Was Jesus wrong or mistaken, or are we?

RCM

Active member
RCM said:

it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

(3) Luke is under conviction to document the events surrounding Jesus, in order to provide another witness for Theophilus in understanding
the truth about Jesus Christ

Luke does not simply wish to provide Theophilus and the wider community of believers with another witness (the portion I have bold and underlined in your comments above that I challenge), but a more reliable one. Luke describes his own qualifications -- another element of contemporaneous historical prefaces (Yamada 162) -- as παρηκολουθηκοτι, translated above as "having investigated", but BDAG defines literally as "follow a thing, follow a course of events, take note of" and reports that "Luke does not specify the means whereby he was able to assert his thorough familiarity [a rendering such as 'research' or 'investigate' depends on interpretation of the context and not on the semantic context of παρακολουθεω]" (767). The word following is ακριβως, which "pertains to strict conformity to a standard or norm, with focus on careful attention" (BDAG 39). Finally, Luke describes his own contribution as a καθεξης, which "pertains to being in sequence in time, space, or logic" (BDAG 491). Taken together with the opening clause, Luke intends to write a sequentially ordered narrative (unlike his predecessors whose differing orders are implicitly critiqued)... this because of his stated credentials (Moessner 84-123).


En Hakkore,

Surely, you don't mean more reliable than Matthew?

Their main subjects and main purposes for writing are completely different, and only a few of the themes are same


RCM
 

RCM

Active member
I have already shown how the first clause of your interpretation above is incorrect... as for the second part that I have bold and underlined, this is also incorrect. Whatever is handed down (more on that in a moment), it is entrusted not to the "many" as you here claim, but explicitly to "us" (ημιν), the implied readers of Luke's composition. The verb translated "handed down" above is παραδιδωμι, here as an aorist active indicative (παρεδοσαν) matching its third person plural subject that follows, namely "the eyewitnesses and servants of the word" --- since it lacks a direct object, the translation you are relying on infers it to be the collective "accounts" from the previous verse and thereby renders the verb as a passive to maintain a smooth flow from one verse to the other. The problem is that this may not be what Luke intends --- here is Yamada's translation:

En Hakkore,

You are in error here again on simple exegesis of simple grammar,

Luke 1:1-2 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,


LEXICON

QUESTION—Who were the ‘many’ who had complied accounts?

It refers to the writers Luke researched in 1:3 [TH]. The Gospel of Mark was written previously and probably was one of the sources Luke used [Arn, MGC, NIBC, NIGTC, NTC, Su], and also Matthew [Arn]. The reference to many writers brings out the importance of what Luke will write about [NAC, NICNT, WBC]. The number is unknown, but it was probably quite a few even though their accounts have not been preserved [Arn, Lns], and it was not an exaggeration [EGT]. ‘Many’ is used in a formal manner of beginning a document and it does not have to be taken to literally mean a large number [AB, NAC, NICNT, NIGTC], so that it could be translated ‘others’ [NAC].


LEXICON

QUESTION—Who are ‘us’ in the phrase ‘among us’?
  1. Since ‘us’ includes both the eyewitnesses and those who received their accounts, it refers to the Christian church regarded as a corporate body [BECNT, BNTC, Gdt, ICC, NAC, NICNT, NIGTC, NTC, Su, TH; TEV]. They are the people living at the time of fulfillment [Su]. These things happened in the midst of the church and the church also retained the saving effects of them [NIGTC].
  2. It refers to the Christians to whom the accounts were delivered by the eyewitnesses, so that this is the same as the people referred to by ‘us’ in 1:2 [Lns].
  3. It refers to Luke and his fellow Christians, most of whom had not been eyewitnesses to those events that had occurred, but all were firmly convinced that the events were historical [Arn].

RCM
 

Tonyg

Member
(2) The 'Many' are gathering together the written accounts by the Apostles, which was handed down to them by the Apostles
I think it's the idea that you understand that many are gathering together the written accounts, which is in question.

I think earlier you had said that many are gathering together to discuss the written accounts which Luke would be among them. I may be wrong but that's the idea that I got from what you had previously written concerning many.

Luk 1:1-4 KJV 1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand (at task) to set forth in order (a chronological report or a series of belief statements; or both?) a declaration of those things which are most surely believed (doctrinal statements? or the narrative of the chronology and belief in the incarnation of God?; Yes, this latter) among us,

Rcm, Do you read and understand the words in hand to mean physically gathering the written statements?

