Would you Follow Him and take his mark?

[surada]

Yes, you are making Jesus out to be a liar and as He personally instructed all his Apostles...they wrote the gospels. (Except for Luke...he tried to get to see Jesus personally but got turned away)

And as far as "most scholars" go... you are in the position of proving your assertions with something other than your personal word...(which is highly suspect since you are not a Christian)

And as far as your gender...for that I apologize... my only defense is that you hadn't made known your gender until this point.

Surada is feminine.

Luke 21
When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

//Church Fathers Eusebius and Epiphanius tell us that sometime just prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Christians in Jerusalem escaped the Roman siege and fled the city. They landed in Pella, a short distance to the north.

Luke’s Gospel, while surely written after the events it describes, chronicles this escape. Pella is located in the foothills of the Transjordan highlands, quite consistent with Luke’s description of “fleeing to the mountains.”

Some recent scholars challenge the authenticity of the Pella Tradition, as this exodus has come to be known. One point of contention is the matter of how impossible it seems to have penetrated the Roman siege. However, Josephus, the Jewish historian who wrote about the war, does indicate five different escapes in 67-68 CE, one of which included 2,000 people!

 

[JohnDB]

Surada is feminine.

Luke 21
When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

//Church Fathers Eusebius and Epiphanius tell us that sometime just prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Christians in Jerusalem escaped the Roman siege and fled the city. They landed in Pella, a short distance to the north.

Luke’s Gospel, while surely written after the events it describes, chronicles this escape. Pella is located in the foothills of the Transjordan highlands, quite consistent with Luke’s description of “fleeing to the mountains.”

Some recent scholars challenge the authenticity of the Pella Tradition, as this exodus has come to be known. One point of contention is the matter of how impossible it seems to have penetrated the Roman siege. However, Josephus, the Jewish historian who wrote about the war, does indicate five different escapes in 67-68 CE, one of which included 2,000 people!

None of this says anything about YOUR statements about Daniel being pseudopigrapha...

You are still NOT a Christian...

 

[surada]

None of this says anything about YOUR statements about Daniel being pseudopigrapha...

You are still NOT a Christian...

I have never said Daniel is pseudopigrapha... It isn't. Its a contemporary history of Antiochhus IV Epiphanes and the Maccabean Revolt.

 

[JohnDB]

I have never said Daniel is pseudopigrapha... It isn't. Its a contemporary history of Antiochhus IV Epiphanes and the Maccabean Revolt.

Well if Daniel did not write it...
Then it's pseudopigrapha. Which is precisely what you claimed earlier.

Which is why you are not a Christian.

 

[JohnDB]

I have never said Daniel is pseudopigrapha... It isn't. Its a contemporary history of Antiochhus IV Epiphanes and the Maccabean Revolt.

And if it's not pseudopigrapha then it's all lies.... you can take your pick.

Either way you are not a Christian with what you are claiming because then the whole Old Testament and New Testament unravel.

 

[surada]

Well if Daniel did not write it...
Then it's pseudopigrapha. Which is precisely what you claimed earlier.

Which is why you are not a Christian.

They don't know who wrote the gospels either. They go with tradition not evidence.

 

[surada]

In the early centuries of Christianity, there were over 200 Christian gospels in circulation, all of them containing wildly varied stories and theologies1. As the Church became organized there was much worry that no-one truly knew what Jesus had said or done, so they ratified just four Gospels: They picked the number four because "there were four winds, four points of the compass, four corners of the temple", mirroring the arguments of Irenaeus in the 2nd century - "just as the gospel of Christ has been spread by the four winds of heaven over the four corners of the earth, so there must be four and only four Gospels"2. The four canonical gospels comprise of synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) plus John. None are eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life and they are all written in Greek, not in the native tongues of anyone who met and followed Jesus. Many of the stories in the Gospels are copied from Greek god-man legends, especially those of Dionysus and Osiris. Although we now know them by the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they are all originally anonymous3.

