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

[URAVIP2ME]

Matthew [26v53] mentions 'angels'. At the time of Rev. 19 vs11,14,15 again are 'angels'.
John [18v36] says 'my servants' as in those that were attending to Jesus.
John [18v11] shows Jesus source of confidence was Not weapons but in his God.

If there are No servants on earth at the time of Matthew [25vs30-46],
then how can the unprofitable servant exist besides the faithful servant exist mentioned at Matthew 24v45;25 vs21,23

 

[sincerly]

here,
i'll edit the gospel for you...makes life much easier this way when we move goal posts in order to be right
john18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would not fight impetuously to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Removal of goal posts is your tactic---not mine. What is there about "My kingdom is not of this world" that you refuse to understand?? This world as we know and see is prophesied to be destroyed by fire. Then HIS Kingdom will be upon the earth made new. Populated With all those who Believe and Obey.

 

[sincerly]

When 'thou art converted' [KJV] verse 32 is Not in the Greek Interlinear.
Greek carries the idea of having returned not converted.

The "Greek interlinear" is just one of many translations. The Greek word in question is: "epistrephō" and that word is found in Matt.13:15; Mark 4:12; John 12:40; Acts 3:19 ; 28:27 and Jesus quotes its usage from Zech.7:11. Its usage is as in the following ways:
1) transitively
a) to turn to
1) to the worship of the true God
b) to cause to return, to bring back
1) to the love and obedience of God
2) to the love for the children
3) to love wisdom and righteousness
2) intransitively
a) to turn to one's self
b) to turn one's self about, turn back
c) to return, turn back, come back

It is found in the KJV with these usages; turn 16, be converted 6, return 6, turn about 4, turn again 3, misc 4 Total (39)

When one's eyes and ears are opened to the truths of the scriptures---one is converted from darkness to the truth of the light.

Peter is spokesmen for all twelve at John 6v69.
Early in Jesus ministry Jesus calls Peter as Cephas.
- John 1v42; Mark 3 vs13-19, [16]

'Strengthen brothers' [John 21vs15-17] or he was to shepherd them.

Peter is also taking a prominent role after Jesus ascension.
Prior to Pentecost wasn't it Peter who brought up the matter of replacing unfaithful Judas at Acts 1vs 15-26 ?

On Pentecost isn't Peter spokesman for the apostles and Peter makes use of the first key given him by Jesus to unlock the way for the Jews to become kingdom members at Acts 2vs1-41.

Those are debatable and subjects for other threads.

 

[sincerly]

Matthew [26v53] mentions 'angels'. At the time of Rev. 19 vs11,14,15 again are 'angels'.

Yes, angels are the mentioned in those verses, one at the time of Jesus' arrest, and the other at the time of Jesus second coming. What's your point?

John [18v36] says 'my servants' as in those that were attending to Jesus.

No. Since HIS "Kingdom is not of this world" the "servants" would be of the one "from hence".----Those would be the hypothetical "IF". There would be no "wickedness" there to deploy any resistence. As pilate acknowledged. Not in Jesus nor in that Jewish group. It couldn't exist. As all the wicked ones were/have been cast out of heaven.

John [18v11] shows Jesus source of confidence was Not weapons but in his God.

Humans do not determine the outcome of the things of GOD and HIS Prophecies.

If there are No servants on earth at the time of Matthew [25vs30-46],
then how can the unprofitable servant exist besides the faithful servant exist mentioned at Matthew 24v45;25 vs21,23

First, the worldly population is divided into those who are in obedience to either of two masters. GOD or the Adversary. Second, those verses are speaking(Parables) of the persons in those classifications. And they will co-exist on this earth until Jesus comes the second time.

Third, Jesus said of those who are in Obedience to HIS Commands and they show their LOVE for GOD ---HE says they are "Friends"--Not "servants".(As I posted.)

 

[waitasec]

Removal of goal posts is your tactic---not mine. What is there about "My kingdom is not of this world" that you refuse to understand?? This world as we know and see is prophesied to be destroyed by fire.

this is what i don't understand about that statement...
"If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders."

you seem to be having a difficult time understanding that the narrative did described a fight, that jesus avoided his arrest and you seem to be having a hard time explaining to me why jesus was avoiding his arrest and why his disciples were protecting him from being arrested in light of the edited atonement prophesy...

so in order to justify the fight you moved goal posts by stating that the servants jesus was implying were not of this earthly world...i refuted that with;
why would an unearthly servant fight for an earthly kingdom
you also implied that there were no servants in that unearthly kingdom...to which you yourself defeated by mentioning the 12 legions
and in order to reconcile jesus and his avoidance into being arrested, you said they were there waiting for his betrayer...(yet the disciples, whom jesus called friends, didn't understand the plan, another goal post of which you attempted to reposition) and ignore the fact that if they were truely waiting for the betrayer, why was there tension, enough tension a fight ensued...a fight you keep calling an impetuous act, another goal post repositioning.
to which i edited what was claimed to be jesus' own words by the gospel of john to now saying
“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would not fight impetuously to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
~the gospel according to sincerly

and to make this clear, i'm not refusing anything.
i can not help but ask questions of things i find to be irreconcilable...
i'm not making this up, i'm merely pointing out the inconsistencies because i cannot accept them as consistent, it's as simple as that.
and i will continue to ask until my questions are satisfied...
is that ok with you?
makes me wonder why one would resort to such baseless claims....