2 Even as they (apostles) (which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word) delivered them unto us,.

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Luke is a contemporary of the others, many, who are taking upon themselves the task of putting in order a declaration or affidavit of the things that have occurred among them, (us)

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Apparently Luke trusts himself and knows that Theophilus is trusting of him to compile a accurate and trustworthy and truthful even thorough collection of the chronology of the events leading up to and including the incarnation of god.
 

RCM

Active member
RCM said:

Luke would have documented Paul's death had it happened prior to the writing of the Book of Acts
This argument is weak

En Hakkore,

No, it is not weak, it is the most plausible argument that fits with the first generation of eyewitnesses and the historical record and Luke's
opening statement

Luke is believed to have died in the early 80's A.D.

With the later dating you have to start pounding square pegs into round holes to make everything fit and you can't

With a later date, Luke is no longer your author, and the inspiration and credibility of the Gospel is reduced to nothing more than that of
the heretical Gnostic Gospels

and could be used, for example, to claim that Matthew must have written his gospel prior to Jesus' ostensible ascension since he stops short of narrating it.

This is nothing but an absurd argument

All of the Four inspired Gospel's main focus are primarily on Jesus' three years of ministry, His death, and His resurrection,

All the Gospels end with the resurrected Christ

To argue so would be flawed, however, because an historian can end his/her narrative at whatever point s/he wishes... in the case of Acts, Luke chose to end with Paul preaching and teaching boldly and unhindered.

The early date of Luke satisfies all the hard questions

The late date that you prefer has to avoid all the hard questions and explain away through nonsensical arguments the historical record



RCM
 

RCM

Active member
I asked only for you to affirm or deny a direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke... an affirmative response would not commit you to any specific theory of what that relationship is. That you here implicitly dismiss Augustine, who posited just such a relationship, as neither "traditional" nor "conservative" simply underscores the bankruptcy of the position you're defending... I can't imagine many Christians supporting such an evaluation of Augustine.

En Hakkore,

The direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke is Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit


RCM
 

RCM

Active member
You've said a lot and ironically nothing at all that relates to the reason I offered this analogy, which has to do with verbatim similarities between our respected projects, whatever the topic may have been --- this would be evidence that one of us copied the other or perhaps that both of us copied from a third source. Are you going to address this or continue to evade the issue and the implications this has on the literary relationship between the gospels?

En Hakkore,

This is the common assessment of literary documents from a secular human point of view

And that is why liberal academic scholarship holds your view, because they cannot accept the supernatural inspiration of the Holy Spirit
guiding the authors of the Biblical Gospels to write independently, yet with those similarities

To acknowledge independent authorship is to acknowledge a living God who has revealed His inspired living word of truth


RCM
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
You've gone a full day now without posting anything else so I'm going to take this opportunity to respond to everything and ask that you post single linear responses moving forward. Your habit of posting a little bit here, a little bit there, then before I can respond a little bit more is a diffusion tactic I've observed and criticized of a particular LDS poster over on the Mormonism board. Please avail yourself of the built-in draft feature and post once rather than half a dozen or more times... thanks.

My interpretation is not incorrect...
You can make such a declaration, but it does not reflect the reality of what has transpired in this thread. You claimed here that the "many" are "gathering together the written accounts by the Apostles, which was [sic] handed down to them by the Apostles." That claim is erroneous, as I've shown... the recipient of what is handed down is the believing community of which Luke is a part, the "us" of verse 2.

and you have no basis to insinuate that the Apostles handed down their testimony only in the oral tradition
I insinuated nothing, I flat out stated it and this is consistent with Luke's understanding of the eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry being illiterates (cf. Acts 4:13). Verse 1 of Luke's prologue deals with written sources, verse 2 with oral sources... the author clearly prefers the latter, a sentiment also found in the testimony of Papias cited by Eusebius.

En Hakkore, in regards to Luke 1:1 and the 'Many,' your view and my view may both be correct. It wouldn't surprise me at all if several
of the early Christians did write and document the events, but those documents did not survive because they were not copied in mass
like the inspired Gospel accounts.
So now you think the "many" are authors themselves, not (just?) compilers of the apostles' works? Your claims about this group are inconsistent or at the very least confusing. In any case, the plausible reason for earlier sources not surviving is that their contents were incorporated into the now-canonical gospels.

