Traditional Misreading? #3: Luke 23:43

[Checkpoint]

This verse has been discussed and debated about for centuries.

On the surface, the dispute has been about where to put a speech mark - a comma - . Should it be before the word "today", or after the word "today"?

But it's not as simple as to merely make that choice. For several reasons.

Firstly, no speech marks (such as commas) are in the original languages used by Bible writers. Likewise, verses, paragraphs, and chapters, were absent from the original writings.
These were all added to the text in later times.

Secondly, our choice will be, or should be, made after giving due consideration to, not only this verse but to the entire conversation before our disputation verse, 43.

Here is the verse, plus the verse in its conversation context:


Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you today you will be with me in Paradise."

Luke 23: 39-43
39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him,d saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!”

40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”

42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you today you will be with me in paradise.”

(Note: I have taken out the contested comma. Not because there should not be one(there should), but to encourage readers to consider/reconsider just where it is most appropriate, and make their choice accordingly)


1. Why, do you think, Jesus added the word "today" to his usual "Truly, I say to you"?

2. When, do you think, Jesus had in mind by using the word "Paradise" as the equivalent of "when you come into your kingdom"?

3. Where do you place the comma, and why have you made that your choice?






The Death of Jesus

[Difflugia]

I can't remember I've said those things above in this thread specially the second one.

You didn't. That was a mistake with my copy-paste. I'm sorry about that. I fixed it.

[onewithhim]

Jesus himself taught "soul sleep." He said Lazarus had gone to sleep, when of course Lazarus was dead.

He also said that the dead rich man and Lazarus had a conversation while the rich man's brothers were still alive. So, Jesus apparently also taught "soul talking."

You have not discerned that that story was told by Jesus as a metaphor to teach a certain point, not meant to be literal? Isn't it obvious that it is not literal? It's funny that that parable of Jesus is the only place that a person is dead and then talking to someone else. He didn't teach dead soul talking.
Is hell literally within speaking distance of heaven so that such a real conversation could be carried on? Also, if the rich man were in a literal burning lake, how could Abraham send Lazarus to cool his tongue with just a drop of water on the tip of his finger? This does not in any sense show that the rich man and Lazarus is a literal story.

The rich man in the story stood for the self-important religious leaders who rejected Jesus and later killed him. Lazarus pictured the common people who accepted Jesus. The death of the rich man and of Lazarus represented a change in their condition. The change took place when Jesus fed the neglected Lazarus-like people spiritually, so that they thus came into favor with the "Greater Abraham," Jehovah. At the same time, the false religious leaders "died" with respect to having God's favor. Being cast off, they suffered torments when Christ exposed their evil works. (Check out Acts 7:51-57) So this illustration does not teach that dead people can actually talk, nor does it show that people roast in a fire in hell. The Pharisees were nearby listening to Jesus, and he took the advantage to speak to them about their hypocrisy.

I also had shown that there wasn't any dead soul of Samuel coming back to talk to Saul at the witch's behest. Samuel, even if he could be existing at that time, would never have pandered to the witch's entreaties, seeing as God forbade anything like that: "There should not be found in you anyone who...employs divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer, or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events or anyone who inquires of the dead." (Deut.18:10, 11) Samuel , knowing this, would not have appeared at the medium's beseeching, even if he had been alive somewhere.

This does not contradict Ecclesiastes 9:5,10 as does your opinion on this.

[Difflugia]

I also had shown that there wasn't any dead soul of Samuel coming back to talk to Saul at the witch's behest.

You've certainly asserted that repeatedly, but as far as I can tell, you haven't offered any sort of evidence to show anything.

Samuel, even if he could be existing at that time, would never have pandered to the witch's entreaties,

Except the Bible says he did. That can even be shown.

Samuel , knowing this, would not have appeared at the medium's beseeching, even if he had been alive somewhere.

Then why do 1 Samuel 28:12, 14, 15, and 16 say that he did? The inspired and inerrant narrator called him Samuel by name. The NWT even put quotes around the name for emphasis.

This does not contradict Ecclesiastes 9:5,10 as does your opinion on this.

It only does if 1 Samuel 28 and Ecclesiastes 9 are both inerrant. Maybe they're not.

[onewithhim]

I also had shown that there wasn't any dead soul of Samuel coming back to talk to Saul at the witch's behest.

You've certainly asserted that repeatedly, but as far as I can tell, you haven't offered any sort of evidence to show anything.

Samuel, even if he could be existing at that time, would never have pandered to the witch's entreaties,

Except the Bible says he did. That can even be shown.

Samuel , knowing this, would not have appeared at the medium's beseeching, even if he had been alive somewhere.

Then why do 1 Samuel 28:12, 14, 15, and 16 say that he did? The inspired and inerrant narrator called him Samuel by name. The NWT even put quotes around the name for emphasis.

This does not contradict Ecclesiastes 9:5,10 as does your opinion on this.

