“The Son is equal to his Father”

[Ajax]

@Dimi95
In any case, the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written at least 80 years after Jesus birth and most likely they didn't have any text to copy from.
How did they know what happened when Mary was pregnant?
Have you ever played the so called broken phone? With 10 people one tells a sentence to the next one and at the end the last one hears a different sentence. Imagine a broken phone game played by hundreds of people for 80 years....

 

[Dimi95]

If you study the Bible with open mind you will see many things which don't fit.

Just say it like it is , read it as corrupted.This 'corruption' has been debunked long ago.
I would rather question Bart D. Ehrman methods , because they are consistenly inconsistent.
That is where most of you get this thoughts , but he has been debunked many times and we don't consider him as reliable source anymore.

Yes very few people saw Jesus resurrected and ...none recognized him. The gospel of Luke even says that Jesus appears to Cleopas and one other disciple, but "their eyes were holden" so that they could not recognize him!!! The disciples were fishing and saw Jesus on the beach, they went near and were afraid to go out as they didn't know who this person was. Mary Magdalene thought he was the gardener....

Luke 24:31
'Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight.'

They could not recognize Jesus because they were prevented from recognizing Him. God had 'blinded their eyes.' Then later He allowed them to recognize Him. Why did He do this? We are not given the specific reason.

Also , a number of times we are told in the gospels that people were prevented from understanding things that Christ taught. John 12:39-40 says that some people did not believe in Christ because their eyes were blinded and their hearts were hardened, even though He had performed many miracles.
Matthew 13:10-17 reveals that Jesus taught parables so that the people would not understand the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. Verses 13-15 reveal that Jesus did that as an act of judgment on the crowd. They were already rejecting Him.
Mark 6:52 is another passage that states the apostles did not understand the significance of Jesus walking on the water. The reason was that their hearts were hardened.
Hearts are hardened due to sin (Hebrews 3:13).

So, people did not recognize Jesus after His resurrection because God prevented them for His own reasons.That is what Scripture is telling.

As for Luke, 75% of his gospel is copied from Matthew, some verses being copied word for word...
View attachment 88458

Yes , yes i know this also

'The simplest hypothesis is Luke relied on Matthew's work or vice versa. But many experts, on various grounds, maintain that neither Matthew nor Luke used the other's work.While no conclusive solution has been found yet, the longstanding majority view favors Marcan priority, in which both Matthew and Luke have made direct use of the Gospel of Mark as a source, and further holds that Matthew and Luke also drew from an additional hypothetical document, called Q.

The Q source (also called The Sayings Gospel) is a hypothetical written collection of primarily Jesus' sayings (λόγια : logia). Q is part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark. According to this hypothesis, this material was drawn from the early Church's oral gospel traditions.

 

[Ajax]

A much stronger case can be made on the basis of the Gospel According to Luke 1:34 : 'But Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?' With this passage, the ambiguous context of parthenos becomes quite apparent in Mary’s case. She makes a clear claim to having been chaste prior to the conception of Jesus,a claim that does not rely on the use of an ambiguous word,and thus we hold as dogma that the birth of Jesus was in fact a virgin birth.

It is not a stronger case because as I showed to you, Luke copied Matthew. He simply used different words, but probably realized, being an educated man, that the Isaiah "prophecy" is not for Jesus' birth.

 

[Dimi95]

@Dimi95
In any case, the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written at least 80 years after Jesus birth and most likely they didn't have any text to copy from.

You know how close is that in History , right? And you are fimilar with other dates i suppose?
Do you read what Historians say and what methods are they using , or that's your analogy?
It seems to me that you reject what is in History because of the divine essence.

Here's my advice : Look how some Historians accept other events and you will see the difference , that is how you will know who is consistent with methods.

That requires a lot of time.

How did they know what happened when Mary was pregnant?

How does the police work with cases that are 30-40 years old and there is no evidence?
Eye-witness
Most probably 5 people knew about that , Joseph , Marry parents and Elizabeth , so that is enough for faith-based position.

Again , your consistency is on evidence-based position.

Have you ever played the so called broken phone? With 10 people one tells a sentence to the next one and at the end the last one hears a different sentence. Imagine a broken phone game played by hundreds of people for 80 years....

Again , you use games to speak about how History determines what is accurate and what not.

 

[Ajax]

Just say it like it is , read it as corrupted.This 'corruption' has been debunked long ago.
I would rather question Bart D. Ehrman methods , because they are consistenly inconsistent.
That is where most of you get this thoughts , but he has been debunked many times and we don't consider him as reliable source anymore.