Then HIS Kingdom will be upon the earth made new. Populated With all those who Believe and Obey.

how is this meaningful to the thread?

 

[sincerly]

this is what i don't understand about that statement...
"If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders."

you seem to be having a difficult time understanding that the narrative did described a fight, that jesus avoided his arrest and you seem to be having a hard time explaining to me why jesus was avoiding his arrest and why his disciples were protecting him from being arrested in light of the edited atonement prophesy...

Waitasec, then to understand it re-attach the truth statement which precedes the "if it were". The "if it were" is a confirmation that "HIS Kingdom is NOT of this world".
It is, also, a confirmation that any force that was needed to prevent the fulfulling the mission HE CAME TO DO would be supplied by a prayer to the Father for those Angels which HE assured impetuous Peter would be supplied. There is no post of mine which denies that an ear was cut off.


Jesus never tried to avoid the arrest which would fulfill the mission HE came to do. John 18:4, "Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye"?

You were the one who concocted the false information that Jesus was trying to avoid arrest. And NO! I can't explain your actions to you.
Nor can I explain your "edited atonement prophecy".

and to make this clear, i'm not refusing anything.
i can not help but ask questions of things i find to be irreconcilable...
i'm not making this up, i'm merely pointing out the inconsistencies because i cannot accept them as consistent, it's as simple as that.
and i will continue to ask until my questions are satisfied...
is that ok with you?

Waitasec, NO, granted, you haven't refused any of your contrary concocted "irreconcilable" to the scriptures opinions. The "inconsistencies you have pointed out" are of you own making.

You may ask away, but falsely based/skewed questions will get truthful answers which will never be satisfactory to you.

makes me wonder why one would resort to such baseless claims....

I thought the same when I read your OP.

how is this meaningful to the thread?

That answered the question of where HE Kingdom is...the "now is my kingdom NOT from here".

 

[waitasec]

Waitasec, then to understand it re-attach the truth statement which precedes the "if it were". The "if it were" is a confirmation that "HIS Kingdom is NOT of this world".
It is, also, a confirmation that any force that was needed to prevent the fulfulling the mission HE CAME TO DO would be supplied by a prayer to the Father for those Angels which HE assured impetuous Peter would be supplied. There is no post of mine which denies that an ear was cut off.

prove it.
where did i say that you denied an ear was cut off?
i said what you are doing is moving goal post as to why an ear was cut off by blaming peter's impetuous act
so prove it.

Jesus never tried to avoid the arrest which would fulfill the mission HE came to do. John 18:4, "Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye"?

i already refuted this argument here
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2730903-post44.html
you are relying on one gospel to support your claim but the other synoptic gospels paint a different picture.

You were the one who concocted the false information that Jesus was trying to avoid arrest.

then why was an ear cut off? why was there a fight if jesus and co were not avoiding his arrest?

Nor can I explain your "edited atonement prophecy".

it's not my edited atonement prophesy...

Waitasec, NO, granted, you haven't refused any of your contrary concocted "irreconcilable" to the scriptures opinions. The "inconsistencies you have pointed out" are of you own making.

what i find to be very telling is you've stopped supporting your claims...

You may ask away, but falsely based/skewed questions will get truthful answers which will never be satisfactory to you.

perhaps it's because you failed
:sorry1:

I thought the same when I read your OP.

i have supported my claims.

That answered the question of where HE Kingdom is...the "now is my kingdom NOT from here".

hmmm....

Then HIS Kingdom will be upon the earth made new. Populated With all those who Believe and Obey.

another baseless claim.

 

[sincerly]

prove it.
where did i say that you denied an ear was cut off?
i said what you are doing is moving goal post as to why an ear was cut off by blaming peter's impetuous act
so prove it.

Waitasec, You show us where Peter was told/commanded to strike with the sword?

Also, since you started this thread and have been posting suppositions, by now you should have made a decision as to who was confused...if there was any confusion?? Was it Jesus? or one of the desciples?? or was the Prophecies being Fulfilled as stated and on time??