It only does if 1 Samuel 28 and Ecclesiastes 9 are both inerrant. Maybe they're not.

I think your understanding of I Samuel 28 is in error. Eccles.9 is not in error. How could Samuel ever agree to throw his hat in with a medium that God stated plainly was anathema to Him? If Samuel was truly a worshipper of God, he would not have done it. The thing that appeared to Saul was a demon pretending to be Samuel. That is specifically why God does not want anyone to try to contact the dead. The demons step in, and they are who you are contacting.

[Difflugia]

I think your understanding of I Samuel 28 is in error.

So you keep saying without support.

How could Samuel ever agree to throw his hat in with a medium that God stated plainly was anathema to Him?

Who knows? The Bible says he did, though.

If Samuel was truly a worshipper of God, he would not have done it.

The narrator of the Bible disagrees with you.

The thing that appeared to Saul was a demon pretending to be Samuel.

The Bible says it was Samuel.

That is specifically why God does not want anyone to try to contact the dead. The demons step in, and they are who you are contacting.

That's an interesting idea. It's not biblical, though.

[onewithhim]

I think your understanding of I Samuel 28 is in error.

So you keep saying without support.

How could Samuel ever agree to throw his hat in with a medium that God stated plainly was anathema to Him?

Who knows? The Bible says he did, though.

If Samuel was truly a worshipper of God, he would not have done it.

The narrator of the Bible disagrees with you.

The thing that appeared to Saul was a demon pretending to be Samuel.

The Bible says it was Samuel.

That is specifically why God does not want anyone to try to contact the dead. The demons step in, and they are who you are contacting.

That's an interesting idea. It's not biblical, though.

It's not Biblical to think that Samuel would have anything to do with a spirit medium.

[Difflugia]

It's not Biblical to think that Samuel would have anything to do with a spirit medium.

I'm pretty sure that whatever the Bible says is biblical.

Or if I don't like a Bible story, can I just decide that it's not biblical the same way you have? I don't think the real Jesus would have likened God to someone torturing a slave, like in Matthew 18:34-35. I think that's a demon telling that story, but disguised as Jesus. Could Satan have fooled the disciples? Should Matthew 18:1 have a footnote that says, "or 'what appeared to be Jesus'"?

[onewithhim]

It's not Biblical to think that Samuel would have anything to do with a spirit medium.

I'm pretty sure that whatever the Bible says is biblical.

Or if I don't like a Bible story, can I just decide that it's not biblical the same way you have? I don't think the real Jesus would have likened God to someone torturing a slave, like in Matthew 18:34-35. I think that's a demon telling that story, but disguised as Jesus. Could Satan have fooled the disciples? Should Matthew 18:1 have a footnote that says, "or 'what appeared to be Jesus'"?

I'm using my power of reason (Isaiah 1:18, KJV), and Samuel would not have involved himself in something demonic such as consulting a spirit medium.
(Deut. 18:11)

[Difflugia]

It's not Biblical to think that Samuel would have anything to do with a spirit medium.

I'm pretty sure that whatever the Bible says is biblical.

Or if I don't like a Bible story, can I just decide that it's not biblical the same way you have? I don't think the real Jesus would have likened God to someone torturing a slave, like in Matthew 18:34-35. I think that's a demon telling that story, but disguised as Jesus. Could Satan have fooled the disciples? Should Matthew 18:1 have a footnote that says, "or 'what appeared to be Jesus'"?

I'm using my power of reason (Isaiah 1:18, KJV), and Samuel would not have involved himself in something demonic such as consulting a spirit medium.
(Deut. 18:11)

I understand your claim, but you still haven't answered my question. If Jesus wouldn't have compared Yahweh's justice to torturing slaves, who was speaking to the disciples with the appearance of Jesus?

[Bible_Student]

It's not Biblical to think that Samuel would have anything to do with a spirit medium.

I'm pretty sure that whatever the Bible says is biblical.

Or if I don't like a Bible story, can I just decide that it's not biblical the same way you have? I don't think the real Jesus would have likened God to someone torturing a slave... I think that's a demon telling that story, but disguised as Jesus. Could Satan have fooled the disciples? Should have a footnote that says, "or 'what appeared to be Jesus'"?

I'm using my power of reason ..., and Samuel would not have involved himself in something demonic such as consulting a spirit medium.

I understand your claim, but you still haven't answered my question. If Jesus wouldn't have compared Yahweh's justice to torturing slaves, who was speaking to the disciples with the appearance of Jesus?

The account of Saul and his encounter with the spiritualist is a factual narrative, whereas Jesus's remarks regarding a businessman’s treatment of his employee based on his actions serve as an analogy. These represent two distinct storytelling methods, each employing unique linguistic strategies and purposes.

Referring to a narrative as biblical differs from labeling an illustration as such: the former's essence is perceived as an actual event, while the latter's essence serves as a metaphor imparting a lesson. Both are indeed biblical, and each serves a spiritual function that every Bible student ought to recognize.