Surely, you don't mean more reliable than Matthew?
Surely I do... of course, I don't think -- nor, more importantly, do I think Luke thought -- that the gospel we call Matthew was written by a disciple of Jesus. Luke expresses concern about order in his preface and Matthew's gospel deviates significantly from the order of Mark in its first half... while Luke certainly makes a few adjustments, his preference is clearly for Mark's order and not that of Matthew. This is one of several perceived deficiencies in Matthew's gospel from Luke's perspective... the other major one being the former's position (contra Luke's hero Paul) about being law observant. Early Christians no more agreed on such matters than contemporary ones do... as the CARM forums amply attest to.

You are in error here again on simple exegesis of simple grammar...
You bold 'us' in a translation of Luke 1:1-2 and list several options of who this might be referring to (the third would appear to be the position I'm articulating so why you declare me in error while posting this as an option is anybody's guess) as if that somehow settles the matter. Strangely enough, the position you are articulating (the many = us) is not among them, for the obvious reason it is a complete misreading of the preface. What is included in your cut and paste (please cite your source moving forward, presumably some Bible software program) and which I find quite humorous is this (bolded emphases mine):

It refers to the writers Luke researched in 1:3 [TH]. The Gospel of Mark was written previously and probably was one of the sources Luke used [Arn, MGC, NIBC, NIGTC, NTC, Su], and also Matthew [Arn]. The reference to many writers brings out the importance of what Luke will write about [NAC, NICNT, WBC]. The number is unknown, but it was probably quite a few even though their accounts have not been preserved [Arn, Lns], and it was not an exaggeration [EGT]. ‘Many’ is used in a formal manner of beginning a document and it does not have to be taken to literally mean a large number [AB, NAC, NICNT, NIGTC], so that it could be translated ‘others’ [NAC].
Did you actually read what you cut and pasted? That sounds a lot like the position I'm articulating and the one you're challenging... :p

With the later dating you have to start pounding square pegs into round holes to make everything fit and you can't
You've yet to demonstrate one thing incompatible with dating Luke and Acts to the early second century... that this dating has implications you consider undesirable within your current paradigm is entirely irrelevant.

This is nothing but an absurd argument
I agree... but that is your own argument concerning the author of Acts and Paul; I did nothing more than apply it to the gospel of Matthew to show how ludicrous it is when applied consistently as it regards information not supplied by an author.

All of the Four inspired Gospel's main focus are primarily on Jesus' three years of ministry, His death, and His resurrection...
The idea of a three-year ministry involving multiple trips between Galilee and Jerusalem for Passover derives only from the gospel of John... the other three gospels present a linear movement from Galilee to Jerusalem whose time frame is undetermined.

All the Gospels end with the resurrected Christ
Jesus has been resurrected from the dead by the end of all four gospels, yes... not sure what that has to do my comments about the ascension. Luke and the disputed longer ending of Mark both end after narrating Jesus' ascent into the sky (Luke 24:51; Mark 16:19)... there is also casual reference to a future ascension in John 20:17. As for Matthew's failure to mention it... if you concur that it is "absurd" to infer from this that it hadn't occurred yet when he wrote, then my point has been made and you have no basis to insist that Luke narrate Paul's death.

The late date that you prefer has to avoid all the hard questions and explain away through nonsensical arguments the historical record
To what hard questions are you referring that I have allegedly avoided? Ask me a "hard question" concerning the dating of Luke-Acts and I'll answer it...

The direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke is Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit
Neither Jesus nor a divine spirit are literary documents... and for whatever reason you refuse to admit the obvious, namely that there is some sort of literary relationship between these documents to account for the verbatim wording at points. I can only reiterate that this fact alone is of no consequence to the alleged divine inspiration of these documents as the plethora of Christians (including Augustine) both in the past and in the present who embrace some model of literary dependence. Why you continue to dance around the possibility without committing to it is anybody's guess... unless you are trying at all costs to avoid the next question, namely how to account for the differences in those places it is obvious one writer is using another as a source.

This is the common assessment of literary documents from a secular human point of view
I'm quite certain that those people who do not identify as secular humanists are just as capable as those who do in identifying a case of copying when they see it... unless, apparently, one is engaging in special pleading concerning a text they hold to be sacred, in which case the blinders go on --- that is nothing to be proud of and there are, thankfully, many Christians who do not do this.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

e v e

Super Member
Eventually we would come to passages such as Isaiah 13 and Isaiah 51 where the same exact words and ideas are used to convey the end of a religious administration.

