"Forgive them, for they know not what they do"

[Ripheus27]

Since he did not say it, your argument is futile and ambiguous and antithetical to what Christ taught.

How do you know He didn't say it? Were you there? Just because certain copies of the Gospel of Luke lack this request doesn't mean that reality lacked Him making the request. What is your standard of "best" as far as a copy of Luke's work goes?

Consider also that the Acts of the Apostles was Luke's, and in that, Peter, I believe, says something about how "they" (I don't remember who he's referring to) would never have crucified "the Lord of glory" but for their ignorance.

EDIT: Okay, the exact phrase "the Lord of glory" seems to be from one of the epistles, not Acts. But in Acts (3:12-3:17) it does say:

"When Peter saw it, he responded to the people, “You men of Israel, why do you marvel at this man? Why do you fasten your eyes on us, as though by our own power or godliness we had made him walk? 3:13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up, and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had determined to release him. 3:14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 3:15 and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, to which we are witnesses. 3:16 By faith in his name, his name has made this man strong, whom you see and know. Yes, the faith which is through him has given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all. 3:17 “Now, brothers, I know that you did this in ignorance, as did also your rulers."

 

[Ripheus27]

I, personally, do not believe that Christ was talking about forgiving them their unbelief, but that God shouldn't be vengeful towards them.

I wasn't saying that their (the Roman soldiers') unbelief was forgiven, but that their (other) sins were forgiven despite their unbelief, which rather weakens the idea that God only forgives people if they believe in His Word.

 

[Ripheus27]

But as to the idea of being saved without faith. It obviously has no bearing on it at all, and the words of Christ cannot be contradicted. The OP would have us believe that Christ rescinded what He Himself established in the Gospels.

Christ's execution, due to its publicity, was an event that more people, including those with no bias in His favor, would have been liable to have been witnesses to--more, that is, than the discourse with Nicodemus, for instance. A report about something He said while being publicly crucified may have greater evidential value than reports of private conversations He had, or so my intuition is telling me.

EDIT: Now as far as Christ arguably contradicting Himself, well, it wouldn't be the first time in history that a person was inconsistent.

 

[Ripheus27]

It might be the "classical translation," yet it is blatantly spurious; e.g., an academically verified addition within post-Nicean (pro-Catholic) codices issued later than P75.

Why would anyone make this saying up, though? What motive would Nicene Christians have to fabricate this verse?

 

[Heterodoxus]

Why would anyone make this saying up, though? What motive would Nicene Christians have to fabricate this verse?

Why? To make it appear that:

Jesus uttered an intercessory prayer of forgiveness "in fulfillment of Isa. 53:12" (Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible) "for the Roman soldiers, who were only obeying, but not for the Sanhedrin" (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament).

"Christ, in praying for his enemies, shows that he is both the Sacrifice and the Priest" (1599 Geneva Bible Translation Notes).

As to motive, that isn't for me to say. The answer to that would largely depend upon whom you ask. Simply stated, I'm only qualified by training and experience to speak to who, what, when, where, why and, maybe, how (which I did, in part, in my earlier responses).

Here's some brief additional info you might find helpful to your understanding of Luke 23:34. Let's look briefly at this verse in the KJV:

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

It is the first sentence of this verse that is not seen in extant P75 (ca. 175-250 CE) which predates three (3) of the "great codices" of the Catholic Church; specifically: Sinaiticus (ca. 375-425 CE), Alexandrinus (ca. 350-399 CE), and Vaticanus (ca. 325-375 CE).

Next, let's look at the Greek text of Westcott & Hort (ability to read Greek not needed here; I just want to point out a couple of things):

[[ο δε ιησους ελεγεν πατερ αφες αυτοις ου γαρ οιδασιν τι ποιουσιν]] διαμεριζομενοι δε τα ιματια αυτου εβαλον | κληρον | κληρους

Notice the double brackets ([[ ]]) around the first half of those Greek words? Do you understand why those double brackets are there? Because the Bible committee which approved this version of the Greek New Testament knew that there was no manuscript evidence to support the appearance of these words at the beginning of Luke 23:34, other than what is seen in the "great" Catholic codices. Yet, they chose to include them, within the brackets, because that is the orthodox (common place) canonical rendering of that verse which, as worded, supports whatever might have been the ecclesiastical motive(s) for inserting those words at the beginning of the verse.

Lastly, see the word αφες in the Greek text above? This is the word translated into English here as "forgive". Of note here is that even IF αφες appeared in P75, it might not mean "forgive". The first sentence in Luke 23:34 might be better read:

And Jesus said, Father, you should have sent them away, for they don't know what they are doing!

