Considering Repentance

[Ickisrulz]

As I said, we are at an impasse. However, how long do you believe a body has to hang before it becomes deteriorated enough to burst asunder upon hitting the floor, or rot the rope holding it up?? Additionally, the law required a body to be taken down before sundown and not hang overnight, Deut. 21:23-23

So if we are offering scenarios, mine works for me, yours works for you.



I think that you discount the efforts of the scribes, and are possibly ignorant of who they are 1 Chron. 2:55, I also really think that every English translation that I know of to date has mistranslated the word pascha, passover, to easter, simply because they do not do their own translating but rely for the most part on prior translators efforts. So yes, I do believe there are mistakes made. I also really think that every "new improved" translation loses information critical to proper understanding.

Have you read the preface to the King James bible where in the translators warn us to be aware that there are possibly mistakes made?

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2000/20000817.htm

If that is not enough information for you to confirm in your mind that we are probably never going to reach a same page status in this discussion, I'm at a loss to add anything further. I rest my case.

I don't know of any translation or commentator dealing in the original languages that claims Judas did not physically hang himself. Do you?

Judas' body was not treated to the customary Jewish handling for whatever reason. His body was desecrated. That is the very point of Luke's description.

[claude]

I'm sorry, I have finished, this is going nowhere.

[Ickisrulz]

I also really think that every English translation that I know of to date has mistranslated the word pascha, passover, to easter, simply because they do not do their own translating but rely for the most part on prior translators efforts.

Actually, the KJV is the ONLY translation that uses Easter instead of Passover in Acts 12:4.

[Char-Gar]

A caveat about the use of "commentaries". The writer of every commentary comes at it with a point of view, a theology if you will. These theologies range from religious humanism that denies the divinity of Jesus to the most strident fundamentalist and every things in between.

Every stripe of theology, has it's scholars, professors, gurus knowing ones and all write commentaries.

When you pick up a biblical commentary, never think you are getting some colorless, odorless, neutral scholarship for you are not. You are getting one person's interpretation of a biblical book or passage, filtered through his own particular brand of Christian theology.

There are times when commentaries can be useful. But when you pick one up, know what your are picking up and digest them all with a grain of salt. You can find a scholarly commentary that will take any and every interpretation you can imagine.

[Char-Gar]

A word about vernacular translations of the Bible. There is not one translation that does not, in places, make presumptions about the meaning of original words. How words are translated often depends on the context.

Example: This morning my wife asked me how to tell the cleaning lady that something was "broken in Spanish. I asked her what was broken and how it it was broken for that made all the difference. If something like a glass is fractured/broken, it would be "quebrada". If a machine of some kind was not working, it would be "discompuesto". However depending on the level of the conversation, whatever is was could just be "roto".

The value of a translation is dependent on the accuracy of manuscript in the original languages and the understanding of the translator/translators of the times, customs, and type of conversation. They are at best a sort of paraphrase of the original language.

In my days as a lawyer down here on the border, I have seen the various attorneys, judges, and court translators almost come to blows over the translation from Spanish to English of a witnesses testimony. When all parties in the courtroom speak Spanish some real heated argument over the English meaning of testimony in Spanish. But, I digress.....

When the KJV was translated, the manuscripts were inferior to what we have now, in terms of number and age. Today we have found much older manuscripts than the ones used to translate the kJV. In fact there were at least one NT book for which not one Greek manuscript was extant. That book was translated from the Vulgate (Latin) into Greek and then from Greek into English.

The translation work of the KJV was outstanding, but it remains a very excellent translation of some inferior manuscripts.

Anyway when discussions are held about what the English Bible says and position are staked out, these are some important facts and factoids to recall.

[DoubleAdobe]

I really enjoy Charles' posts, and especially when he throws in some stuff about the Spanish language.
I can relate to the translation thing, both ways. What I know about the finer points of the Bible, I will leave to you guys, but it is interesting being a fly on the wall.

[Char-Gar]

Actually, the KJV is the ONLY translation that uses Easter instead of Passover in Acts 12:4.

The Passover is a Jewish holiday that begins at nightfall on the 15th of Nisan and continues on for some seven or eight days. The Seder or Passover meal begins at nightfall on the 15th of Nisan. It celebrates the liberation and flight of the Jewish people from Egyptian bondage.