And Isaiah 13 it's particularly spelled out for us. In the beginning of the chapter he says a prophecy against babylon. at the end of the chapter or towards the end of the chapter he says for God will raise up the needs against Babylon for her sins or some similar wording.
<snip>

By applying a literal hermeneutic which is common among the Bible college movements though taught against in their hermeneutic classes, we would think that the physical sun moon and stars are in topic.

Yes. And consider a context that is transcendent (involving the other world) yet literal (involving this world and also the other). And that this context relates to cosmological changes that are likewise related in Isaiah.
 

e v e

Super Member
I don't ascribe to the doctrine of a future earthly kingdom with Christ on the throne. In Revelations it says that the kingdom is among men and he shall reign forever and ever

. It is such things as religious liberties some of the inalienable rights, and individual rights which have been established by Christ generation after generation. As Christ himself said the kingdom of God is within you it will not or does not come visibly..

A little different topic than what we've talking of on this thread. Perhaps it would be better to open a new thread on this topic of a future physical kingdom rather than occupy thread primarily about Matthew 24.
Liberties, inalienable rights, individual freedoms (as phrased in context of ‘this world’) are early modern concepts not christian ones...

What do you have against His future kingdom?

Christ was not establishing a politeia on this earth
 

Tonyg

Member
Yes. And consider a context that is transcendent (involving the other world) yet literal (involving this world and also the other). And that this context relates to cosmological changes that are likewise related in Isaiah.
I did not hear or read of any cosmological changes when the meads conquered Babylon; have you?

Read job 38:33,. There is the first instance that I found, other than perhaps some illusions in deuteronomy, which established the principle that heavens have ordinances and the Earth is the domain of those ordinances. In Job, I believe that he's referring to the physical cosmological heavens and earth. I.E. the laws of nature. But nonetheless a principal is established that the word heavens is associated with ordinances and Earth is associated with a domain of those ordinances

Likewise when we get to Isaiah 13 the heavens are the Babylonian religious administration and ordinances and the Earth was the kingdom of Babylon over which those ordinance has and religion had effect. When the medes conquered Babylon and laid at level some might say that system of Babylon was being judged. Their foundations and Earth were shaken.

So also when the Romans leveled Jerusalem it was in judgment for their rejection of Christ, their continuation in the ways prescribed by Moses, (now considered idolatry,) and their persecution of those who did not reject him. The religious ordinances (heavens)and the Stars (IE meaning the religious leaders of Judaism) were being judged as the domain of the land and people of the nation of Israel was being removed from her place, just as was said of babylon.

There needs to be no future implication or dual fulfillment for this to be fulfilled..
 
Last edited:

Tonyg

Member
Liberties, inalienable rights, individual freedoms (as phrased in context of ‘this world’) are early modern concepts not christian ones...

What do you have against His future kingdom?

Christ was not establishing a politeia on this earth
I don't necessarily agree that the religious freedoms were necessarily not Christian ones. If they were then they were part of the evidence of the Creator and of the people without the law glorifying the Creator even though they did not have the law as Paul talks of in Romans 1. The teachings and lifestyle of Grace would have reinforced if not the first to establish religious liberties and individual powers.

The focus on a future Kingdom denies the establishment of the present Kingdom by Christ and his coming and ministry. For the kingdom of God is within you he openly stated. The truth is of the creator and of his visitation should become sealed within us and affect our outlook on life and our care of the Earth our interaction with others, recognizing their divinity and free will etc etc.

When you say Christ was not establishing a kingdom on this Earth, I think you're referring to his conversation with pilot where he says as of now my kingdom is not of hence. I will add an article that I wrote which contains ten passages which are typically viewed in a futurist context but which under closer analysis refer to first century fulfillments.

Very briefly when Jesus was talking to palate he was in the exact location of pilots judgment seat. in the conversation with pilate it's evident that pilate is in a conversation and analysis to determine whether Jesus is a threat to the Roman empire and or him.

Jesus somewhat reassures him and then he also says; my kingdom is not of this world, (a territorial style of government), if my kingdom or of this world (territorial style of government) then my disciples would have fought but as of now my kingdom is not of hence. Jesus uses the word hence. Hence is a specific word meaning a specific location or in the midst of something. By saying that as of now my kingdom is not of hence I believe he was implying that one day his kingdom would be administered from hence, with the word hence meaning this precise location, referring to the authority of the Roman empire. And indeed within about 40 short years the kingdom of Christ and his judgement to favor the ordinces if the new covt was administered in power through the forces of the Roman empire as prophecies in deut 32:42.