I don't follow anyone like Ehrman. These are completely my thoughts as the one I presented to Kenny about Jesus not wanting to go through his plan.

The simplest hypothesis is Luke relied on Matthew's work or vice versa. But many experts, on various grounds, maintain that neither Matthew nor Luke used the other's work.While no conclusive solution has been found yet, the longstanding majority view favors Marcan priority, in which both Matthew and Luke have made direct use of the Gospel of Mark as a source, and further holds that Matthew and Luke also drew from an additional hypothetical document, called Q.

The Q source (also called The Sayings Gospel) is a hypothetical written collection of primarily Jesus' sayings (λόγια : logia). Q is part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark. According to this hypothesis, this material was drawn from the early Church's oral gospel traditions.

Yes I'm well aware of this, however "early Church's oral gospel traditions" are like a broken-phone game, that's why from the first simple gospel of Mark, we ended up in the gospel of John.

And I will show you another thought of mine...
The gospel of John says that these (signs/miracles that Jesus made) are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name (John 20:31). OK, fine.

The synoptic gospels and especially Matthew write of many miracles, even the cure of Peter's mother in law who had fever...
How is it possible than none of the synoptic gospels -not even Matthew's, who the Church believe he was a disciple- did not write of Jesus greater miracle?
That he resurrected his personal friend Lazarus who had been dead for four days and this miracle was only written 70 years after Jesus death?
Was Matthew absent from the classroom that day? And Peter who supposedly checked Mark's gospel didn't he remember this greatest miracle of Jesus? Lazarus was Jesus friend for God's sake....

 

[Dimi95]

It is not a stronger case because as I showed to you, Luke copied Matthew. He simply used different words, but probably realized, being an educated man, that the Isaiah "prophecy" is not for Jesus' birth.

No , he didn't, that is your assumption.
You make conclusions based on the assumption 'Open mind' , where that 'Open Mind' is consistent on proving one-side and not caring about what the author wanted to say.What does each Gospel try to say , tell me?

First , you ignore the word 'Gospel' which means Good news , and why would they name it like that.Then there is this 'Open Mind' , where the focus is on finding evidence to question the Good News.Third, you ignore the ressurection , and saying to me 'Open Mind' , like we would belive in the ressurection just like that.
In every question there is a loophole that gives one possibility that what we see as Scripture may be true today.That is why is not evidence based and it is more on faith.

So in your view , most probable is better the least probable.
In my view , i stopped seeing probable and possible as i realized that there is one tiny loophole in every question stated , and then i realized why is faith based.In the persuit of evidence , i find out that i can't find all the evidence.
It is just like it is , and we can't do anything about it.

There will always be people who will question , and there will always be people who will belive.It's just like that

Also , you eliminate the events in the other part of NT , which are written earlier.

 

[Dimi95]

I don't follow anyone like Ehrman. These are completely my thoughts as the one I presented to Kenny about Jesus not wanting to go through his plan.

Similar analogy , i am sorry if you are offended with that

Yes I'm well aware of this, however "early Church's oral gospel traditions" are like a broken-phone game, that's why from the first simple gospel of Mark, we ended up in the gospel of John.

Well i see it like this
Either they planned this
Either this is true

And everytime comes this question , Why faith?

And I will show you another thought of mine...
The gospel of John says that these (signs/miracles that Jesus made) are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name (John 20:31). OK, fine.

The synoptic gospels and especially Matthew write of many miracles, even the cure of Peter's mother in law who had fever...
How is it possible than none of the synoptic gospels -not even Matthew's, who the Church believe he was a disciple- did not write of Jesus greater miracle?
That he resurrected his personal friend Lazarus who had been dead for four days and this miracle was only written 70 years after Jesus death?
Was Matthew absent from the classroom that day? And Peter who supposedly checked Mark's gospel didn't he remember this greatest miracle of Jesus? Lazarus was Jesus friend for God's sake....

Jesus went there with Lazarus' sister

A distinct character of the same name is also mentioned in the Gospel of Luke in Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus, in which both eponymous characters die, and the former begs for the latter to be resurrected.

Matthew includes parables
Luke includes parables and healings

Do you want us to go with the parables and see how usefull are they?

 

[Ajax]

You know how close is that in History , right? And you are fimilar with other dates i suppose?
Do you read what Historians say and what methods are they using , or that's your analogy?
It seems to me that you reject what is in History because of the divine essence.

Here's my advice : Look how some Historians accept other events and you will see the difference , that is how you will know who is consistent with methods.

That requires a lot of time.

