- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 29 2012,09:56) Quote (Jodi Lee @ Mar. 29 2012,06:41) Compare the death of Jesus between Mark and Luke, In Mark,
In the morning of being crucified Jesus answers nothing to the chief priests who accuse him of many things. He says only to Pilate, “It is as you say.”Jesus is silent while being taken to be crucified, and while being crucified. He says nothing to the other men who are being crucified with him. At last he says before he dies, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”.
To be silent while being beaten, mocked and crucified and then crying out “why have you forsaken me” is completely different message then Luke’s.
In Luke,
In the morning he speaks to the chief priests and says, “If I tell you, you will by no means believe me. And If I also ask you, you will by no means answer me or let me go. Hereafter the Son of Man will sit on the right hand of the power of God.”They then ask him if he is the Son of God and he answers them and says, “You rightly say that I am”
Jesus is not silent on his way to being crucified. He tells woman weeping over him, ” Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For indeed the days are coming in which they will say, Blessed are the barren wombs that bore, and the breasts which never nursed! Then they will begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us! And to the hills, Cover us! For if they do these things in the green wood, what will be done in the dry?”
He says before they divided his garments, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do”
He says to the thieves on the cross, “Assuredly, I say to you today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
He says before dying, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.”
In Mark,
After Jesus dies it says that the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, and the centurion says, “truly this man was the Son of God”In Luke,
The veil of the temple was torn in two just BEFORE Jesus dies, and the centurion says after Jesus dies, “certainly this was a righteous man”This IMO Ed J, is a huge problem. Mark’s message is completely different than that of Luke's. Jesus has a completely different disposition in both, and to combine the two of them together to establish truth is absurd.
This is what Bart Ehrman says on this matter in his book, “Jesus Interrupted”
“The problem comes when readers take these two accounts and combine them into one overarching account, in which Jesus says, does, and experiences everything in both Gospels. When that is done, the message of both Mark and Luke get completely lost and glossed over. Jesus is no longer in deep agony, as In Mark, (since he is confident as in Luke), and he is no longer calm and in control as in Luke (since he is in despair as in Mark). He is somehow all things at once. Also, his words mean something different now, since he utters the sayings of both. When readers then throw both Matthew and John into the mix, they get an even more confused and conflated portrayal of Jesus, imagining wrongly that they have constructed the events as they really happened. To approach the stories in this way is to rob each author of his own integrity as an author and to deprive him of the meaning that he conveys in his story.”
I would have to agree with Ehrman on this. I find it hard to believe that YHVH intended for us to take the four and combine them together to establish the truth, that is absurd, because it is impossible. If you combine Luke’s with Mark’s you ruin what both authors are trying to say in their own work.
Let's compare John's to that of Mark and Luke's.
In Mark on the cross Jesus does not take the wine, in Luke there is no mention of wine, in John Jesus says, “I thirst!” and scripture says, “they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a hyssop, and put it to his mouth. So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, 'It is finished!' And bowing his head, He gave up His spirit.”
Not only do we ruin the message of what each author is giving when we combine them, but to try and combine them, as I already said, is just simply impossible. You cannot have Jesus NOT drinking any wine, and drinking wine at the same time.
Hi Jodi,Matthew, Mark, and, John was most likely there when Jesus was taken. John, however, was at the crucifixion.
The others follow-up accounts were probably based on what the women said that were there at the cross.If they were copies of each other, as you suggest, they would be worded exactly the same.
Luke was the Apostle Paul's travel companion, and Paul is said to have met with Peter.Since they are all chronological records based on actual eyewitness accounts, it would
only stand to reason then the story would very slightly form witness to witness.Certainly nothing to loose faith over.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed J,Your understanding of who the authors of the Gospels are is based on tradition.
All of Gospels are written anonymously!
There is NO proof that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels!
Bart Ehrman from “Forged”, “The anonymity of the Gospel writers was respected for decades. When the Gospels of the NT are alluded to and quoted by authors of the early second century, they are never entitled, never named. Even Justin Martyr, writing around 150-60 CE, quotes verses from the Gospels, but does not indicate what the Gospels were named. For Justin these books are simply known, collectively as the “Memoirs of the Apostles.” It was about a century after the Gospels had been originally put in circulation that they were definitively named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This comes, for the first time, in the writings of the church father and heresiologist Irenaeus, around 180-85 CE…..Lots of Gospels were in circulation. Christians who wanted to appeal to the authority of the Gospels had to know which ones were legitimate. For Irenaeus and fellow orthodox Christians, legitimate Gospels could only be those that had apostolic authority behind them. In the year 155, when Justin was writing, it may still have been perfectly acceptable to quote the Gospels without attributing them to particular authors. But soon there were so many other Gospels in circulation that the books being widely cited by orthodox Christians needed to be given apostolic credentials. So they began to be known as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 29 2012,10:09) Hi Jodi,
You grapple with details that do not satisfy your mind?
Come again?
Quote (Jodi Lee @ Mar. 29 2012,10:50) Ed J, All of Gospels are written anonymously!
Hi Jodi,The Apostle Matthew is mentioned twice in Matthew, so no doubt he is the writer of it. (Matt.9:9. 10:3) 9:9 indicates it is him.
Mark paints a bad picture of peter because after Paul rejected taking him (Acts 15:37-38) peter must have tutored him.