 

[waitasec]

Waitasec, You show us where Peter was told/commanded to strike with the sword?

you show me where i made such a statement...

a fight happened... impetuously or not...doesn't matter...
it's a part of the narrative.

question is why...?
obviously you do not know...

Also, since you started this thread and have been posting suppositions, by now you should have made a decision as to who was confused...if there was any confusion?? Was it Jesus? or one of the desciples?? or was the Prophecies being Fulfilled as stated and on time??

i think each gospel was written for a specific purpose and audience
each with a particular agenda. and since there are no eye witnesses there is no way of really knowing what this person named jesus, who became a legend, actually said...and to suppose one can rely on these inconsistent accounts for any kind of accuracy is pretty far reaching as far as i'm concerned.

 

[waitasec]

“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would not fight impetuously or i would command them to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
~the gospel according to sincerly

 

[sincerly]

you show me where i made such a statement...

a fight happened... impetuously or not...doesn't matter...
it's a part of the narrative.

question is why...?
obviously you do not know...

i think each gospel was written for a specific purpose and audience
each with a particular agenda. and since there are no eye witnesses there is no way of really knowing what this person named jesus, who became a legend, actually said...and to suppose one can rely on these inconsistent accounts for any kind of accuracy is pretty far reaching as far as i'm concerned.

Hi waitasec, Why don't you answer my "where"? There was no command give? There was no "confusion by Jesus". HIS actions from the very beginning of HIS Ministery was to fulfill the mission HE came to do. That was "consistently" shown by the accounts given in the Gospels and the actual fulfilling of those same events.

You certainly my try to twist the accounts to fit your agenda, but for the truth seeker, your painted senarios just do not add up to the facts of the matter.
It isn't that Peter didn't cut the ear off---that is fact. It is that peter had NO command from Jesus to "act in such a manner". Jesus' subsequence actions are proof that HE HAD no intention of resisting that which HE came to "Fulfill"---HIS ARREST AND CRUCIFIXION. AND that "irregardless" of Peter's thinking/actions.

Unless you can find a commandment/order that Peter acted in agreement with the actions of Jesus, Your entire claim/supposition is faulty. BTW, Peter didn't write any of those "Gospels". However, his two epistles are consistent with the Mission Jesus came to "fulfill".

Let's put some facts together, Peter boasted prior to leaving that Passover dinner that he would follow Jesus even to death. Jesus said that before the night was over that Peter would deny Jesus three times in the space of a few hours----which Peter did. Jesus said the "Two swords"found at that time, "enough". Peter was the only one to even remove a sword from its sheath. During those denials of Jesus the incident of the cut off ear was a factor of the denial. Jesus knew what was happening at all times even to going to meet those who were coming to arrest HIM. Therefore, the use of the sword in the denials was a maturing and retuning of Peter to the correct teaching of Jesus.---he wept bitterly.

To the contrary, there were "eyewitnesses". Eleven! And they relayed their witnessing to others as a group. The Spriptures confirm that two or more witnesse confirms the testimony. Oh, Yes, even the testimony of two false witness confirms, but their testimony will eventually be confronted by the TRUE JUDGE. (Jesus had sent the desciples out to teach by twos----(i.e.) comfirmation)

Since all the Disciples were "Go into all the world and teach---the whatsoever I have told you", Yes, the "Gospels"/epistles were written to various audiences with the purpose to fill in what was unknown or to edify that particular audience. Those who went to the Jewish communities enlightened those who Lacked the Understanding of the Sacrificial/Ceremonial meanings. Those to the Gentile Believers had to bring those into a full understanding of GOD and HIS WAYS.
The Accounts may by "inconsistent to your way of thinking", but that is only because you choose to accept them as you wish them to be. Denying them only makes them so in your understanding as myths. Again, "your way of thinking". "My way of thinking", is the accept that which I see as having a very consistent and reasoning/understanding POWER---A LITERAL GOD WITH POWER TO PRODUCE ALL I SEE IN NATRUE.

 

[sincerly]

“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would not fight impetuously or i would command them to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
~the gospel according to sincerly

Waitasec, No place have I made that statement NOR is that an accurate quote from Scripture. It just shows how you view the truths of the Scriptures and the twisting of what is stated by others.

 

[waitasec]

Hi waitasec, Why don't you answer my "where"? There was no command give? There was no "confusion by Jesus". HIS actions from the very beginning of HIS Ministery

first tell me where i said we are talking about jesus actions?

 

[waitasec]

Hi waitasec, Why don't you answer my "where"? There was no command give? There was no "confusion by Jesus". HIS actions from the very beginning of HIS Ministery was to fulfill the mission HE came to do. That was "consistently" shown by the accounts given in the Gospels and the actual fulfilling of those same events.