History becomes valid when named authors and preferably not biased, write about events. When you have unnamed authors and in some cases more than one (John's gospel), history becomes problematic. How come that no historian wrote about immaculate conception, specific miracles and resurrections?
Let alone that these events were passed from uneducated and illiterate persons in 80 years (oral tradition) as you said, at these ancient times when people thought that God is responsible for all natural disasters.

How does the police work with cases that are 30-40 years old and there is no evidence?
Eye-witness
Most probably 5 people knew about that , Joseph , Marry parents and Elizabeth , so that is enough for faith-based position.

You can not compare modern police methods with goat-herders talking 2000 years ago.
In any case all eyewitness were likely dead by the time the gospels were written (especially John's).

Again , you use games to speak about how History determines what is accurate and what not.

Oh, you are not serious now... I gave you an example of how oral tradition works, which is a fact.

 

[Kenny]

What else could the sins of the world do to a body?

I already mentioned one - overdose. Are you skipping this one as you did with the others that did end up sin sickness?

Please explain and don't forget that Jesus already knew of all the sins of the world, if he is God. So he only had to say "I forgive them, give all the sins to me and will pay for them with my life, but will be back in 3 days"

This is an over used statement. Are you saying you don’t know why?

They would if they could read Isaiah..They were illiterate Kenny

Another “any reason is a good reason if I don’t want to believe”. Did something happen that made you angry at God?

It is a Catholic Church list of the torment tools which were used for the martyrs. Jesus had nothing like these, plus he knew that he wouldn't die for more than 3 days

Martyrs didn’t pay for the sins of mankind

 

[Ajax]

Similar analogy , i am sorry if you are offended with that

Nice of you to say it, but I'm not offended at all.

Well i see it like this
Either they planned this
Either this is true

Me too that's why I said they probably cheated.

Jesus went there with Lazarus' sister

A distinct character of the same name is also mentioned in the Gospel of Luke in Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus, in which both eponymous characters die, and the former begs for the latter to be resurrected.

Matthew includes parables
Luke includes parables and healings

Do you want us to go with the parables and see how usefull are they?

John's Lazarus was not a parable. Luke's Lazarus was a poor beggar, who died and went to heaven and sat with Abraham, where he was comforted. This was a parable.

But you didn't follow my thinking...
John or whoever was the author, says that miracles were described so that people can believe that Jesus was the son of God.
Was Matthew or whoever was the author, an idiot to think that the cure of Peter's mother in law fever was more important example of miracle than the resurrection of Lazarus? Of course not. The only explanation is that neither Matthew, nor Mark or Luke knew of this miracle, or that the miracle never happened. And that's the main reason why Matthew the author could not have been Matthew the disciple, if Lazarus was really resurrected.
The oral tradition (the broken phone) had not reached these heights yet. They needed another 20 years to add Lazarus resurrection ...probably.

 

[Dimi95]

History becomes valid when named authors and preferably not biased, write about events. When you have unnamed authors and in some cases more than one (John's gospel), history becomes problematic.

Not entirely true , since we have another source - Josephus.

You want to talk about him?

History is valid when there is consistency on what the author wanted to say.

How come that no historian wrote about immaculate conception, specific miracles and resurrections?

Because they never saw Jesus ressurected?
Have you seen anyone else ressurected?

Let alone that these events were passed from uneducated and illiterate persons in 80 years (oral tradition) as you said, at these ancient times when people thought that God is responsible for all natural disasters.

That is argument of personal incredulity and ignorance.
You abuse information.
How can they be uneducated and illiterate persons when they used both Hebrew and Greek.First cheating , now this..
Just because there are oral traditions , that doesn't mean someone is uneducated and illiterate.
That's what you assume , and that is very different from 'Open Mind'.

Go in any monastery in south-East Europe , you will hear things that you won't find them in any forum,book or article.Does that mean they are not true and they are uneducated and illiterate?

You can not compare modern police methods with goat-herders talking 2000 years ago.

Socrat belived in diety , but you won't reject him because of content.

What you object is content , not History.

That for sure is not open-mind.

In any case all eyewitness were likely dead by the time the gospels were written (especially John's).

It seems to me that you don't consider what was before or after.

So again , content is what you are objecting , not History.

Oh, you are not serious now... I gave you an example of how oral tradition works, which is a fact.

The game of telephone has several factors that don’t apply to real life
-it requires secrecy in only one person hearing and transmitting the info at a time
-it forbids writing when that isn’t forbidden in real life
-it doesn’t allow repetition of the message-
it doesn’t permit clarifying questions
-it doesn’t allow the original person or bystanders to correct mistakes
-it requires whispers where pronunciation can be difficult to perceive
-it isn’t played in oral cultures where it might not be nearly as funny

 

[Ajax]

I already mentioned one - overdose. Are you skipping this one as you did.....

