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness."

Now for a look at John's point of writing that which you have misapplied. John18:33-37, "Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."

Your questions are answered in the above----but are contrary to your surmisings/opinions.

the discussion isn't about what jesus did...
the discussion is if jesus servants would attempt to prevent his arrest...the answer is yes.

did peter cut an ear off :yes:
why? because he didn't want the authorities to kill his god... strange.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I don't think the story is to be interpreted literally. I would say the sword is symbolic here. There are other verses in Bible:

"...out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword" Rev. 1:16
The sword is the Word of God that saparates Truth from Falsehood.

Specially when in Luke 22:51, Jesus touched his ear, and healed him.
Touching and healing his ear can mean, Jesus made his ear a listening and understanding ear, that can understand the Word of God.

"They have ears, but they hear not" Psalm 115:6

So, Jesus healed his ear, so he can have an ear he can hear.

My answer is they were not confused. The story is not a literal one, needs to be interpreted symbolically.

 

[waitasec]

I don't think the story is to be interpreted literally. I would say the sword is symbolic here. There are other verses in Bible:

"...out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword" Rev. 1:16
The sword is the Word of God that saparates Truth from Falsehood.

Specially when in Luke 22:51, Jesus touched his ear, and healed him.
Touching and healing his ear can mean, Jesus made his ear a listening and understanding ear, that can understand the Word of God.

"They have ears, but they hear not" Psalm 115:6

So, Jesus healed his ear, so he can have an ear he can hear.

My answer is they were not confused. The story is not a literal one, needs to be interpreted symbolically.

so what is the symbol of cutting an ear off of a priest's servant who is there to arrest jesus at the time of jesus' arrest mean, do you think?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

so what is the symbol of cutting an ear off of a priest's servant who is there to arrest jesus at the time of jesus' arrest mean, do you think?

I think, it means, one of the companions of Jesus, proclaimed the message, the teachings of Jesus to the priest's servant, and the servant was not a believer. This is represented symbollically as his ear was cut by the sword. It means that by this sword (i.e. Word of God), it became known that he was not a believer and does not have a hearing ear.

Then Jesus, taught him and helped him understand.

I don't think the symbolic stories are to be interpreted word by word, but rather the meaning of the whole story is the intention of the writers of the Bible.

 

[outhouse]

so what is the symbol of cutting an ear off of a priest's servant who is there to arrest jesus at the time of jesus' arrest mean, do you think?

peters aim was off

 

[waitasec]

I think, it means, one of the companions of Jesus, proclaimed the message, the teachings of Jesus to the priest's servant, and the servant was not a believer. This is represented symbollically as his ear was cut by the sword.

It means that by this sword (i.e. Word of God), it became known that he was not a believer and does not have a hearing ear.

Then Jesus, taught him and helped him understand.

I don't think the symbolic stories are to be interpreted word by word, but rather the meaning of the whole story is the intention of the writers of the Bible.

what about the other ear? one can still hear with one ear.
i'm sorry, but that symbolistic disclaimer was weak.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

what about the other ear? one can still hear with one ear.
i'm sorry, but that symbolistic disclaimer was weak.

So, you believe Jesus actually healed a "cut-off" ear?