You certainly my try to twist the accounts to fit your agenda, but for the truth seeker, your painted senarios just do not add up to the facts of the matter.
It isn't that Peter didn't cut the ear off---that is fact. It is that peter had NO command from Jesus to "act in such a manner". Jesus' subsequence actions are proof that HE HAD no intention of resisting that which HE came to "Fulfill"---HIS ARREST AND CRUCIFIXION. AND that "irregardless" of Peter's thinking/actions.

Unless you can find a commandment/order that Peter acted in agreement with the actions of Jesus, Your entire claim/supposition is faulty. BTW, Peter didn't write any of those "Gospels". However, his two epistles are consistent with the Mission Jesus came to "fulfill".

Let's put some facts together, Peter boasted prior to leaving that Passover dinner that he would follow Jesus even to death. Jesus said that before the night was over that Peter would deny Jesus three times in the space of a few hours----which Peter did. Jesus said the "Two swords"found at that time, "enough". Peter was the only one to even remove a sword from its sheath. During those denials of Jesus the incident of the cut off ear was a factor of the denial. Jesus knew what was happening at all times even to going to meet those who were coming to arrest HIM. Therefore, the use of the sword in the denials was a maturing and retuning of Peter to the correct teaching of Jesus.---he wept bitterly.

To the contrary, there were "eyewitnesses". Eleven! And they relayed their witnessing to others as a group. The Spriptures confirm that two or more witnesse confirms the testimony. Oh, Yes, even the testimony of two false witness confirms, but their testimony will eventually be confronted by the TRUE JUDGE. (Jesus had sent the desciples out to teach by twos----(i.e.) comfirmation)

Since all the Disciples were "Go into all the world and teach---the whatsoever I have told you", Yes, the "Gospels"/epistles were written to various audiences with the purpose to fill in what was unknown or to edify that particular audience. Those who went to the Jewish communities enlightened those who Lacked the Understanding of the Sacrificial/Ceremonial meanings. Those to the Gentile Believers had to bring those into a full understanding of GOD and HIS WAYS.
The Accounts may by "inconsistent to your way of thinking", but that is only because you choose to accept them as you wish them to be. Denying them only makes them so in your understanding as myths. Again, "your way of thinking". "My way of thinking", is the accept that which I see as having a very consistent and reasoning/understanding POWER---A LITERAL GOD WITH POWER TO PRODUCE ALL I SEE IN NATRUE.

there's something missing here...
oh yeah...evidence.
your unsupported claims prove nothing other than your tendency for wishful thinking....i have supported my claims by providing passages in their context...so unless you provide passages to support this then i'm afraid, that's all you have... unsupported claims.

 

[sincerly]

first tell me where i said we are talking about jesus actions?

From the very topic of the OP.

 

[waitasec]

From the very topic of the OP.

being confused isn't a verb...it's an adjective.

 

[sincerly]

there's something missing here...
oh yeah...evidence.
your unsupported claims prove nothing other than your tendency for wishful thinking....i have supported my claims by providing passages in their context...so unless you provide passages to support this then i'm afraid, that's all you have... unsupported claims.

Correct!---that "evidence" from your posts and "wishful thinking".

Had your passages been in context with the different Gospels and the rest of those witnesses and writers of the Gospels and Bible then there would not have been almost 100 posts on this thread. Your "unsupported claims."---which are just your suppositions or implications---Not Facts.

 

[sincerly]

being confused isn't a verb...it's an adjective.

first tell me where i said we are talking about jesus actions?

Verbs show actions---My dictionary shows "confused" to a verb as well.
"From"--in my statement-- included your subsequent posts as well. Now, you are trying to stray from the subject/topic.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Had your passages been in context with the different Gospels and the rest of those witnesses and writers of the Gospels

There is only one 'gospel' [singular]

It is THE gospel according to four writers.

 

[waitasec]

Verbs show actions---My dictionary shows "confused" to a verb as well.
"From"--in my statement-- included your subsequent posts as well. Now, you are trying to stray from the subject/topic.

you must be in a state of confusion...
here.

confused - definition of confused by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

con·fused (kn-fyzd)
adj.
1. Being unable to think with clarity or act with understanding and intelligence.
2.
a. Lacking logical order or sense: a confused set of instructions.
b. Chaotic; jumbled: a confused mass of papers on the floor.
con·fused·ly (-fyzd-l) adv.
con·fused·ness n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
confused [kənˈfjuːzd]
adj
1. feeling or exhibiting an inability to understand; bewildered; perplexed
2. in a disordered state; mixed up; jumbled
3. (Social Welfare) lacking sufficient mental abilities for independent living, esp through old age
confusedly [kənˈfjuːzɪdlɪ -ˈfjuːzd-] adv
confusedness n


to confuse is a verb
get it straight..
english grammar 101


being confused is a state of being...unless you are willing to say people
choose to be confused, then you are redefining the word adjective...

nice try. well, no not really