₦airaland Forum

GothamCities:
What was written on Jesus cross is the same in all gospels. They're all correct even though they rendered it differently!

The point is that "The King of the Jews" was the basis of His accusation according to Pilate.

AntiChristian:
How's that our business? I am talking about the inscription and you are trying to divert to another thing!

Which of them is true? Which are wrong?

Are all of them true to you too?

SIRTee15:
The inscription was written in 3 languages: greek, Aramaic and Latin.
Do U know that?

AntiChristian:
Okay! So if your kid is asked same question he would write the four options or any of them as the truth!

F9 product!

God-breathed scripture!

Thank you!

AntiChristian:
That's none of my business! What's written in those languages? Or do you mean the four options are written in those three languages on the cross?

That's 12 inscriptions on Jesus's cross!

GothamCities:
He'll write Jesus the King of the Jews and would be correct!

SIRTee15:
There were 3 inscriptions on Jesus cross written in 3 different languages..
Aramaic, greek and Latin. The Pharisees also interpreted the reading in Hebrew making 4 readings.

Except U here to tell me the inscriptions in the 4 languages are the same letter for letter, word for word which is impossible due to linguistic challenges....U have no point.

For example ....
I could write

The king of the Jews in English
Then in Yoruba write ELEYI NI OBA AWON JU OR OHUN NI OBA AWON JU.

THOSE THREE SENTENCE MEAN THE SAME THING AND COULD BE TRANSLATED VICE VERSA BUT THE LITERAL TRANSLATION IS DIFFERENT.

IF 'ELEYI NI OBA AWON JU' IS TRANSLATED LITERALLY INTO ENGLISH, IT BECOMES 'THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS'

SO LANGUAGE TRANSLATION IS DIFFERENT FROM LITERAL TRANSLATION. THE ULTIMATE IS THE MEANING OF SENTENCE IS PRESERVED.

PILATE WANTED TO BE SURE PEOPLE GOT HIS MESSAGE CLEARLY, HE WOULD FOCUS ON PROPER TRANSLATION OF HIS MESSAGE RATHER THAN SOME LITERAL TRANSLATION NUANCES.

PEOPLE WHO READ THE INSCRIPTIONS IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES KNEW IT MEANT THE SAME THING.

THE BIBLE AUTHORS SIMPLY WROTE THE INSCRIPTIONS THAT WAS REPORTED TO THEM OR THE ONE THEY UNDERSTOOD.
Luke wasn't at the cross, they told him what was written in greek and he wrote it down.
Mark wasnt at the cross, they told him what was written in Latin ( and he translated it to greek) since he wrote his gospel while in Rome.
Matthew was writing to his fellow Jews, he reported the inscription in Hebrew and then translated it to greek.
John was at the cross, saw what was written in Aramaic and translated it to greek.

The Aramaic inscription has Yeoshua included while it was omitted in both greek and Latin because Yeoshua is a native Jewish name and has no meaning in either greek or Latin.
The greek name Ieosous and the Latin name Iesus are all transliteration. Ieosous and Iesus has no meaning in the respective language.
Just like Adetokunbo becomes Antetokounmpoin in greek. Antekoumpoin doesn't have any meaning in greek.
Including Yeoshua in the greek/Latin inscription may confuse readers who may then misinterpret the message, thus Pilate choose to skip it.

I believe if U are sincere, this will settle it. However if U persist in your nuisance behaviour, we will visit the Quran and test the literal translation hypothesis on it and the see how it fares.

AntiChristian:
He will be wrong!

What was written on the cross is actually unknown! The Messiah was expected to be the "King of the Jews" so they formed that as the inscription! Then each one added spices and condiment to improve the aroma of their writings!

AntiChristian:
If you like visit the Qur'an as far as the thread is not about Islam i reserve the right to answer or not!

So in essence, only John is correct while the others are wrong?

1. Mark 15:26 - The inscription:“The King of the Jews.”

2. Matthew 27:37 - The inscription: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.”

3. Luke 23:38 - The inscription: “This is the King of the Jews.”

4. John 19:19 - The inscription: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”

GothamCities:
Lol.

What was written on the cross was unknown because the writings were invisible to the people who saw the cross in its day?