Easter is a Christian holiday that celebrates the resurrection of Jesus. It is also know as "Resurrection Sunday".

The Christian holiday Easter occurs during the Jewish holiday of Passover, but are quite distinctive, celebrating quite different events.

[Ickisrulz]

The Passover is a Jewish holiday that begins at nightfall on the 15th of Nisan and continues on for some seven or eight days. The Seder or Passover mean begins at nightfall on the 15th of Nisan.

Easter is a Christian holiday that celebrates the resurrection of Jesus. It is also know as "Resurrection Sunday".

The Christian holiday Easter occurs during the Jewish holiday of Passover, but are quite distinctive celebrating quite different events.

Do you have any idea why the translators of the Authorized Version went with "Easter" rather than the correct word, "Passover?" Was there pressure from the King as there had been with "Baptism" vs "immersion?" Or is this a myth?

[Char-Gar]

Do you have any idea why the translators of the Authorized Version went with "Easter" rather than the correct word, "Passover?" Was there pressure from the King as there had been with "Baptism" vs "immersion?" Or is this a myth?

I really don't know. I have to "assume" that the translators knew the difference between "Easter" and "Passover" and chose the best word to express their intent.

The Baptism v. Immersion thingie could prove interesting, particularly where there are "deep water Baptists" or Church of Christ people involved. The earliest surviving ritual/teaching about baptism is found in a work called the Didache which means teaching and is the teaching of the Apostles on such matters. This work goes back to the 1st. Century AD so could very well be Apostolic in origin.

The Didache tells us that baptism should be by immersion in running water. If there is no running water available than by immersion in still water. If there is no still water available for immersion, then baptism could be done by dipping or pouring.

The bottom line is the apostolic church was not hung up on manner of baptism like the moderns seem to be.

[Thundarstick]

I find it interesting that Baptism, Baptize etc. aren't even english words. They are more transliterated Greek, if I understand correctly. Just like repentance, if you are Baptized without understanding, or the wrong reasons, you're just getting wet!

[Ickisrulz]

I find it interesting that Baptism, Baptize etc. aren't even english words. They are more transliterated Greek, if I understand correctly. Just like repentance, if you are Baptized without understanding, or the wrong reasons, you're just getting wet!

Baptizo= dip, immerse, wash. The transliteration opens up the possibility for "sprinkling."

It would seem that the 1st Century Church did not always immerse though.

[Char-Gar]

Baptizo= dip, immerse, wash. The transliteration opens up the possibility for "sprinkling."

It would seem that the 1st Century Church did not always immerse though.

The Methodist have all their bases covered. We will immerse, pour, sprinkle and some say spit or squirt.

[Char-Gar]

I find it interesting that Baptism, Baptize etc. aren't even english words. They are more transliterated Greek, if I understand correctly. Just like repentance, if you are Baptized without understanding, or the wrong reasons, you're just getting wet!

You and I agree on this subject. However, there are some Christians groups, most notably the Roman Catholic church that believe in "sacramental grace". This means the God's grace flows to people though/by means of the Sacraments. In this scenario, the grace of God comes through the act of baptism, regardless of what the folks receiving it understand or not.

It is always difficult to talk about Roman Catholic theology, because there are many different expressions of that in various parts of the world. They have a very diverse belief systems within the same group. Lots of conflict within the same church. Most churches that have diverse belief systems have lots of internal conflict.

[Blackwater]

This is a question I wresteled with for a very long time. All sorts of theological points of view vary quite widely on this. I've finally decided, at least tentatively and until I get better info, that forgiveness is pretty much "free for the asking," but to achieve true salvation, in the full meaning of it, repentance IS necessary. So many of our squabbles over theology are rooted VERY deeply in the semantics we choose, and what we make in our minds of the words we use. I've seen way too many theological discussions turn into arguments simply because the two sides were using very different meanings for the same words, and therefore, were arguing basically against a misunderstanding. Neither side was completely right nor wrong, but they sure can manage to make a lot of noise in the process of their misundeerstandings!

When we use words too losely, or don't qualify them so as to indicate more specifically what we mean by what we say, we'll always be misunderstood, and even our best efforts can't guarantee we won't be misunderstood. Human communication will always be difficult, no matter how rich one's vocabulary might be. Mostly, we just have to have the simple WILL to understand, and be determined to do so. Given that, words hardly matter, really and ultimately. Not all thoughts are easily captured fully by simple words. Some thoughts are like trees. They have a main trunk, but many, many branches, and it's really easy to argue the branches, and wind up talking
about a different branch than the one we're arguing with.

