The testimony of the NT writers

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, he had Jesus straddle two donkeys as he rode in to make his big impression on Jerusalem.

Tell me that you wouldn't have been impressed:

 

[YoursTrue]

On my, even more projection.

And please, you are the one believing what you want to believe. You were the one that got very emotional when you were shown to be wrong. If I am shown to be wrong I am happy because I learned something new. This also shows that you do not understand the concept of critical thinking. What one believes is no longer a choice. when one reasons critically.

Here is a thought you made me think of -- (and I'm probably pretty far away from where you are (NOT a miracle...<g>) the Bible from Genesis to Revelation stopped being written long ago. It's a collection of books considered sacred by many over approximately 1,600 years. Now why do I mention this? (1) It's fascinating -- to me, anyway -- and (2) nothing has been added since the last book, Revelation. Critical thinking tells me it's more than extraordinary.

 

[lukethethird]

Tell me that you wouldn't have been impressed:

I would have been most impressed but at the same time disappointed for him not announcing the coming of a rodeo.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you will swallow anything when it comes to the Bible. Though "the Sermon on the Mount" is unique, in a way, to Matthew, many of the same teachings are found in Luke in the shorter sermon on the plain. Luke 6 17-49

oremus Bible Browser : Luke 6:17–49

A better job is done on it in Matthew, but most of the same lessons are there. In Matthew he is going up the mountain, in Luke he is coming down to a level space.

You keep saying "because he is a witness" when it may merely be an oral tradition that had been repeated up to that time. What makes you think that the disciple Matthew ever had formal instruction in Koine Greek?

The bias is yours. When you won't own up to rather clear but minor errors how are you going to judge the others?

It's interesting, but I notice that when an incident occurs there can be similar reports but either shorter or longer and maybe with different wording from different people. But the same incident. And the substance is similar enough to show it's not contradictory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's interesting, but I notice that when an incident occurs there can be similar reports but either shorter or longer and maybe with different wording from different people. But the same incident. And the substance is similar enough to show it's not contradictory.

Yes, some differences are to be expected. But if one person said he was riding a blue zebra and another said that it was a yellow kangaroo then one has to wonder. As has been pointed out in both Matthew and in Luke there are clear indications of when Jesus was born. The only problem is was that those incidents happened ten years away from each other,.

And let's not even get into the differences in the crucifixion and resurrection stories.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is a thought you made me think of -- (and I'm probably pretty far away from where you are (NOT a miracle...<g>) the Bible from Genesis to Revelation stopped being written long ago. It's a collection of books considered sacred by many over approximately 1,600 years. Now why do I mention this? (1) It's fascinating -- to me, anyway -- and (2) nothing has been added since the last book, Revelation. Critical thinking tells me it's more than extraordinary.

How is that "critical thinking"? Have you read Revelation?

 

[rational experiences]

Rome told you.

Blame was always given to the named occult man.

Human who as the head leader was considered to be historic inherited to blame for gods human life attack. By immoral and slovenly behaviours cruelties and sexual impropriety.

So Nero got blamed for Rome burning by star mass attacks. Flames falling from sky.

Not a Hero.
Not a Zero.

So after years of suffering sickness plagues starvation. Rome said they had been cursed by the gods.

Pretty basic old imbalanced minds claiming the ridiculous. Yet it owned teaching. Time count from zero agreed as proof. Man caused its return.

Historic law said mother's law had taken it away. Vacuum void moon the suns proof. Stopped. Man changed the holy star mass

Therefore they wrote all evidences for future men to never cause such calamity ever again. Knowing the mind if man the theist. And humans greed.

As father back then in church was not on a throne. He served family with the holy mother. Both virgins. Celibate. Looking after gods human family.

Rich. They served the poor. Gave the starving food. Tended healing.

Proof church leadership changed as so did society leave it's sanity in the dark ages.

Used old and the new advice about earths gods mass historic attacks. Against the stars return Satan. 1000 years.