Who Wrote the Four Gospels of the New Testament? An Introduction to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Who Wrote the Four Gospels of the New Testament? An Introduction to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were chosen from over 30 gospels to be 'the' correct ones, in the 4th century. By Vexen Crabtree

www.humanreligions.info

 

[JohnDB]

In the early centuries of Christianity, there were over 200 Christian gospels in circulation, all of them containing wildly varied stories and theologies1. As the Church became organized there was much worry that no-one truly knew what Jesus had said or done, so they ratified just four Gospels: They picked the number four because "there were four winds, four points of the compass, four corners of the temple", mirroring the arguments of Irenaeus in the 2nd century - "just as the gospel of Christ has been spread by the four winds of heaven over the four corners of the earth, so there must be four and only four Gospels"2. The four canonical gospels comprise of synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) plus John. None are eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life and they are all written in Greek, not in the native tongues of anyone who met and followed Jesus. Many of the stories in the Gospels are copied from Greek god-man legends, especially those of Dionysus and Osiris. Although we now know them by the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they are all originally anonymous3.

Who Wrote the Four Gospels of the New Testament? An Introduction to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Who Wrote the Four Gospels of the New Testament? An Introduction to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were chosen from over 30 gospels to be 'the' correct ones, in the 4th century. By Vexen Crabtree

www.humanreligions.info

This would be the problem....
You cannot go to an admitted satanist and expect to get the truth.

And then get your feelings hurt when we hear you say the things you say and then say that you are not a Christian... because when you spout the things from a Satanist... you are not a Christian.

He isn't a scholar or researcher or anything except in himself. There are true researchers and doctorates who do this for the love of learning and scriptures. They behave differently and don't write books like he has done....the real scholars have a completely different set of issues than that of this Vexen Crabtree.

Real scholars have issues with getting their research actually published...not because it's not done well...but because of doctrinal issues. Especially when it rubs on one of the pet core theologies of Calvinism or something else like that.

Satanists have an agenda that is exactly the opposite of Christianity.

 

[surada]

This would be the problem....
You cannot go to an admitted satanist and expect to get the truth.

And then get your feelings hurt when we hear you say the things you say and then say that you are not a Christian... because when you spout the things from a Satanist... you are not a Christian.

He isn't a scholar or researcher or anything except in himself. There are true researchers and doctorates who do this for the love of learning and scriptures. They behave differently and don't write books like he has done....the real scholars have a completely different set of issues than that of this joker.

Luke and Mark were not eyewitnesses. Scholars are aware that the Gospels were written by anonymous authors and tradition names them.

When King Omri tried to reunite Israel and Judah he ordered their two different creation stories cobbled together... and the OT has been amended many times.

The Bible is biblia.. many stories.. many books, poems, myths and teaching narratives, histories etc.. To take is literally is nuts. To change scripture in mid verse is political.

 

[JohnDB]

Luke and Mark were not eyewitnesses. Scholars are aware that the Gospels were written by anonymous authors and tradition names them.

When King Omri tried to reunite Israel and Judah he ordered their two different creation stories cobbled together... and the OT has been amended many times.

The Bible is biblia.. many stories.. many books, poems, myths and teaching narratives, histories etc.. To take is literally is nuts. To change scripture in mid verse is political.

Mark was an eyewitness...just not one of the 12. Luke saw a few things but wasn't allowed to talk to Jesus personally. (Because he was a gentile and Jesus was heading into passion week)

But Mark did write the book of Mark based on the stories Peter told so often he could tell them himself...and that's what he did.

Mark was the disciple who ran through the street naked.

 

[surada]

Mark was an eyewitness...just not one of the 12. Luke saw a few things but wasn't allowed to talk to Jesus personally. (Because he was a gentile and Jesus was heading into passion week)

But Mark did write the book of Mark based on the stories Peter told so often he could tell them himself...and that's what he did.

Mark was the disciple who ran through the street naked.

Luke lived in Antioch which probably explain why he completely screws up locations and geography in Palestine. Mark was written down very early but he never met Jesus or followed him ..He did follow Peter and talked to people who knew Jesus. We have very little left of Papias writings, but he confirms that Mark didn't follow Jesus.

 

[surada]

Who Wrote the Gospels, and How Do We Know for Sure?

The closest we get to a claim of authorship is at the very end of the Book of John, where the author implies that the book was written by “the disciple…

zondervanacademic.com

 

[surada]

The Bible gives us four accounts of Christ’s life. Each records a unique perspective of the most significant event in history—the crucifixion and resurrection. All four gospels are named after men who lived during or shortly after Christ’s early ministry. Tradition considers these men the authors, but there’s one problem: not one of these books names its author.

The gospels are anonymous—so how do we know who wrote them?

None of the gospels came with an “about the author” section. The closest we get to a claim of authorship is at the very end of the Book of John, where the author implies that the book was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 21:24 NIV).

Are there other context clues we can use to determine the authors? Can we trust tradition’s assumptions about who wrote the gospels? Did the early church fathers know more about the gospels’ authorship than we know now?

