You forget to mention that you are only willing to go with some quotes, the ones that suit you. Sorry Dre but excuses don't wash with me.
The problem you have is that you can not go back through any of my post and show this as a evidence. I have been through all of the 4 books and there is NOTHING there to suggest Yeshua is God, said he was God or that his followers viewed him as God.
Again, fine with me.....
Bishop Papias (145 AD)
And the presbyter said this. MARK having become the interpreter of PETER, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord, nor accompanied him. ... For one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. MATTHEW put the Oracles (of the Lord) in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. (Papias, quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii, 39; ANF. i, 154-5.)
Irenaeus (182-188)
Matthew also issued a Gospelamong 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. (Iren. Adv. Haer. Bk. III, Ch. 1, i; ANF. i, 414.)
Encyclopedia Biblica:
As to Matthew: The employment of various sources, the characteristic difference of the quotations from the LXX (Septuagint) and the original (Hebrew), the indefiniteness of the determinations of time and place, the incredibleness of the contents, the introduction of later conditions, as also the artificial arrangement, and so forth, have long since led to the conclusion that for the authorship of the first Gospel the apostle Matthew must be given up. (EB. ii, 1891.) [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As to Mark: According to Papias, the second gospel was written by Mark. ... In what Papias says the important point is not so much the statement that Mark wrote the gospel as the further statement that Peter supplied the contents orally. ... The supposition that the gospel is essentially a repetition of oral communications by Peter, will at once fall to the ground. ... Should Mark have written in Aramaic then he cannot be held to have been the author of canonical Mark, which is certainly not a translation, nor yet, in view of the LXX quotations which have passed over into all three gospels, can he be held to have been the author of the original Mark. (EB. ii, 1891.) [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As to Luke: This tradition [that Luke was the author of the third gospel and of Acts] cannot be traced farther back than towards the end of the second century (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian fragment). ... It has been shown that it is impossible to regard Luke with any certainty as the writer even of the we' sections of Acts, not to speak of the whole book of Acts, or of the Third Gospel. ... If Luke cannot have been the author of Acts, neither can he have been the author of the Third Gospel. (EB. ii, 1893, 2831.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As to John: No mention of the Fourth Gospel which we can recognize as such carries us further than to 140 A.D. As late as 152, Justin, who nevertheless lays so great value upon the Memorabilia of the Apostles, regards Johnif indeed he knows it at allwith distrust, and appropriates from it a very few sayings. ... If on independent grounds some period shortly before 140 A.D. can be set down as the approximate date of the production of the gospel [a certain statement in it is explained]. ... The Apostolic authorship of the gospel remains impossible, and that not merely from the consideration that it cannot be the son of Zebedee who has introduced himself as writer in so remarkable a fashion, but also from the consideration that it cannot be an eye-witness of the facts of the life of Jesus who has presented, as against the synoptists, an account so much less credible, nor an original apostle who has shown himself so readily accessible to Alexandrian and Gnostic ideas, nor a contemporary of Jesus who survived so late into the second century and yet was capable of composing so profound a work. (EB. ii, 2550, 2553.) 168[/FONT]
Luke 1:1
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
So we have (christian) scholars close to the day render their commentary and even Luke confirms this right from the start. Whether you agree with me or not I really don't care one bit. But to say I don't know does nothing for your position nor does it answer the question the OP raises. This information cited is from scholars, and theologians.
Yet 'subtle changes' and 'interjecting his own view' seem to fit your definition of inadmissability.
No it doesn't. So what if they displayed their beliefs....? As I have said...for ther most part they mirror each other and that is why I don't have a problem using either of them.
Friend, I may respect your opinion about who Jesus was, but I don't have to respect your snakey debating methods. Maybe you aren't aware of how inconsistent your reasoning is?
Hey.....you were the one who said you were done debating with me. If want to continue then that's on you.......
