GopJeff and the Person(s) in the Trinity

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Yurt
I said you were being a smart alek, because you gave some riddle about seeing someone on first base instead of directly responding to the words in the text. Also, it is not really a losing battle, for I have waged none, I merely seek knowledge and have my opinions. I do not force them on anyone. I do wish though that instead telling me what "most" people think, I want you to examine the words of the text and my argument and go line by line in refuting what I said. You have failed to that. Only you generalize that it is faith.

It actually takes a great of faith on your part to not analyze the actual words being said, but to use etheral metephors. If you counter what I have said by using the actual words of Christ, then I will consider it...

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by NewGuy

.....If you counter what I have said by using the actual words of Christ, then I will consider it...

Unfortunately Jesus Christ of Nazareth did neither write or use dictatation for anything he allegedly said or did during his ministry, to anyone including his disciples.

Everything you have is said by those who never met Jesus Christ during his lifetime and therefore can only go by what the main writer of the Gospel, Paul of Tarsus has to say.

Therefore there is apparently nothing that you will consider...

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by ajwps
Unfortunately Jesus Christ of Nazareth did neither write or use dictatation for anything he allegedly said or did during his ministry, to anyone including his disciples.

Everything you have is said by those who never met Jesus Christ during his lifetime and therefore can only go by what the main writer of the Gospel, Paul of Tarsus has to say.

Therefore there is apparently nothing that you will consider... [/B]

Again your ignorance shines through.

The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by the apostles Matthew and John (surprise!) who were with Jesus during his three-year ministry.
Mark was written by a man named John Mark, who was a disciple of Peter and, it is assumed, relied heavily upon Peter's teachings to write his account of Jesus' life.
Luke was a Greek historian who researched, and then wrote his gospel.
Paul did not write a gospel. He did write several letters which are contained in the New Testament.

 

[Yurt]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Again your ignorance shines through.

The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by the apostles Matthew and John (surprise!) who were with Jesus during his three-year ministry.
Mark was written by a man named John Mark, who was a disciple of Peter and, it is assumed, relied heavily upon Peter's teachings to write his account of Jesus' life.
Luke was a Greek historian who researched, and then wrote his gospel.
Paul did not write a gospel. He did write several letters which are contained in the New Testament.

"Now that's astute I said" (not me, Paul Simon, had to give credit to the man himself)

Maybe he would like to "make an institute I said"

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by gop_jeff

Again your ignorance shines through. The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by the apostles Matthew and John (surprise!) who were with Jesus during his three-year ministry.

Mark was written by a man named John Mark, who was a disciple of Peter and, it is assumed, relied heavily upon Peter's teachings to write his account of Jesus' life. Luke was a Greek historian who researched, and then wrote his gospel.

Paul did not write a gospel. He did write several letters which are contained in the New Testament.

We have a little problem here with your Apostles vs Disciples writing anything.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/apostolicnt.html

We have looked in detail at the authorship of the New Testament and the process of their canonization elsewhere. Here we will merely give the summary of the findings while providing links to the various places in the website for those who wish to know more.

Let us start with the gospels. Tradition claims that all four gospels were apostolic because Matthew and John were written by the apostle. While Mark and Luke were written by the companions of the apostle Peter and Paul respectively. Modern critical analysis have shown all these claims to be false:

Mark made quite a few glaring errors in Palestinian geography and customs that it is simply impossible that it could have been written by the one tradition claimed to have been a native of that place. Similarly these problems rule out Peter as his source.

Matthew can be shown to have extensively used Mark as a source for his gospel. Given the errors in Mark we mentioned above, it is highly improbable than an apostle would have placed such heavy reliance on such a work.

Mark was written by a man named John Mark, who was a disciple of Peter and, it is assumed, relied heavily upon Peter's teachings to write his account of Jesus' life.

Luke was a Greek historian who researched, and then wrote his gospel.

Paul did not write a gospel. He did write several letters which are contained in the New Testament.

The seven authentic epistles of Paul, while actually written by him, was written by someone whose title of apostle was not given by the earthly Jesus nor was his claim of the appointment by the risen Jesus ever accepted by the people who knew the historical Jesus: namely the leadership of the Jerusalem Church.