I hope you find this info helpful.

 

[Ripheus27]

Why? To make it appear that: [Explanation offered.]

I have to admit, your offered explanation is rather plausible, considering how passages from the Hebrew scriptures are at times twisted so as to seem like "prophecies" that alleged events in Christ's life corresponded to. (I'm thinking of e.g. the "called out of Egypt" and "will come from Bethlehem" verses, which I've seen half-convincingly argued to me to have meant something quite different from what the relevant Gospel writers claimed they meant.)

Lastly, see the word αφες in the Greek text above? This is the word translated into English here as "forgive". Of note here is that even IF αφες appeared in P75, it might not mean "forgive". The first sentence in Luke 23:34 might be better read: [Translation given.] I hope you find this info helpful.

It is helpful, and now I must ask if the kind of inference I'd draw from it is the same as you would. For what I would infer from this is that knowledge of what Christian scripture originally was, and therefore should be, depends on knowledge that is difficult to achieve for anyone who is not in a position to undertake in-depth research of a kind that most people in the world are not in a position to undertake. But then Christian scripture can't be a singularly effective (if effective at all) means to convey the universal way to our salvation, simply because the conveyance of such means depends on whether our copies of said scriptures are accurate, and our knowledge of this accuracy is not as close to universally available as those scriptures themselves. (This is one of my objections to the LDS church, if you can see the relevance of such a remark to this thread.)

 

[Ishraqiyun]

knowingly killing the Lord would have been a transcendental crime with which no others could be compared.

If Christ came to earth in order to be crucified then it was his will that he be crucified. He wanted to offer himself as sacrifice so as to save mankind from sin right? Why would fulfilling God's will be a transcendental crime? I don't see why God would hold it against them as a crime because his very purpose in showing up on earth was to save man not damn them and the method he chose to bring that about involved the event under question as a possible "transcendental crime". It wouldn't make much sense that he would choose a method of salvation that would end in damnation for the people that took part in the process.

BTW I personally have a different Christology (indwelling Christ Consciousness) as well as an allegorical understanding of the crucifixion but I tried answering the question using more orthodox presuppositions because I think you were looking for an answer more along those lines.

 

[Ripheus27]

If Christ came to earth in order to be crucified then it was his will that he be crucified. He wanted to offer himself as sacrifice so as to save mankind from sin right? Why would fulfilling God's will be a transcendental crime? I don't see why God would hold it against them as a crime because his very purpose in showing up on earth was to save man not damn them and the method he chose to bring that about involved the event under question as a possible "transcendental crime". It wouldn't make much sense that he would choose a method of salvation that would end in damnation for the people that took part in the process.

BTW I personally have a different Christology (indwelling Christ Consciousness) as well as an allegorical understanding of the crucifixion but I tried answering the question using more orthodox presuppositions because I think you were looking for an answer more along those lines.

Thank you, sir, for providing my argument with the exact objection that I had in the back of my mind. I don't know if you would put much stock in receiving blessings/reputation/w/e on this site, but know you're about to get quite the dose of these.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Thank you, sir, for providing my argument with the exact objection that I had in the back of my mind. I don't know if you would put much stock in receiving blessings/reputation/w/e on this site, but know you're about to get quite the dose of these.

Why thank you.

 

[Heterodoxus]

... passages from the Hebrew scriptures are at times twisted so as to seem like "prophecies" ...

And, as we see with the first sentence at Luke 23:34, passages in the NT are also "at times twisted" to seem like fulfillment of OT prophecies.

It is helpful,....

I must ask if the kind of inference I'd draw from it is the same as you would.

Regrettably, no.

... knowledge of what Christian scripture originally was,... depends on knowledge that is difficult to achieve for anyone who is not in a position to undertake in-depth research .....

Agreed. For a majority of professing Christians eager to learn more about what their Bible says, life all too often gets in their way. Alternately, they have little choice but to rely upon the words and writings of mostly well-intended (IMO) church professionals and teachers for, ideally, accurate information.

Christian scripture can't be a singularly effective (if effective at all) means to convey the universal way to our salvation

Also IMO, unaltered scripture can do that. The trick is to recognize what has or has not been altered. There is, however, much reputable and reliable scripture-related information available, both commercially and online, to help interested seekers go about"rightly dividing [correctly analyzing and elaborating upon] the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15) ̶ IF one carefully reviews publicly available information about the writer(s) and avoids dogmatism.

(This is one of my objections to the LDS church, if you can see the relevance of such a remark to this thread.)

Yes, I see it . . . and ditto!

