What Were Jesus' Last Words?

[Fidei Defensor]

The very last thing he said before he died?

[IcePrincessKRS]

I'm pretty sure it's "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."

 

Either that or "it is finished."  I need to double check my Bible... I can't believe I can't remember this. We juuuust read it in Church this afternoon. :blush:

Edited March 30, 2013 by IcePrincessKRS

[elizabeth09]

Agree.  Then he died (on the cross).

[IcePrincessKRS]

I'm pretty sure it's "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."

 

Either that or "it is finished."  I need to double check my Bible... I can't believe I can't remember this. We juuuust read it in Church this afternoon. :blush:

I was right the first time. The gospel of Luke 23:46 "Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!' And having said this he breathed his last."

[elizabeth09]

And the rain pours.

[Fidei Defensor]

I was right the first time. The gospel of Luke 23:46 "Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!' And having said this he breathed his last."

John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the spirit."

[IcePrincessKRS]

John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the spirit."

 

I was just reading that, too, refreshing my memory. The other two gospels say he cried out in a loud voice. I figure Jesus said both. Different writers will have different perspectives, doesn't mean either of them is false.

[Fidei Defensor]

I was just reading that, too, refreshing my memory. The other two gospels say he cried out in a loud voice. I figure Jesus said both. Different writers will have different perspectives, doesn't mean either of them is false.

I just always found it curious that if they believed their Lord and Savior was dying in front of them, that they wouldn't have the exact words etched into their memory forever.

[Gabriela]

I just always found it curious that if they believed their Lord and Savior was dying in front of them, that they wouldn't have the exact words etched into their memory forever.

 

Much of the Bible was written decades or even hundreds of years after it happened. Some of it therefore looks more like transcribed oral history than the diary entries you write at the end of every night.

[Fidei Defensor]

Much of the Bible was written decades or even hundreds of years after it happened. Some of it therefore looks more like transcribed oral history than the diary entries you write at the end of every night.

True. I just still find it interesting. If someone I loved very much was dying, I would certainly make a strong attempt to recall their very last words. I can only imagine it to be even more important if you believe the person dying is your Lord.

[Gabriela]

True. I just still find it interesting. If someone I loved very much was dying, I would certainly make a strong attempt to recall their very last words. I can only imagine it to be even more important if you believe the person dying is your Lord.

 

Most of the apostles were not present at the crucifixion. In fact, only one was: "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (believed to be John). Thus, the accounts in the other Gospels are second-hand. They could have come from any of the Marys who were there, or from passers-by, from soldiers, etc. So the sources were not necessarily Christians (though they probably were). The point is: We have no idea who they were.

 

If your purpose in starting this thread is to point out the hackneyed claim that "the Bible contradicts itself, thus it can't all be true, thus none of it is true," you're not going to have much luck. I don't think anyone around here will deny that the Bible "contradicts itself" on the propositional level. On the spiritual level, however, it does not, and that is what matters to the faithful. If you're only looking at the Bible as you would a police report, then you're looking at it with "eyes of flesh"—and missing most of its point.

 

Someone more wisely Catholic than me please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Pax_et bonum]

I just always found it curious that if they believed their Lord and Savior was dying in front of them, that they wouldn't have the exact words etched into their memory forever.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke weren't at the crucifixion; John was, but his gospel was written last. Mark was a source for Matthew and Luke which is why those three are similar. The point of the Gospels is not to give an historical account of the life of Jesus. The Gospels are about who Jesus is as Risen Lord and alive today using events from His earthly life--it's about who He IS not was. 

[Fidei Defensor]

Most of the apostles were not present at the crucifixion. In fact, only one was: "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (believed to be John). Thus, the accounts in the other Gospels are second-hand. They could have come from any of the Marys who were there, or from passers-by, from soldiers, etc. So the sources were not necessarily Christians (though they probably were). The point is: We have no idea who they were.

 

If your purpose in starting this thread is to point out the hackneyed claim that "the Bible contradicts itself, thus it can't all be true, thus none of it is true," you're not going to have much luck. I don't think anyone around here will deny that the Bible "contradicts itself" on the propositional level. On the spiritual level, however, it does not, and that is what matters to the faithful. If you're only looking at the Bible as you would a police report, then you're looking at it with "eyes of flesh"—and missing most of its point.

 

Someone more wisely Catholic than me please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

Matthew, Mark, and Luke weren't at the crucifixion; John was, but his gospel was written last. Mark was a source for Matthew and Luke which is why those three are similar. The point of the Gospels is not to give an historical account of the life of Jesus. The Gospels are about who Jesus is as Risen Lord and alive today using events from His earthly life--it's about who He IS not was. 

I didn't say anything about that issue...

 

But since we're on it, why wouldn't God, in the interest of clarity, reveal his Word in a less…jumbled way?

Edited March 30, 2013 by tardis ad astra

[Gabriela]

I didn't say anything about that issue...

 

But since we're on it, why wouldn't God, in the interest of clarity, reveal his Word in a less…jumbled way?

 

Well, if He wanted to usurp the free will He so graciously gave us in order that we might love Him uncoerced and meaningfully choose to cooperate with Him in the act of sustaining His creation, then He could do that. But given that He did give us free will and He never usurps that entirely, we are not perfect conduits of the Divine. God did not dictate the entire Bible to a machine-like human secretary. He inspired dozens of people, all of whom wrote what they "heard" or "felt" or whatever, depending upon how they received the inspiration (I don't think we know how they did, at least in most cases).

 

If you have ever made a phone call on a phone that was broken, then you know exactly what this is like. The message is perfect. The medium is not.

 

That being said, we do believe that the Bible is "perfect" in the sense that we have precisely the book that God wants us to have. So, when there are contradictions between propositions in the Bible, my answer to your question would be: They're not a jumble. They're not unclear. They are a stumbling block to those who would refuse to believe. To those who do believe, the Bible is a beautiful spiritual work of art that requires community and tradition (i.e., other people) to interpret, understand, and appreciate, and faith (i.e., a gift of God) to accept.

 

Perhaps those who see the Bible as "unclear" and "jumbled" simply do not yet have the necessary "eyes of faith" with which to see its spiritual perfection.

[Fidei Defensor]

Well, if He wanted to usurp the free will He so graciously gave us in order that we might love Him uncoerced and meaningfully choose to cooperate with Him in the act of sustaining His creation, then He could do that. But given that He did give us free will and He never usurps that entirely, we are not perfect conduits of the Divine. God did not dictate the entire Bible to a machine-like human secretary. He inspired dozens of people, all of whom wrote what they "heard" or "felt" or whatever, depending upon how they received the inspiration (I don't think we know how they did, at least in most cases).

 

If you have ever made a phone call on a phone that was broken, then you know exactly what this is like. The message is perfect. The medium is not.

 

That being said, we do believe that the Bible is "perfect" in the sense that we have precisely the book that God wants us to have. So, when there are contradictions between propositions in the Bible, my answer to your question would be: They're not a jumble. They're not unclear. They are a stumbling block to those who would refuse to believe. To those who do believe, the Bible is a beautiful spiritual work of art that requires community and tradition (i.e., other people) to interpret, understand, and appreciate, and faith (i.e., a gift of God) to accept.

 

Perhaps those who see the Bible as "unclear" and "jumbled" simply do not yet have the necessary "eyes of faith" with which to see its spiritual perfection.

So you're saying that the only way free will can be exercised is if the messages from God don't come down clearly, and you have to use your imagination and faith to believe in him, even if it seems nonsensical?