Thus while the seven epistles are genuine Pauline letters, Paul himself was a pseudo-apostle!

In short the whole corpus of the New Testament can be accurately described as a collection of pseudo-apostolic writings.

SURPRISED????

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by ajwps
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/apostolicnt.html

SURPRISED???? [/B]

I am.


I am surprised anyone who is a doctor is stupid enough to try to prove a Biblical debunking point with a Geocities web site.

 

[Shazbot]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I am surprised anyone who is a doctor is stupid enough to try to prove a Biblical debunking point with a Geocities web site.

I was thinking the same...

-Douglas

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by ajwps
Again your ignorance shines through. The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by the apostles Matthew and John (surprise!) who were with Jesus during his three-year ministry.

Mark was written by a man named John Mark, who was a disciple of Peter and, it is assumed, relied heavily upon Peter's teachings to write his account of Jesus' life. Luke was a Greek historian who researched, and then wrote his gospel.

Paul did not write a gospel. He did write several letters which are contained in the New Testament.

We have a little problem here with your Apostles vs Disciples writing anything.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/apostolicnt.html

We have looked in detail at the authorship of the New Testament and the process of their canonization elsewhere. Here we will merely give the summary of the findings while providing links to the various places in the website for those who wish to know more.

Let us start with the gospels. Tradition claims that all four gospels were apostolic because Matthew and John were written by the apostle. While Mark and Luke were written by the companions of the apostle Peter and Paul respectively. Modern critical analysis have shown all these claims to be false:

Mark made quite a few glaring errors in Palestinian geography and customs that it is simply impossible that it could have been written by the one tradition claimed to have been a native of that place. Similarly these problems rule out Peter as his source.

Matthew can be shown to have extensively used Mark as a source for his gospel. Given the errors in Mark we mentioned above, it is highly improbable than an apostle would have placed such heavy reliance on such a work.

Mark was written by a man named John Mark, who was a disciple of Peter and, it is assumed, relied heavily upon Peter's teachings to write his account of Jesus' life.

Luke was a Greek historian who researched, and then wrote his gospel.

Paul did not write a gospel. He did write several letters which are contained in the New Testament.

The seven authentic epistles of Paul, while actually written by him, was written by someone whose title of apostle was not given by the earthly Jesus nor was his claim of the appointment by the risen Jesus ever accepted by the people who knew the historical Jesus: namely the leadership of the Jerusalem Church.

Thus while the seven epistles are genuine Pauline letters, Paul himself was a pseudo-apostle!

In short the whole corpus of the New Testament can be accurately described as a collection of pseudo-apostolic writings.


SURPRISED????

Well, I'm not surprised at your inability to grasp the quote function. But as far as what you wrote, here are the glaring holes in your argument:

1. What errors does Mr. Geocities find in Mark?
2. Matthew is guilty by association only; your source doesn't claim that there are errors in Matthew, only that Mark (supposedly) contains errors, and thus Matthew must be wrong too.
3. You are wrong in stating that the church in Jerusalem never accepted Paul as an equal. Luke clearly states in Acts that they did: "So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them." (Acts 15:3-4)
4. While you attempt to discredit the entire NT by calling it "pseudo-apostolic,' you ignore Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, and Revelation - 12 of the 27 books of the NT.

 

[ajwps]

GopJeff

Okay, so I had no idea that geocites was a site you and the others don't approve of as accurate or fair.

Take the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and John). The earliest date any of them could possibly have been written, according to Biblical experts, is in the 50's A.D. Since Jesus was born around 1 or 2 B.C. according to their research, and since he lived to be about 30 years old before being crucified, one can safely deduce that he died in roughly 28 or 29 A.D. Most experts date all four Gospels as having been written between approximately the 50's and 70's A.D. That means they weren't even written as we know them until 20-40 years after Jesus' death. I don't know about you, but I'm lucky if I can correctly remember all the details (such as every word of a conversation, the way the Bible "quotes" conversations) from something that happened one year ago if I didn't write it down. And it just goes downhill from there if it's somebody else's story passed on to me, if I didn't personally experience it myself. The human lifetime in the days of Christ's life on earth is estimated to be roughly 40 years due to limited medical knowledge and technology. In order for the Disciples to have been the authors of the Gospels, they would all have had to be under 20 when Christ found them and called them to discipleship. And if the Gospels were written 40 years later or more, as within the estimate above, then the disciples were probably dead when the Gospels were written. One illustration of this is in the fact that there is considerable controversy over whether the Gospel of Matthew was really even written by Matthew, despite the unanimous insistence of the early church followers that it was.