Luke as a Doctor is identified through the extensive use of medical terminology in this book. (see Col.4:4)
The Apostle John is identified in the third person as the Disciple who Jesus loved. (John 13:32)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi ED,
They were all honest and inspired men writing the truth.The fact that any remembered any detail at all after the number of years they waited till recording it [jn16.14] is a miracle in itself.
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 29 2012,11:47) Quote (Jodi Lee @ Mar. 29 2012,10:50) Ed J, All of Gospels are written anonymously!
Hi Jodi,The Apostle Matthew is mentioned twice in Matthew, so no doubt he is the writer of it. (Matt.9:9. 10:3) 9:9 indicates it is him.
Mark paints a bad picture of peter because after Paul rejected taking him (Acts 15:37-38) peter must have tutored him.
Luke as a Doctor is identified through the extensive use of medical terminology in this book. (see Col.4:4)
The Apostle John is identified in the third person as the Disciple who Jesus loved. (John 13:32)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
What?Matthew 9:9 As Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, “Follow Me.” So he arose and followed Him.
Because the anonymous Gospel mentions Matthew that makes him the author?
10:3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
I suppose if the ANONYMOUS author had been called the Gospel of Philip, you would use 10:3 to prove that Philip was the author?
I am seriously failing to see your logic here Ed J!
Nothing you gave proves authorship in the least.
Quote (Jodi Lee @ Mar. 29 2012,12:09) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 29 2012,11:47) Quote (Jodi Lee @ Mar. 29 2012,10:50) Ed J, All of Gospels are written anonymously!
Hi Jodi,The Apostle Matthew is mentioned twice in Matthew, so no doubt he is the writer of it. (Matt.9:9. 10:3) 9:9 indicates it is him.
Mark paints a bad picture of peter because after Paul rejected taking him (Acts 15:37-38) peter must have tutored him.
Luke as a Doctor is identified through the extensive use of medical terminology in this book. (see Col.4:4)
The Apostle John is identified in the third person as the Disciple who Jesus loved. (John 13:32)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
What?Matthew 9:9 As Jesus passed on from there, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office. And He said to him, “Follow Me.” So he arose and followed Him.
Because the anonymous Gospel mentions Matthew that makes him the author?
10:3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
I suppose if the ANONYMOUS author had been called the Gospel of Philip, you would use 10:3 to prove that Philip was the author?
I am seriously failing to see your logic here Ed J!
Nothing you gave proves authorship in the least.
Hi Jodi,If it was as clear cut as you would like, you would not be having the doubts that you now have.
I didn't say it was “proof”, I simply stated why “I” have no doubts as to who the Authors were.Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.orgHi Jodi
The true AUTHOR is God by His Spirit[2peter 1]
So troubling yourself with the vessels used has little pointQuote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 29 2012,12:12) Hi Jodi,
I see waves of doubt are damaging your foundations.“Thy word is truth” Jn17
Actually I feel that my foundation is growing stronger, I am chipping away the rotten sections of my faith that relied on the Roman Catholic bible and Christian tradition.There is a sense of freedom and a new interest in examining the scriptures. Books that are unanimously known by scholars as forgeries have got to go! Books that make Jesus a pre-existent spirit being, are gone!
Nick,
Everyone is there own authority whether they believe in the cannon or not, they all interpret it differently according to there own understanding! I have yet to find two people who agree totally on everything, have you? We can all sit and say that our authority is under the leadership of the Holy Spirit and accuse others that theirs is not. But that is not how we debate. We don't say this is what I believe and I am under the Holy Spirit so therefore I am right. We state what we believe, back it up with scripture or facts and they must unite in logic, in order to have any sort of stance.
The fact is the authors of the Gospels did not say who they were, most Christians declare who the authors are based on Christian tradition. Not only have I discovered reasons to doubt the traditional view of who the authors are, but I believe I have found good reason to doubt that some of the authors were under the leadership of the Holy Spirit when they wrote.
Hi Jodi,
So we are to serve ourselves and our natural minds because that is what all natural men do?Nick,
IMO the mind that holds the most logic in his argument, the person who can make the best sense out of things, is showing that they are being led by the Spirit. We all debate from what makes sense in our minds. Man follows his mind, and the Christian mind believes that it is “his god” that is guiding his.
When you say stuff like, “The Spirit will harmonise all scripture for you. seek the Spirit.” That is just pure empty words to me, worse than empty, actually, to say such a thing in a debate is just pure dumb!..not to mention self righteous!!
Hi Jodi,
Yes the carnal mind is very vain and cannot receive what is spiritual.
Logic always tries to stand tall but is an antHi Nick,
The rudiments are going to get burned up.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (shimmer @ Mar. 15 2012,17:07) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 15 2012,18:09) To All, Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them (in the AKJV Bible) from this generation for ever.
Isaiah 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue(that is English) will he speak to this people.1Cor.14:27 (AKJV) If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two(Hebrew, Aramaic),
or at the most by three(Greek), and that by course; [and let one (“AKJV Bible”) translate].“The Bible” we have today was no accident, it is exactly the way YHVH wanted it!
God bless
Ed J
It doesn't matter which version it is, it is God's word.” And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come”.
Fullfilled.
Hi Shimmer,It most certainly does matter.
One is God's words – the other is mans words. …BIG DIFFERENCE!
If you 'think' it doesn't matter, then go get your truth out of a comic book – if one book is the same as the next!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