Oh Kenny, I'm sorry but it's getting really boring if I have to discuss with someone who doesn't accept logic and invents torment of Jesus in hell as well as the damages that sins caused to Jesus body or soul.
I'm sorry mate, perhaps we can discuss something lighter another time
Have a lovely time..

 

[Dimi95]

Nice of you to say it, but I'm not offended at all.

I just want to maintain this conversation on decent level.

Me too that's why I said they probably cheated.

IMO There is no possibility that they could have orchestrated this , but i won't talk about this since it is planned for my book.

John's Lazarus was not a parable. Luke's Lazarus was a poor beggar, who died and went to heaven and sat with Abraham, where he was comforted. This was a parable.

The only 'evidence' I can offer to suggest that the Lazarus in both stories are the same person, is this verse Luke 16:31, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."

Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, yet the Pharisees were still not convinced.

But you didn't follow my thinking...
John or whoever was the author, says that miracles were described so that people can believe that Jesus was the son of God.
Was Matthew or whoever was the author, an idiot to think that the cure of Peter's mother in law fever was more important example of miracle than the resurrection of Lazarus? Of course not. The only explanation is that neither Matthew, nor Mark or Luke knew of this miracle, or that the miracle never happened. And that's the main reason why Matthew the author could not have been Matthew the disciple, if Lazarus was really resurrected.
The oral tradition (the broken phone) had not reached these heights yet. They needed another 20 years to add Lazarus resurrection ...probably.

I understand what you say but i think that you don't understand what i am saying

Lazarus sister was with Jesus, that is why it is not written in Matthew

There is a reason why the gospel of John is most valuable among Christians.

Last 2 verses of the Gospel or John :

"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

Again , faith based

 

[Dimi95]

Me too that's why I said they probably cheated.

Since you consider it probably , there is still space.

You of all here should understand why i am saying what i am saying

 

[Ajax]

Lazarus sister was with Jesus, that is why it is not written in Matthew

The greatest miracle of Jesus was not written in Matthew, Mark and Luke because Lazarus sister was with Jesus??? What do you mean?
Wasn't she with Jesus in John's gospel?

Again , faith based

Faith and belief is the acceptance of a claim, fact or possibility, regardless of whether it can be justified or not.

 

[Ajax]

"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

If you imply that they didn't write the greatest miracle ever, because there were so many miracles to write, then it is an extremely poor excuse. When you want to impress and convert people to Christianity like John says, you write the most impressive miracles and if you haven't got space you leave out "miracles" of fever therapy...

Read my signature...

 

[Dimi95]

The greatest miracle of Jesus was not written in Matthew, Mark and Luke because Lazarus sister was with Jesus??? What do you mean?
Wasn't she with Jesus in John's gospel?

You are playing chess with words

Who was with Jesus when he preformed the miracle?

Faith and belief is the acceptance of a claim, fact or possibility, regardless of whether it can be justified or not.

I agree

 

[Ajax]

C'mon be serious please and don't accuse me wrongly...
The fact that two females Mary and Martha from Bethany were mentioned in Luke without any mentioning of Lazarus, let alone the miracle, it only means that there were probably two sisters by that name living in Bethany. Nothing more.
What has that to do with the fact than NONE of the synoptic gospel writers wrote and most likely didn't know about the miracle? Because if they knew, they would have certainly written about it, instead of "miracles" like the fever.
Matthew does not even mention any female names in Bethany.

 

[Ajax]

@Dimi95
If you have time watch this video, you may find topics for your book, although I'm afraid it's a slaughter...

 

[Dimi95]

C'mon be serious please and don't accuse me wrongly...
The fact that two females Mary and Martha from Bethany were mentioned in Luke without any mentioning of Lazarus, let alone the miracle, it only means that there were probably two sisters by that name living in Bethany. Nothing more.
What has that to do with the fact than NONE of the synoptic gospel writers wrote and most likely didn't know about the miracle? Because if they knew, they would have certainly written about it, instead of "miracles" like the fever.
Matthew does not even mention any female names in Bethany.

Your assumption is on the fact that all Gospels must be neccessary identical

What should we say about Mark 5 and the daughter of Jarius?
Because it is not in other Gospels it is not valid?

What is there to be noted is the ressurection of Jesus Christ which all of the Gospels testify to.That is the greatest miracle to be ever considered , because it was prophesied by Jesus himself.

It seems to me that you don't want to look it as whole , and that is why you are taking it piece by piece.