As Christ body mass returned 1000 years should block cell biology sacrifice .....if it had returned. Above as natural heavens

1000 year star shroud evidence said CHrist was proven not mass above returned. Protection not present.

1000 years again. Russian forest hit Proved Christ mass not returned yet.

As new cloud mass was given to the heavens cloud mass in ancient technology caused burnings. It had returned Was additional clouds. Man knew life's ground water as a huge mass was taken above

Taught the scientist.

Cloud heavens body wasn't protecting life as it had before Rome rebuilt used new temple science that again blew up. Henges blew too.

So they knew it had been removed again.

Why bio cell was so sick.

So Rome legally convinced all world leaders of a non nuclear practice.

As all documents in our world community claimed the Jesus teachings were proven correct.

As it was written evidence. How it was data stated gives the strange review. As a letter was given a numerical value. So it gave a conscious study as close to human word use.

Proving a conscious man had caused it by the words in data stating the story that emerged by numerical data was of historic man's science converting.

Was quantified as a miraculous accounting of humans owned evidence.

That status proved only thinking human man had in fact invented science. To think stories first before data by his human words.

It was exact proof.

 

[Kenny]

Matthew got the beatitudes from the old testament.

The Old Testament Background of the Beatitudes

Please confirm how you know that he got it from there and it isn't that Jesus, who fulfilled the Old Testament, simply was reiterating what was from the beginning and Matthew reported it.

 

[Kenny]

No, you will swallow anything when it comes to the Bible. Though "the Sermon on the Mount" is unique, in a way, to Matthew, many of the same teachings are found in Luke in the shorter sermon on the plain. Luke 6 17-49

oremus Bible Browser : Luke 6:17–49

A better job is done on it in Matthew, but most of the same lessons are there. In Matthew he is going up the mountain, in Luke he is coming down to a level space.

You keep saying "because he is a witness" when it may merely be an oral tradition that had been repeated up to that time. What makes you think that the disciple Matthew ever had formal instruction in Koine Greek?

The bias is yours. When you won't own up to rather clear but minor errors how are you going to judge the others?

So... did Luke take it from Matthew? Or did Luke talk to all of those people who were witnesses and gave a summary like he said he did?

What makes you think he didn't speak Greek? Do you know more that one language? (If you don't, you have lived a sheltered life) IMO

You HAVE to be more of a critical thinker IMO.

 

[Kenny]

Tell me, how was that a refutation? The Sermon on the Mount is not that unique. All you did was to make a claim. I gave you something that you could compare it to. Maybe you have never read both.

So we are back to, as you showed before, it really doesn't matter what is said, how it is presented, what evidence is shown, your answer is basically "nothing that you give me will ever be enough"

Which you are free to have and I support your right to believe it no matter how wrong you are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So... did Luke take it from Matthew? Or did Luke talk to all of those people and gave a summary like he said he did?

What makes you think he didn't speak Greek? Do you know more that one language? (If you don't, you have lived a sheltered life) IMO

Hard to say. And remember, the Gospels are all anonymous and you have not yet shown any reason to assume that they were written by whom they are named for.

You are also forgetting that as today being literate is the norm, in those days, being illiterate was the norm and the followers of Jesus were generally described as simple, not literate. In those day it was noted if one was literate.

I used to be halfway decent at Spanish. But use it or lose it. I can still "read" it quite easily. Give me something written in Spanish and I can pronounce all of the words properly, but that is only because Spanish has clear and easy rules for doing so. I probably won't understand it very well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So we are back to, as you showed before, it really doesn't matter what is said, how it is presented, what evidence is shown, your answer is basically "nothing that you give me will ever be enough"

Which you are free to have and I support your right to believe it no matter how wrong you are.

No, when you make a claim you need to be able to support it. If you make a claim and cannot support it you are just making noise.

I gave you the passage that is the rough equivalent in Luke. I admitted that Matthew did a better job, but you never came close to supporting your claim. You never showed how the passage from Luke did not cover many of the same ideas.