Deu 32:42 LXXE I will make my weapons drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh, it shall glut itself with the blood of the wounded, and from the captivity (possession) of the heads of their enemies that rule over them.
 
Last edited:

Tonyg

Member
Hi Eve,. Here is a link to a article I posted in another section of the form. The discussion of jesus's conversation with pilot is one of the 10 passages discussed.

Two other passages pivotal to our discussion of the words heaven and Earth are the one on Matthew chapter 5 verse 17 and following and the item on 2nd Peter chapter 3.

Thanks for the respectful conversation.

In Revelation, I don't know the chapter and verse, but there is a place where the angel cries out that the kingdom of heaven is the kingdom of men or some similar words. I believe that that the time of that Deliverance of the Kingdom among men was the first century where the disciples possessed the kingdom as prophesied in Daniel chapter 7. It was shortly after Nero three and a half year persecution against them and then the judgment of God sat in came against the Jews who were persecuting them. It was time for the saints to possess the kingdom. Thus it is the continuation of the apostles who possess the Kingdom wants delivered among the saints. It is the progeny of those apostles who continue the kingdom.. the church in teaching a future Kingdom has done somewhat of a disservice to the growth of his kingdom and government. in Isaiah chapter 9 verse 6 and 7 it says concerning Christ that of the increase of his government end of Peace there shall be no end. Though we are constantly fed reminders of wars and we memorialize battlefields and other aspects of war, there are multitudes of persons and sects of people living in peace. All the best!

 

e v e

Super Member
Hi Eve,. Here is a link to a article I posted in another section of the form. The discussion of jesus's conversation with pilot is one of the 10 passages discussed.

Two other passages pivotal to our discussion of the words heaven and Earth are the one on Matthew chapter 5 verse 17 and following and the item on 2nd Peter chapter 3.

Thanks for the respectful conversation.

In Revelation, I don't know the chapter and verse, but there is a place where the angel cries out that the kingdom of heaven is the kingdom of men or some similar words. I believe that that the time of that Deliverance of the Kingdom among men was the first century where the disciples possessed the kingdom as prophesied in Daniel chapter 7. It was shortly after Nero three and a half year persecution against them and then the judgment of God sat in came against the Jews who were persecuting them. It was time for the saints to possess the kingdom. Thus it is the continuation of the apostles who possess the Kingdom wants delivered among the saints. It is the progeny of those apostles who continue the kingdom.. the church in teaching a future Kingdom has done somewhat of a disservice to the growth of his kingdom and government. in Isaiah chapter 9 verse 6 and 7 it says concerning Christ that of the increase of his government end of Peace there shall be no end. Though we are constantly fed reminders of wars and we memorialize battlefields and other aspects of war, there are multitudes of persons and sects of people living in peace. All the best!

I will read the link and reply. thanks Tony.
 

Tonyg

Member
These are the ideas that I had in mind when saying that the kingdom of God has been delivered unto men. I think I was referring to Revelation 11:15, but Revelation 11:15 doesn't really say what I had thought it to say. The kingdom of Christ does however continue within those who abide in him,.

Revelation 12:10 is part of the understanding that I have of the kingdom of God being fully established on the Earth in those who abide in him bc and truth.. Quakers are close to this understanding and some preterist........ And I'm sure there's others.

*[[Rev 11:15/KJVLite]]* And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

*[[Rev 12:10/KJVLite]]* And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
 
Last edited:

RCM

Active member
You've yet to demonstrate one thing incompatible with dating Luke and Acts to the early second century... that this dating has implications you consider undesirable within your current paradigm is entirely irrelevant.

En Hakkore,

Irenaues used the long established existing Gospels to refute the heretical Gnostics and their lies, which also refutes your lies

Irenaeus states,

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 414). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.



Irenaeus states,

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce:

Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 415). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.


Irenaeus states,

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.

Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 415). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.


Irenaeus states,

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,—a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics.

Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 416). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.


Irenaeus states,

I do know thee, the first-born of Satan.” Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth

Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 416). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.




RCM
 

RCM

Active member
The idea of a three-year ministry involving multiple trips between Galilee and Jerusalem for Passover derives only from the gospel of John... the other three gospels present a linear movement from Galilee to Jerusalem whose time frame is undetermined.

En Hakkore,

There was a Passover near the time Jesus chose His disciples

There was another Passover near the time of the feeding of the 'Five Thousand'

There was the last Passover at the time of the crucifixion

I do believe these events are attested to in all four Gospels


RCM
 

RCM

Active member
Neither Jesus nor a divine spirit are literary documents...

