Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2013 11:24:47 GMT -8
Sept 6, 2013 23:43:32 GMT -8 @heber said:
As I said - there is a difficulty there. Either John is incorrect or Yeshua's return was being counted in a different way. It may be, of course, that we are used to speaking of a second coming, which is a very different term to a 'return'. However, Scripture refers more to a return than a second coming! Confusing? Yes! Which is why I made the point, initially.Re the translation of 'stop holding' or 'do not hold' - those two terms can mean the same thing if you think about it. If you hold on to someone then you could say 'stop holding me' or, pushing away the person who is holding you, you could say 'do not hold me'. OR, they can be opposites! You pays your money takes your choice!
Unlike the book of Hebrews, which probably WAS written in Greek, the book of John was probably written in Hebrew, possibly translated into Aramaic, and then into the lower Greek. This has caused many problems in the gospels (and the NT as a whole). So where we see that it looks as if she actually touched Yeshua, it may not be the case at all in the original manuscript, now lost or intentionally destroyed. The same applies to the language concerning His "second coming." That makes it sound as if there will only be two times Yeshua appears on earth- which can't be because it has happened twice now just in the book of John!
I'm about to go over to the archives and deal with another apparent discrepancy in the gospel of Matthew which is almost certainly due to translational issues.
Dan C
Matthew also supports the fact that two ladies (not one) held on to his feet, see Matthew 28:9. Yeshua appears to make no comment about that, but we do not know how far they had run, so it could be that in the intervening time he had been to his father in heaven, and returned.