Why keep determining the timing of the writings called the four Gospels. There are several reasons. First of all, it is the only place in the Bible where several side-by-side accounts of the same chain of events are seen. Since one must rely on the perceptions and limitations of one person in most other parts of the Bible, it is difficult to spot inconsistencies without skipping back and forth through various books in the Bible. In the Gospels, we have four people writing down their perceptions of the same set of events. In addition to this, their testimonies are all physically next to each other in the Bible. This makes for extremely easy comparisons between them. And since most Christians would agree that the Gospels are one of the closest accounts of Jesus, supposedly written by eyewitnesses of the Messiah Himself, they would likely also agree that these four Gospels should be the books most likely to accurately match up with each other without conflict (and yet, they are riddled with conflicting stories).

Everybody knows that the New Testament gospels contradicts each other even though they were supposed to be writen by authors who were supposed to be familiar with or knew Jesus' disciples who by the writing of the gospel books were unlikely to be alive.

 

[Shazbot]

Originally posted by ajwps
Take the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and John). The earliest date any of them could possibly have been written, according to Biblical experts, is in the 50's A.D. Since Jesus was born around 1 or 2 B.C. according to their research, and since he lived to be about 30 years old before being crucified, one can safely deduce that he died in roughly 28 or 29 A.D. Most experts date all four Gospels as having been written between approximately the 50's and 70's A.D. That means they weren't even written as we know them until 20-40 years after Jesus' death. I don't know about you, but I'm lucky if I can correctly remember all the details (such as every word of a conversation, the way the Bible "quotes" conversations) from something that happened one year ago if I didn't write it down. And it just goes downhill from there if it's somebody else's story passed on to me, if I didn't personally experience it myself. The human lifetime in the days of Christ's life on earth is estimated to be roughly 40 years due to limited medical knowledge and technology. In order for the Disciples to have been the authors of the Gospels, they would all have had to be under 20 when Christ found them and called them to discipleship. And if the Gospels were written 40 years later or more, as within the estimate above, then the disciples were probably dead when the Gospels were written. One illustration of this is in the fact that there is considerable controversy over whether the Gospel of Matthew was really even written by Matthew, despite the unanimous insistence of the early church followers that it was.

Everybody knows that the New Testament gospels contradicts each other even though they were supposed to be writen by authors who were supposed to be familiar with or knew Jesus' disciples who by the writing of the gospel books were unlikely to be alive.

I don't see any strength in your argument about the age of Christ's disciples and their estimated life span. It is generally held that the death (actually martyrdom) of both Peter and Paul occured between AD 60 and AD 70. If they lived that long, why not others?

As far as the continuity of the four Gospels... They can't be expected to match up with each other word for word. They are four different accounts by four different people. As you pointed out, it would have been nearly impossible for anyone to remember 20 years back and cite whole conversations. I think a solution there would be journal keeping. Don't think that because the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't written for years after Jesus' death, there wasn't anything written at all. Furthermore, putting minor story and plot differences aside, I am unaware of any doctrinal contradictions among the four accounts. That's a result of inspired writing.

-Douglas

 

[5stringJeff]

aj, your whole argument boils down to the point that you don't think the NT is historically reliable.

Here's some proof that you are wrong:
http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/bible.html
"Are the Gospels reliable resources for obtaining facts about Jesus' historic life and teachings? Are there ways to know if the New Testament is an historically accurate book, or must Christians accept the truth of the Bible on blind faith? Is the Bible's portrayal of Jesus fact or fiction?"