Do you not understand that if you cannot support your ideas at all there is no noticeable difference between them and an idea that is wrong? It does not "prove" that you are wrong , but for all practical purposes there is no difference.

 

[Kenny]

Hard to say. And remember, the Gospels are all anonymous and you have not yet shown any reason to assume that they were written by whom they are named for.

Actually, I addressed why we know who wrote it. Remember? The next generation- those who knew them, who attributed who the authors were?

You are also forgetting that as today being literate is the norm, in those days, being illiterate was the norm and the followers of Jesus were generally described as simple, not literate. In those day it was noted if one was literate.

You forget that people were just as capable to learn, if not more. Matthew was a tax collector. Greek was the international language much like English is today. Israel was a well traveled route.

I used to be halfway decent at Spanish. But use it or lose it. I can still "read" it quite easily. Give me something written in Spanish and I can pronounce all of the words properly, but that is only because Spanish has clear and easy rules for doing so. I probably won't understand it very well.

Good, so imagine if you grew up bilingual (as I did) and as most people did in those times.

 

[Kenny]

No, when you make a claim you need to be able to support it. If you make a claim and cannot support it you are just making noise.

I gave you the passage that is the rough equivalent in Luke. I admitted that Matthew did a better job, but you never came close to supporting your claim. You never showed how the passage from Luke did not cover many of the same ideas.

Do you not understand that if you cannot support your ideas at all there is no noticeable difference between them and an idea that is wrong? It does not "prove" that you are wrong , but for all practical purposes there is no difference.

noise. Come back when you are a little better at critical thinking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, I addressed why we know who wrote it. Remember? The next generation- those who knew them, who attributed who the authors were?

No, you never supported that. You only made empty claims. And we went over that in detail a long time ago when you refused to support your claims properly back then and I had to do the digging. Your claims failed then. I refused to do your homework a second time. You need to find historical sources that support you. Not apologist sites. This is a question of history.

You forget that people were just as capable to learn, if not more. Matthew was a tax collector. Greek was the international language much like English is today. Israel was a well traveled route.

Matthew may have been literate in Aramaic. The Gospel of Matthew was not written in simplistic Greek. It was the work of one well educated in Greek and there does not appear to be any indication of that for Matthew. Also the date of when the Gospels were written are indicative that it was not written by Matthew.

Good, so imagine if you grew up bilingual (as I did) and as most people did in those times.

Did they now? Citation needed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

noise. Come back when you are a little better at critical thinking.

LOL! Seriously, is that the best you can do?

You just displayed terminal projection.

 

[pearl]

When I say "right or wrong" I mean in the context of the Bible being able to be interpreted literally.

True, being caught up in the details one misses the larger meaning.

 

[Kenny]

No, you never supported that. You only made empty claims. And we went over that in detail a long time ago when you refused to support your claims properly back then and I had to do the digging. Your claims failed then. I refused to do your homework a second time. You need to find historical sources that support you. Not apologist sites. This is a question of history.



Matthew may have been literate in Aramaic. The Gospel of Matthew was not written in simplistic Greek. It was the work of one well educated in Greek and there does not appear to be any indication of that for Matthew. Also the date of when the Gospels were written are indicative that it was not written by Matthew.




Did they now? Citation needed.

I love the noise of bias

 

[Kenny]

LOL! Seriously, is that the best you can do?

You just displayed terminal projection.

What can I do against flat-earth thinking?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, some differences are to be expected. But if one person said he was riding a blue zebra and another said that it was a yellow kangaroo then one has to wonder. As has been pointed out in both Matthew and in Luke there are clear indications of when Jesus was born. The only problem is was that those incidents happened ten years away from each other,.

And let's not even get into the differences in the crucifixion and resurrection stories.

OK, can you please at least clarify the 10-year difference you speak of between the account in Matthew and Luke about Jesus' birth? Thank you.