HisChildForever Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 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. I personally believe that He said all that the Gospels recorded. He could have easily said "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit! It is finished" and for whatever reason Luke left out the last sentence and John decided to only use the last sentence. Also, like Ice said, each writer approached the account differently - for a reason. Matthew, for example, wrote with a Jewish audience in mind. This is probably the reason why he included Psalm 22 ("My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?") - Matthew frequently pointed his audience to the Old Testament. We also see that from the start of John Christ is the Word. John made it plain that Christ was (is) the Second Person of the Trinity, whereas Matthew sort of eases his audience into Christ's divinity. We also see that John made it a point to include the Blessed Virgin at the foot of the cross. Again, this is my personal belief, I like to think that since John's Gospel is especially spiritual (for lack of a better word), he wanted to emphasize Mary as our universal or Heavenly Mother (John 19:26-27). As an aside, John did not include the consecration of bread and wine, but he did include a lengthy discourse that's absent from the other Gospels. I think this is to again support his overall theme or message - like others said, John was written after the other Gospels, so he probably figured it would be okay to instead focus on the discourse and what that reveals about Jesus, since by that point everyone was pretty clear on the transubstantiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 I personally believe that He said all that the Gospels recorded. He could have easily said "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit! It is finished" and for whatever reason Luke left out the last sentence and John decided to only use the last sentence. Also, like Ice said, each writer approached the account differently - for a reason. Matthew, for example, wrote with a Jewish audience in mind. This is probably the reason why he included Psalm 22 ("My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?") - Matthew frequently pointed his audience to the Old Testament. We also see that from the start of John Christ is the Word. John made it plain that Christ was (is) the Second Person of the Trinity, whereas Matthew sort of eases his audience into Christ's divinity. We also see that John made it a point to include the Blessed Virgin at the foot of the cross. Again, this is my personal belief, I like to think that since John's Gospel is especially spiritual (for lack of a better word), he wanted to emphasize Mary as our universal or Heavenly Mother (John 19:26-27). As an aside, John did not include the consecration of bread and wine, but he did include a lengthy discourse that's absent from the other Gospels. I think this is to again support his overall theme or message - like others said, John was written after the other Gospels, so he probably figured it would be okay to instead focus on the discourse and what that reveals about Jesus, since by that point everyone was pretty clear on the transubstantiation. This is a good answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 I have something extra to add - please correct me if I'm wrong, but Luke wrote with a focus on the message of repentance and forgiveness, which is why he included the conversation between Christ and the two criminals, and thus the one criminal's repentance and Christ's promising him salvation. Luke also includes the parable of the prodigal son (I forget if the other Gospels do) which again highlights our repentance and God's subsequent forgiveness. And the parable of the lost sheep...etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Tardis, I learned about each Gospel writer's unique "theme" in an Intro to the Bible course I took my second semester undergrad. Catholic university, but the course was not so much theological as it was scholarly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 I still have the text book, it's just buried away in a trunk with other college texts, but it's in my room. If you're interested I can dig for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Wow. Way to strawman a person's explanation. 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? None of the things bolded and underlined above follows from what I said. My intention was only to offer you one way of looking at it. Since I see you now have been satisfied by someone else's way, I will check out of this discussion, because as far as I'm concerned, the job has been done. In the future, though, if your real intention is not to ask for an explanation but instead to start an argument, I'd suggest that you not pose your statement as an innocent question but rather as the claim you actually intend to make, and that you post it in the Debate Table. That would be more honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 Wow. Way to strawman a person's explanation. None of the things bolded and underlined above follows from what I said. My intention was only to offer you one way of looking at it. Since I see you now have been satisfied by someone else's way, I will check out of this discussion, because as far as I'm concerned, the job has been done. In the future, though, if your real intention is not to ask for an explanation but instead to start an argument, I'd suggest that you not pose your statement as an innocent question but rather as the claim you actually intend to make, and that you post it in the Debate Table. That would be more honest. No, it wasn't an innocent question. But it also wasn't a debate. If I intended that, I would have started this thread in the debate board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) 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. I cannot remember the exact words my father said to me right before he died, and I loved my father dearly. Nor can I remember the exact words my mother said to me prior to her death last August. I do know the gist of what she said, and I shall always cherish her, but I could not repeat her words to me verbatim. As far as the Gospel narratives are concerned, the Church Fathers hold that all the Gospels taken together represent the tradition, and so even though it comes to us in four distinct books it must be seen as a whole. Matthew and Mark do not relate the precise words, saying only that He cried again with a loud voice, while Luke and John give the words, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" (Luke) and "It is finished." (John), and these together are held to be His last words. Edited March 30, 2013 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now