You'll find that, especially as compared to other ancient texts, the New Testament is extremely reliable.

 

[5stringJeff]

And from the same site, a good explanation of the Trinity, which is what started this whole thread.

http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/whatistrinity.html

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by gop_jeff

aj, your whole argument boils down to the point that you don't think the NT is historically reliable.

Here's some proof that you are wrong:
http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/bible.html
"Are the Gospels reliable resources for obtaining facts about Jesus' historic life and teachings? Are there ways to know if the New Testament is an historically accurate book, or must Christians accept the truth of the Bible on blind faith? Is the Bible's portrayal of Jesus fact or fiction?"

You'll find that, especially as compared to other ancient texts, the New Testament is extremely reliable.

You obviouly base your NT proof of reliability on your self-serving Christian site. Your own site admits the following:

The Bibliographical Test checks the trustworthiness of the transmission of the ancient document over time. Since we only have copies of copies of copies (and etc.) of most ancient texts it is important to ask critical questions regarding the accuracy of the text we currently have compared with the original text it came from. This is assessed by counting the number of ancient manuscripts we have for an ancient text and the time span between copies with one another and with the original document. Obviously, having more copies to compare with one another and having copies chronologically closer to the original texts will count in favor of an ancient text being transmitted faithfully, which would aid a document's passing of the bibliographical test.

So there are no original copies of the Gospel. So your proof rests on copies made from copies and more copies with time spans and have close chronological texts (not orignal) but somehow they get copied from the older non-original ones to the newer close copies is much like reprinting the previous book written before it.

All this proves is nothing whatsoever. All it means is that any originals were written down well past the lifetimes of those who theoretically knew Jesus of Nazereth.

All you end up with is faith in the truth of these documents. Just like any religion on earth. But the proof actually comes 'in the pudding.' If the prophecies of a religion come true many hundreds of years after they had been written, then there is some proof of the original faith. But if there is not one prophecy that comes true, that religion is nothing more than simple faith in a religion with no evidence of its validity.

Can you name even one prophecy from the NT that has occurred hundreds of years after they were made. You must exclude any of the prophecies from the Neviim (Hebrew prophets) as they are not considered to be prophecized by Jesus or any of his disciples.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by gop_jeff

And from the same site, a good explanation of the Trinity, which is what started this whole thread.

http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/whatistrinity.html

Interesting post but there is nothing here that explains the concept of three persons or personalities of a supreme Being.

Your post says:

The teaching of the Trinity is admittedly a doctrine only possible through special revelation (i.e. the Bible), thus inaccessible to natural theology

Through special revelation is the trinity of god personalities admittedly a possibility of a doctrine. There a thousands upon thousands of people in mental institutions who also get very similar special revelations all the time. I am not suggesting that Christians get these same special revelations because those revelations seem to come only by virtue of one's birth. To the uninitiated, this proof of a trinity is meaningless.

Then your post finally says:

Conclusion

The Trinity is a mystery - beyond reason, not contrary to reason - which asserts God is one essence with three persons (Father, Son, and Spirit) and this is only revealed through special revelation and not disclosed through the general revelation of nature or reason.

Again the trinity of godheads is obtained by this SPECIAL REVELATION, A MYSTERY, BEYOND REASON which asserts things unknown to those who do not receive such revelations.

The post even admits that these special revelations are not obtained through general revelations of nature or reason.

So in effect, without being a born again believer, one has no access to these special revelations but only to the nature of reason.

I see not one shred of proof of the trinity in your post. Like Paul of Tarsus who had one of these 'special revelations' on the road to Damascus, but alas he had a great reason to get this special revealation. He had cash to make much like the current TV preachers taking the 'seed spreading' to the pocket of the evangelist as well to Paul of Tarsus.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by ajwps
So there are no original copies of the Gospel. So your proof rests on copies made from copies and more copies with time spans and have close chronological texts (not orignal) but somehow they get copied from the older non-original ones to the newer close copies is much like reprinting the previous book written before it.

All this proves is nothing whatsoever. All it means is that any originals were written down well past the lifetimes of those who theoretically knew Jesus of Nazereth.