En Hakkore,

Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the Sources for the Synoptic Gospels

and for whatever reason you refuse to admit the obvious, namely that there is some sort of literary relationship between these documents to account for the verbatim wording at points.

Secular liberal scholarship refuses to acknowledge the supernatural power of God in the literary relationship

I can only reiterate that this fact alone is of no consequence to the alleged divine inspiration of these documents

It most certainly destroys divine inspiration and you know it. Secular liberal scholarship reduces three witnesses to one witness. Whatever
you determine is your literary source, the resulting documents are nothing more than edited redactions

as the plethora of Christians (including Augustine) both in the past and in the present who embrace some model of literary dependence. Why you continue to dance around the possibility without committing to it is anybody's guess..

There are at least twenty two theories regarding the Synoptic Problem and all of them are heresy

To question the fact that God can tell a man what to say (Jeremiah) or what to write (John in Revelation) is the work of satan (Genesis 3)


. unless you are trying at all costs to avoid the next question, namely how to account for the differences in those places it is obvious one writer is using another as a source.

If you approach the Bible as just the writing of mere men then you can critique it in the manner by which men write

However, if the Bible is God's inspired word, then God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are the source and three authors documenting what
God has said, are three independent witnesses of the same event


But unbelievers, heretics, and hucksters cannot tolerate God's living word, so they must discredit it



RCM
 

RCM

Active member
I'm quite certain that those people who do not identify as secular humanists are just as capable as those who do in identifying a case of copying when they see it... unless, apparently, one is engaging in special pleading concerning a text they hold to be sacred, in which case the blinders go on --- that is nothing to be proud of and there are, thankfully, many Christians who do not do this.

En Hakkore,

Here the other shoe finally drops,

I believe the Bible is God's living sacred word, and you do not, so you seek to discredit it

As I mentioned before, make sure you study Luke 16:19-31 and Matthew 12:36-37 well, because one day you will find yourself
standing before the Carpenter from Nazareth (Hebrews 9:27-28)

You are a slave to sin and Jesus is the only one who can redeem you


RCM
 

e v e

Super Member
I did not hear or read of any cosmological changes when the meads conquered Babylon; have you?

Read job 38:33,. There is the first instance that I found, other than perhaps some illusions in deuteronomy, which established the principle that heavens have ordinances and the Earth is the domain of those ordinances. In Job, I believe that he's referring to the physical cosmological heavens and earth. I.E. the laws of nature. But nonetheless a principal is established that the word heavens is associated with ordinances and Earth is associated with a domain of those ordinances

Likewise when we get to Isaiah 13 the heavens are the Babylonian religious administration and ordinances and the Earth was the kingdom of Babylon over which those ordinance has and religion had effect. When the medes conquered Babylon and laid at level some might say that system of Babylon was being judged. Their foundations and Earth were shaken.

So also when the Romans leveled Jerusalem it was in judgment for their rejection of Christ, their continuation in the ways prescribed by Moses, (now considered idolatry,) and their persecution of those who did not reject him. The religious ordinances (heavens)and the Stars (IE meaning the religious leaders of Judaism) were being judged as the domain of the land and people of the nation of Israel was being removed from her place, just as was said of babylon.

There needs to be no future implication or dual fulfillment for this to be fulfilled..
I cannot reply tonight.
here is the thread I started.

 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Irenaues used the long established existing Gospels to refute the heretical Gnostics and their lies, which also refutes your lies...

I do know thee, the first-born of Satan.” Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth
There are at least twenty two theories regarding the Synoptic Problem and all of them are heresy

To question the fact that God can tell a man what to say (Jeremiah) or what to write (John in Revelation) is the work of satan (Genesis 3)
As I mentioned before, make sure you study Luke 16:19-31 and Matthew 12:36-37 well, because one day you will find yourself
standing before the Carpenter from Nazareth (Hebrews 9:27-28)

You are a slave to sin and Jesus is the only one who can redeem you
I asked you politely to continue our dialogue in linear fashion... you ignored that request and instead escalated your rants by implicitly accusing me of lying, labelling everyone who thinks there is a literary relationship between the gospels heretics (which is pretty much every Christian scholar today as well as Augustine), aligning my posts with a diabolical agent of evil and threatening me with Bible verses. This is the behavior of someone who has no cogent rebuttal and in desperation turns to personal attacks. I leave you to your mud-slinging...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Top