20 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYea, let's talk content! When will you be handling poisonous snakes and drinking poison? I'm still waiting for you on this one.
as i suspected complete and utter unadulterated speculation and founded upon what? nothing! The fact of the matter remains, you have no way of knowing, who wrote the gospels, which makes their claim, that they were written by their respective writers equally as valid! As is usual with those who deny the divine, not a shred of evidence other than a ...[text shortened]... e to comment on the actual content of the scripture rather than what is not present. spit ding!
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by kirksey957if you would like to state your query in plain language, without the affectation, then perhaps it may be easier to understand what it is you are driving at. i never responded to your post because i felt another poster had comprehensively covered the point that you were trying to make, to my satisfaction anyway.
Yea, let's talk content! When will you be handling poisonous snakes and drinking poison? I'm still waiting for you on this one.
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy language was very plain. You said that everything in Scripture was meant to be followed. I asked what part and you said "all of it". I asked if you handled snakes and drank poison. You said you were not sure that was in there. I pointed out Mark 16:16-18 which is in the Bible.
if you would like to state your query in plain language, without the affectation, then perhaps it may be easier to understand what it is you are driving at. i never responded to your post because i felt another poster had comprehensively covered the point that you were trying to make, to my satisfaction anyway.
OK, your turn.
20 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettThe eyewitnesses, or disciples, may not have written first hand accounts, but what they did with the rest of their lives speaks volumes. The alternative is to say that the eye witnesses, who did not witness the resurrection of Jesus Christ, spent the rest of their lives proclaiming his resurrection throughout the world, which ultimately cost them all their lives, save one.
[b]The gospels were not written by first person eyewitnesses.
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by kirksey957no you are either misunderstanding what i said, or you are misinterpreting what i said. i merely stated that all scripture is inspired, that does not mean that all scripture is applicable. For example we do not go to worship at the temple in Jerusalem, we do not offer blood sacrifices, we do not need to undergo circumcision, for all these are ordinances of the law given to Moses. We are not under the law covenant any more, that does not mean that the principles of the law are not valid, does it, for clearly stealing is wrong, as is adultery etc etc nor does it mean that these were not written under inspiration does it?
My language was very plain. You said that everything in Scripture was meant to be followed. I asked what part and you said "all of it". I asked if you handled snakes and drank poison. You said you were not sure that was in there. I pointed out Mark 16:16-18 which is in the Bible.
OK, your turn.
as for handling snakes and drinking poison, why would i do that, for clearly the miraculous events of the first century are no longer present, nor were they ever intended to be so. Paul clearly states that they would cease, and that once the congregations were established, love would be the primary identification of a true Christian, not gifts of healing, etc etc.
these things appear to me to be quite self evident from scripture, if you would like to look at the specific details, then please, be my guest.
now i most wonder what it is that you are trying to state? what has drinking poison or handling snakes got to do with anything? is it an attempt to state that this part of scripture is apocryphal? does it have some bearing elsewhere, i as yet, have no idea.
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI like this post! 😀😉
yes God is the author, however we are referring to the persons that God used to write his thoughts under inspiration. Note i believe as you do that the gospels are authentic, however i am also prepared to admit the limitations of the statements that i can make. I cannot prove that Luke wrote his gospel, i have taken it upon trust, from an examinati ...[text shortened]... o not hold that it is inspired, therefore we must be realistic with the assertions that we make!
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWe have no way of knowing who wrote the gospels. Therefore we are free to attribute them to whomever we please. There's a brilliant piece of scholarship for you.
as i suspected complete and utter unadulterated speculation and founded upon what? nothing! The fact of the matter remains, you have no way of knowing, who wrote the gospels, which makes their claim, that they were written by their respective writers equally as valid! As is usual with those who deny the divine, not a shred of evidence other than a ...[text shortened]... e to comment on the actual content of the scripture rather than what is not present. spit ding!
20 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettactually in retrospect, i think that was an erroneous assertion. i retract it and now hold the opinion, thanks to some readjustment from Joseph, that yes indeed, the scriptures do indicate that it is possible to discern who wrote the gospels. i apologise to all theists, for in trying to make a concession to those who deny the divine, i have erringly given their arguments credence. i may be on suicide watch for the next twenty four hours as a consequence! watch this space!
We have no way of knowing who wrote the gospels. Therefore we are free to attribute them to whomever we please. There's a brilliant piece of scholarship for you.
20 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJust take these little pills, 🙂🙁, fall asleep, and when you wake up you will be as good as new, 😉
actually in retrospect, i think that was an erroneous assertion. i retract it and now hold the opinion, thanks to some readjustment form Joseph, that yes indeed, the scriptures do indicate that it is possible to discern who wrote the gospels. i apologise to all theists, for in trying to make a concession to those who deny the divine, i have erringl ...[text shortened]... . i may be on suicide watch for the next twenty four hours as a consequence! watch this space!
20 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Badwaterconsider this
We do not know for certain who wrote the four Gospels. They weren't named for decades, perhaps even a century, after being written and the earliest complete copies are several hundred after the fact.
Although Luke is nowhere named in the account, ancient authorities are agreed that he was the writer. The Gospel is attributed to Luke in the Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 C.E.) and was accepted by such second-century writers as Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. Internal evidence also points strongly to Luke.
Paul speaks of him at Colossians 4:14 as “Luke the beloved physician,” and his work is of the scholarly order one would expect from a well-educated man, such as a doctor. His fine choice of language and his extensive vocabulary, larger than that of the other three Gospel writers combined, make possible a most careful and comprehensive treatment of his vital subject. His account of the prodigal son is regarded by some as the best short story ever written.
Luke uses more than 300 medical terms or words to which he gives a medical meaning that are not used in the same way (if they are used at all) by the other writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures. For example, when speaking of leprosy, Luke does not always use the same term as the others. To them leprosy is leprosy, but to the physician, there are different stages of leprosy, as when Luke speaks of “a man full of leprosy.” Lazarus, he says, was “full of ulcers.” No other Gospel writer says that Peters mother-in-law had “a high fever.” (5:12; 16:20; 4:38) Although the other three tell us of Peters cutting off the ear of the slave of the high priest, only Luke mentions that Jesus healed him. (22:51) It is like a doctor to say of a woman that she had “a spirit of weakness for eighteen years, and she was bent double and was unable to raise herself up at all.” And who but “Luke the beloved physician” would have recorded in such detail the first aid rendered to a man by the Samaritan who “bound up his wounds, pouring oil and wine upon them”?—13:11; 10:34.
conclusion, when we consider the internal evidence it is quite clear that the scriptures are authentic.
Disclaimer: All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. All references may or may not be from a third party, the author claims no responsibility for the content, nor are any to be taken as representative of his own work!
20 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo we agree that Luke was not the deciple of Jesus. He eyewitnessed nothing. He only wrote down what he heard from others.
consider this
Although Luke is nowhere named in the account, ancient authorities are agreed that he was the writer. The Gospel is attributed to Luke in the Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 C.E.) and was accepted by such second-century writers as Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. Internal evidence also points strongly to Luke.
Paul speaks of him a ...[text shortened]... ms no responsibility for the content, nor are any to be taken as representative of his own work!
And therefore I say that the gosples was hear-say, nothing more. We actually don't know anything what Jesus really said.