No one has ever claimed to have an opriginal gospel, just as no on e has ever claimed to have an original copy of any Old Testament book. In fact, if you want to talk about copies of copies of copies, the New Testament becomes more reliable than the Jewish Scriptures, since the earliest copies of the NT are much closer to the originals than the oldest copies of the OT.

All you end up with is faith in the truth of these documents. Just like any religion on earth. But the proof actually comes 'in the pudding.' If the prophecies of a religion come true many hundreds of years after they had been written, then there is some proof of the original faith. But if there is not one prophecy that comes true, that religion is nothing more than simple faith in a religion with no evidence of its validity.

Can you name even one prophecy from the NT that has occurred hundreds of years after they were made. You must exclude any of the prophecies from the Neviim (Hebrew prophets) as they are not considered to be prophecized by Jesus or any of his disciples.

Acts 1:8: He (Jesus) said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
This prophecy's fulfillment is the subject of the rest of the book of Acts.

John 2:18-22: "Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?" Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. "
Of course, Jesus' resurrection is confirmed in all four gospels.

Luke 18:31: "Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again."
His suffering and resurrection, again, discussed in all four gospels.

Matthew 24:1-2: "Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
In AD 70, the temple in Jerusalem was torn apart.

Shall I continue?

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by ajwps
I see not one shred of proof of the trinity in your post. Like Paul of Tarsus who had one of these 'special revelations' on the road to Damascus, but alas he had a great reason to get this special revealation. He had cash to make much like the current TV preachers taking the 'seed spreading' to the pocket of the evangelist as well to Paul of Tarsus. [/B]

Are you really serious???
Paul (or Saul, as it was before his conversion) was a student of Gamileil (sp?), one of the leaders of the Sanhedrin, and would have been a contender to be one of the leaders of the Sanhedrin himself, as learned as he was. And what did Paul gain by becoming a Christian? He was rejected by his own people, he was impovershed (sp?), stoned, imprisoned, beaten, and eventually executed for his evangelism. You really call that a great reason to be a first-century Christian?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by ajwps

Can you name even one prophecy from the NT that has occurred hundreds of years after they were made. You must exclude any of the prophecies from the Neviim (Hebrew prophets) as they are not considered to be prophecized by Jesus or any of his disciples.

Sir troll, we have been this route before.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forum...highlight=prophecy new testament&pagenumber=6

Mustafa and Alterego:
I love it...... Give me just one prophecy of the New Testatment gospels that has come to fruition. Copying the Old Tesatment prophecies and reworking them to conform with Christ's life is not prooof of anything. Just as reworking the New Testament is not proof of prophecy of the Church of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons).



NewGuy:

Fine.
Acts:11
27 And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
29 Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:
30 Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

How many times do you have to be proven wrong?

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Shazbot

I don't see any strength in your argument about the age of Christ's disciples and their estimated life span. It is generally held that the death (actually martyrdom) of both Peter and Paul occured between AD 60 and AD 70. If they lived that long, why not others?

Lets say that your 'generally held truth' that death or martyrdom of Peter and Paul occurred between AD 60 adn 70.

Okay lets say that during Jesus missionary work on earth the brother and friend of Jesus were in their early 20s. There was no high blood pressure medications, no diuretics, no antibiotics, no anti-cholesterol medications. By your reckoning they would be in their 80s or 90s when the first Gospel book was written. It is not only unlikely that they lived past age 50 but if they did live that long, how could they remember what had been said or happened during Jesus time on earth? People of that age today can't even remember eating their lunch ten minutes ago.

This is not proof of anything.

As far as the continuity of the four Gospels... They can't be expected to match up with each other word for word. They are four different accounts by four different people.

That is nice but even Christian biblical scholars agree that the earliest writer was copied by the later Gospel book writers who had the other books sitting right next to them to compare and contrast in their writing of the stories of Jesus. You must remember that there was not only word mismatches, they were totally different stories. Example: How many women or people came arrived at the open cave on that Sunday morning after Jesus arose? Take a look at the different gospels. One time is was Mary Magdelen, the next book there were some women, then there was the next with a man found there. Remember they were copying each others books as none of them were alive during the days of Jesus life on earth. Finally the books were rewritten over and over again by monks, bible writers like King James hired revisers many times over trying to get the Gospel books to have some degree of coherence.