Ain't it fun bein' human???

[shoot-n-lead]

I've finally decided, at least tentatively and until I get better info, that forgiveness is pretty much "free for the asking," but to achieve true salvation, in the full meaning of it, repentance IS necessary.

Not to be argumentative...but "salvation"...is salvation...no such thing in Christianity as "true salvation". Salvation or no salvation...there are no degrees of salvation.

[shoot-n-lead]

Most churches that have diverse belief systems have lots of internal conflict.

This seems to be descriptive of Christians in general...not just churches.

In all honesty, I am not really sure that discussions of Christianity really accomplish a lot other than to define the lines of battle among the practitioners of each group. JMO

[Blackwater]

Not to be argumentative...but "salvation"...is salvation...no such thing in Christianity as "true salvation". Salvation or no salvation...there are no degrees of salvation.

Point well taken. I just used "true" to ensure, as much as I could, that what I meant was the "real thing" and not some pretension or aspiration or tentative commitment. So we're on the same page, really. Thanks.

[1hole]

I don't think there is much room in scripture to arrive at the conclusion that everything worked out OK in the end for Judas.
-------------------
Judas hanged himself. After the dead body had hung in the hot sun for a while, the rope broke and the bloated body came apart when it hit the ground spilling his guts.

I agree in principle. It's the only scenario I've ever been able to imagine that reconciles what we do know about Judas' end.

IF Judas tied himself to a tree above a cliff and dropped to his death he is unlikely to have done it in a well traveled place so his body could easily have hung there for days without notice. As hot as that country can get, the body would have quickly started to rot and become bloated. His slimy neck would have been the most stressed part. His head would have been the first to pull off, letting him go. Dropping a bloated, rotting body down even a short cliff is a sure way to get a busted belly and sprayed guts.

The apparent "field of blood" conflict between his end and the Sanhedrin's land purchase means nothing. My best guess is there were probably many "fields of blood" back then just as we have plenty of "dead man's curves" on our local roads today.

That sequence is not only possible but ties up all the scriptual loose ends so none are left unaccounted for. Thus, I believe it's probably the true account. But ...

Whatever the true story, and like so many other trivial things we like to chew on, the details of Judas' end don't affect any Christian doctrine. So, it's interesting speculation to some of us but it doesn't really doesn't matter.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

One of the things I believe Christians fail to name is works. There are so many things we take for granted yet fail to realize they are works. The scriptures plainly teach we are saved by grace through faith, yet faith without works is a dead faith. Anything that requires my action is a work and this includes repentance. You can believe, yet take no action, and that is exactly what James means when he says the devils believe and trimble, yet don't obey! Faith with out works is dead. A living faith requires action on my part!

Well put!

Another way I've heard it explained is that faith can be better translated as "trust". Some people translate faith as "belief" (to their peril I suppose). You can stand on the tarmac and believe the airplane can fly. But to board it and take off requires more than belief, it requires faith (trust would work here too). And of course, boarding the plane would be a "work".

[1hole]

Actually, the KJV is the ONLY translation that uses Easter instead of Passover in Acts 12:4

I believe you're correct. BUT, the KJV translators worked from several existing English texts AND the (Catholic) Latin Bible. They had none of the old texts available to them and few of them would have been competent to translate old Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek if they did. Working from Jerome's Latin translation gave them "Easter" instead of the more correct "passover" because they were all RCC trained and so was the English speaking world at that time. It was best for them to leave Easter in place because that was what the people who would read their new version called it.

I grew up with the KJV, it's what I know best and love it, but I know it's probably the least accurately translated mainstream English Version available and, contrary to what some of my deeply committed Christian friend's seem to think, the KJV is NOT the Bible used by Peter, Paul and John!

(Understand that I do not accept the various elaborately corrupted religious books provided by cults preaching a Satanic works based "gospel" like those of the Jehovah Witness, Mormons, 7th Day, Universalists, Christian Science [which is neither Christian nor science], etc., say they say are "correctly translated" bibles. Everyone needs to know those are corrupted printings, neither God inspired nor translations at all.)