 

[Heterodoxus]

"Uhthankya. Uhthankya very muuuch!" ~Elvis

​

 

[Ripheus27]

*Punches myself in my (mental) face* After I said I wouldn't debate unbelievers in the quote I was analyzing in the OP, I proceeded to debate unbelief in said quote. God forgive me for failing to adhere to my own standards.

 

[Heterodoxus]

After I said I wouldn't debate unbelievers in the quote I was analyzing in the OP, I proceeded to debate .....

FWIW, I consider scripture-related discussions as a Bible study rather than a "debate".

Next question?

 

[Ripheus27]

FWIW, I consider scripture-related discussions as a Bible study rather than a "debate".

Next question?

Well, I didn't want to spend my time answering questions about the legitimacy of a certain verse's presence in canonical Bibles, since by my lights answering those questions would naturally lead into an extended discussion of the canon as a whole. That is, the reasons you've given for dismissing the verse I opened this thread with could be extended to cover much more of the canon (or so it seems to me). But then I could argue against sola fide by arguing against the legitimacy of the verses in, say, the Pauline epistles that are used to support sola fide. I wouldn't have had any reason to resort to analyzing this alleged plea for forgiveness on Christ's part.

 

[he-man]

But then I could argue against sola fide by arguing against the legitimacy of the verses in, say, the Pauline epistles that are used to support sola fide. I wouldn't have had any reason to resort to analyzing this alleged plea for forgiveness on Christ's part.

Paul's sola fide?

Tit 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work unapproved
.
Rom 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all gentiles, for his name:

1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

1Co 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

1Th 4:11 And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;

2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

 

[Ripheus27]

Paul's sola fide?

Yeah, as in Romans 3:28 and Ephesians 2:8-9. Except I didn't say "Paul's theory" but was talking about a theory that can be derived from certain verses in Paul's writings.

 

[he-man]

Yeah, as in Romans 3:28 and Ephesians 2:8-9. Except I didn't say "Paul's theory" but was talking about a theory that can be derived from certain verses in Paul's writings.

I am well aware of Rom 3:28 and all the others, that is why I quoted 1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

It is clear that Paul was aware that to believe in Christ, it took faith and not just the Law for justification. James politely answered that question when he said,

" Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

 

[Ripheus27]

I am well aware of Rom 3:28 and all the others, that is why I quoted 1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

It is clear that Paul was aware that to believe in Christ, it took faith and not just the Law for justification. James politely answered that question when he said,

" Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

It might be helpful to consider the German philosopher Immanuel Kant's distinction between acting according to duty, and acting from duty. Or the distinction between the letter and the spirit of the law. Now some people reject James' writings, but setting that aside, we might think that justification by faith and works is a matter of faith manifesting itself in certain deeds, wherefore in that case faith and works are identical. If I do the right thing due to some base motive, I do not do what is ultimately good; but if I do the right thing for the right reason, then I do what is ultimately good.

But anyway, my original attitude towards Paul was so hostile that I made sure to persuade my mom that Paul was a sort of evil fool whose teachings ought to be disregarded as inconsistent with the Son of God's message. Since the days and nights of that persuasion, I've become more lenient towards Paul, as it does impress me that he converted to Christianity in spite of his prior persecution of Christians. So I've tried to come up with a philosophically legitimate reading of the Pauline epistles; but at the same time, if Paul cannot be philosophically rehabilitated, I would be happy to disregard his writings as satanic.

 

[he-man]

It might be helpful to consider the German philosopher Immanuel Kant's distinction between acting according to duty, and acting from duty. Or the distinction between the letter and the spirit of the law. Now some people reject James' writings, but setting that aside, we might think that justification by faith and works is a matter of faith manifesting itself in certain deeds, wherefore in that case faith and works are identical. If I do the right thing due to some base motive, I do not do what is ultimately good; but if I do the right thing for the right reason, then I do what is ultimately good.

But anyway, my original attitude towards Paul was so hostile that I made sure to persuade my mom that Paul was a sort of evil fool whose teachings ought to be disregarded as inconsistent with the Son of God's message. Since the days and nights of that persuasion, I've become more lenient towards Paul, as it does impress me that he converted to Christianity in spite of his prior persecution of Christians. So I've tried to come up with a philosophically legitimate reading of the Pauline epistles; but at the same time, if Paul cannot be philosophically rehabilitated, I would be happy to disregard his writings as satanic.

Oh please.... James (62 AD) Paul (56-57 AD) Martin Luther because he thought that James contradicted Saint Paul's view of justification by faith alone. Paul, however, was emphasizing the inappropriateness of works for salvation whereas James spoke of works that issue from faith. For both, the essentials are the same, and both were probably dealing independently with a traditional topic of Jewish belief.
Epistle of James