The problem of the contradictions remain.....

As you pointed out, it would have been nearly impossible for anyone to remember 20 years back and cite whole conversations. I think a solution there would be journal keeping. Don't think that because the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't written for years after Jesus' death, there wasn't anything written at all. Furthermore, putting minor story and plot differences aside, I am unaware of any doctrinal contradictions among the four accounts. That's a result of inspired writing.

Douglas do you mean like a large legal pad journal where conversations were written down as they occurred? Let's see how that would work. Peter says, "slow down Jesus, I can't write that fast."

So you are unaware of any Gospel contradictions? Do you still think that the Gospels were kept in a journal during the years following Jesus death and the writing of the Gospels sixty or seventy years later?

Let me give you a few....

When did he announce his betrayal?

Matthew and Mark: At the Last Supper, while they were eating. "Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me" (Matt. xxvi, 20, 21; Mark xiv, 18).

Luke and John: Not until after supper (Luke xxii, 20, 21; John iii, 2-21). John says that after supper he washed his disciples' feet and delivered a discourse to them, after which he said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me."
-------------------
When did Satan enter into Judas?

Luke: Before the Last Supper (xxii, 3-7).

John: After the Last Supper (xiii, 1-27)
-----------------------
What did he do with the money?

Matthew: "Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders.... And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed" (xxvii, 3-5).

Peter: "Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity" (Acts i, 18).
--------------------
When was Jesus bound?

John: When he was arrested (xviii, 12).

Matthew and Mark: Not until after his trial before the Sanhedrim when he was taken to Pilate (Matt. xxvii, 2; Mark xv, 1).

According to Luke he was not bound
------------------------------
What did the so called false witnesses that appeared against him testify that he had said?

"I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days" (Matthew xxvi, 61).

"I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands" (Mark xiv, 58).
-------------------------
During the trial Peter denied his master. What had Jesus predicted concerning his denial?

Matthew, Luke and John: "Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice" (Matt. xxvi, 34; Luke xxii, 34; John xiii, 38).

Mark: "And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice" (xiv, 30).
----------------------
Did Peter deny him three times before the cock crew?

Matthew, Luke and John: He did (Matt. xxvi, 69-75; Luke xxii, 54-62; John xviii, 15-27).

Mark: He did not; he had denied him but once when the cock crew (xiv, 66-68).
--------------------
When was he first accused of being the friend of Jesus?

John: As he entered the room (xviii, 16, 17).

Mark and Luke: As he sat by the fire (Mark xiv, 66, 67; Luke xxii, 54-57).

--------------------------
etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...... ad infinitum

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by ajwps

etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...... ad infinitum

Why do you keep compiling all of the points I already proved you wrong on into one post and try to make it look like you know something about which you speak?

You have already admitted you copy and paste from another site to argue and have admitted to being a troll.

Why can't you adress things point by point and accept you are wrong when proven?

We get tired of you being a troll, you know.

-And you haven't proven anything except that you cannot think for yourself and you cannot accept defeat because of your ego.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by NewGuy

Sir troll, we have been this route before.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forum...highlight=prophecy new testament&pagenumber=6

Acts:11
27 And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
29 Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:
30 Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

How many times do you have to be proven wrong?

Sir Knight Guy,

We have been over this route before. And again I ask what was that great 'dearth' that happened in the days of Cladius Ceasar which came to pass?

To this very day, I am not aware of any recorded historical 'great dearth' that appeared in the time of Cladius Ceaser.

DO YOU?????


Dearth - definition:

A scarce supply; a lack: “the dearth of uncensored, firsthand information about the war” (Richard Zoglin).
Shortage of food; famine.

What was this prophecy about??????

Could you be wrong about this dearth of firsthand information being foretold? Or maybe a shortage of food or a famine was foretold in the time of Cladius Ceaser. Yep that would be a real rare prophecy alright....