SIRTee15:
John wrote down the Aramaic inscription in his book.
Mark wrote down the Latin inscription in his book
Luke wrote down the greek inscription in his book.
Matthew wrote down the Hebrew translation of the inscription in his book.

They were all correct. They simply wrote down what was written in different languages in different LITERAL TRANSLATION.

What's so difficult to understand here.

AntiChristian:
Where was the Holy Spirit when they were writing different things?
And where in the Bible is it said that the wordings was written in four different languages!
Each writer was just trying to prove a point making Jesus the king of the Jews!

Anyways we are not Jews!

AntiChristian:
Hence they wrote 4 different narrations!

GothamCities:
The Koko of the matter is that the inscription contained the caption King of the Jews. Period. What was written was more than that. That's why it was rendered in different ways.

SIRTee15:
This is done and dusted.
You are the one who should bring evidence that the different inscriptions are the same letter for letter and word for word.

It's common sense that sentences are not translated literally when written in different languages. They are translated in such way that the message and meaning remain the same in different languages.
This is the standard in the linguistic scholastic works.

For example 'Man is dog best friend' when translated to Yoruba becomes 'Aja ni ore eniyan'

Those two words are not the same literally but the translation is correct and the message it conveys is the same.

It's just common sense, something very rare among Muslims illiterate apologetics.


Funny enough Quran has the same problem of literal translation.
That's why modern Muslims are denying some passages in Qur'an claiming the original Arabic doesn't have the same meaning.

For example the Quran says husband should strike their wives when they disobey.

modern westernised Muslims who are embarrassed by that verse will claim the Arabic word for strike is a literal translation and the meaning of the word is different in the Arabic Quran.

AntiChristian what's your opinion on this?

AntiChristian:
Where in the Bible is it said that the inscriptions were in many languages for each Gospels to have written different wordings?

SIRTee15:
Go and do your own home work. No food for lazy man.
Just imagine, he hasn't done his own assignment but came here to post a topic on passion of Christ based on poor knowledge.

Honesttalk be like say U sabi bible pass this otondo.
Pls show him the bible verse.

AntiChristian:
That's to you!

To realist, each gospel writer wrote a different thing! Your Brother Sirtee15 was stating another theory that the inscriptions was written in many languages with each writer writing one language!

That's another lamba!

If Luke sees three languages why can't he write the three?

AntiChristian:
I should do homework on what you have no proof for from the Bible?

GothamCities:
The Koko of the matter is King of the Jews. No one was there when it happened. If the writers were alive today, we would have explained to us. But since they're not alive, everyone can only give his own thoughts. I have read the Bible many times enough to understand the things that are confusing you. There was more words written than what each writer remembered. The Koko of everything is that King of the Jews was the accusation. What was written more than King of the Jews is what the writers have rendered differently.

And truly, the words were written in many languages.

SIRTee15:
Don't worry wait for Honesttalk he will show U the verse.

Now do U agree strike your wife means beat your wife in both Arabic and English version of the Qur'an?

AntiChristian:
No koko!

It is error!

I'm trying to drop more threads abeg!
The error here is confirmed!
You are just being stubborn!

If you call "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews" to your pupil in a spelling test and he writes "King of the Jews", you should mark him right! It's okay!

GothamCities:
You brought a wrong analysis.

The writers didn't write in the original language of the inscription. Each of them wrote the interpretation as concise as they preferred it.

AntiChristian:
So the Bible writers can write whatever they want as concise as they preferred?

Alhamdulillah!

GothamCities:
Yeah, in matters of interpretation where the word they're interpreting is not in front of them to copy from!

AntiChristian:
You mentioned it so you must explain it.

How did the Prophet and his companions struck their wives?
Are they wife beaters?

I understood it the way they understood the verse!

SIRTee15:
Yes, the companions of Muhammed beat their wives.
Aisha confirmed it.


Narrated `Ikrima:

Rifa`a divorced his wife whereupon `AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. `Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) came, `Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!"

So Yes Muslims men beat their wives according to your books.

Now when the Quran says strike your wives, does it mean beat your wives as described by Aisha, mother of believers.

MindHacker9009:
But: Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself. John 6:15

So when was He the King of the Jews?

ozoono:
Dnt get it twisted they Just use that word to mock Jesus

AntiChristian:
Which word?

ozoono:
King of the jews

AntiChristian:
Make Christians stay their lane! Make Muslims stay theirs!