 

[JohnDB]

Luke lived in Antioch which probably explain why he completely screws up locations and geography in Palestine. Mark was written down very early but he never met Jesus or followed him ..He did follow Peter and talked to people who knew Jesus. We have very little left of Papias writings, but he confirms that Mark didn't follow Jesus.

Wrong again....
You have been following Satanists so you are a satanist....

Why should Christians listen to a satanist....after all Satan is the father of lies.

 

[surada]

Wrong again....
You have been following Satanists so you are a satanist....

Why should Christians listen to a satanist....after all Satan is the father of lies.

You sure are a bully.

 

[JohnDB]

You sure are a bully.

When you regurgitate satanists,
Discredit scriptures
discredit respected History
Hold no view of any respected Historians, theologians, or bible scholar but instead are way out in left field somewhere....

You have nothing to do with Christianity...
You are a Satanist and "What do we have in common?"

You are on the other team...

That's what I am saying...
Why don't you want to own it? You certainly have proven yourself many times to be everything I listed above and probably can pull out more. (And probably will)

 

[surada]

When you regurgitate satanists,
Discredit scriptures
discredit respected History
Hold no view of any respected Historians, theologians, or bible scholar but instead are way out in left field somewhere....

You have nothing to do with Christianity...
You are a Satanist and "What do we have in common?"

You are on the other team...

That's what I am saying...
Why don't you want to own it? You certainly have proven yourself many times to be everything I listed above and probably can pull out more. (And probably will)

You're just a bully.. Do you also reject the Nag Hammadi and the tablets at Ras Shamra and Dilmun? Does ignorance give you authority? Will your faith crash and burn if you learn something?

Church tradition tells us that Luke was a converted Gentile, which scholars suggest is the reason Paul introduces him separately in Colossians 4:11–14, introducing his Jewish companions first:

“Jesus, who is called Justus, also sends greetings. These are the only Jews among my co-workers for the kingdom of God, and they have proved a comfort to me. Epaphras,who is one of you and a servant of Christ Jesus, sends greetings. He is always wrestling in prayer for you, that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured. I vouch for him that he is working hard for you and for those at Laodicea and Hierapolis. Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.”

Being a Gentile would also explain why the author takes such an interest in how Gentiles respond to the gospel. Given his familiarity with the Hebrew Scriptures, however, some scholars speculate that Luke may have been a “God-fearer”—a Gentile who worshiped the God of Israel.

For three main reasons, almost all scholars believe the Gospel of Luke was written by the same person who wrote Acts:

Luke and Acts were written in the same style and express the same theology
Both books are addressed to the same person—a man named Theophilus
Acts 1:1–2 appears to tie the two books to the same author
If we can safely claim that the author wrote both books—which the vast majority of Bible scholars believe we can—then we can use Acts to learn more about the author of Luke. Acts strongly reinforces the author’s close connection to Paul, suggesting that he went with Paul on his second and third missionary journeys, and eventually accompanied him to Rome (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–21; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). This close relationship and his involvement in Paul’s ministry could be what gives the author of Luke grounds to say he has “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:3).

Luke and Acts both use specific medical terminology, which would appear to support the claim that Luke the physician is the author of both. In Luke 13:11-13, Jesus heals a crippled woman:

“. . . and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, ‘Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.’ Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God.”

The Greek words Luke uses both to describe her condition (sugkuptousa) and the exact manner of Jesus’ healing (apolelusai, anorthothe) are medical terms.

In Luke 14:1–4, Jesus heals a man with dropsy:

“One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched. There in front of him was a man suffering from abnormal swelling of his body. Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, ‘Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?’ But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him on his way.”

Luke uses a word to describe the man in this passage that’s found nowhere else in the Bible: hudropikos. While this passage is the only place this word appears in the Bible, it’s a precise medical term frequently used in other texts—namely, the works of the renowned Greek physician, Hippocrates.

The use of medically-accurate phrases and descriptions continues in Acts, such as Acts 28:8–9, where the writer uses puretois kai dusenterio sunechomenon to describe a man’s exact medical condition (“suffering from fever and dysentery”).

Despite the support of early church fathers and the textual evidence that appears to suggest the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke, the Gentile physician and companion of Paul, not all scholars believe he’s the author.

Arguments against Luke as the author

 

[surada]

In the early centuries of Christianity, there were over 200 Christian gospels in circulation, all of them containing wildly varied stories and theologies1. As the Church became organized there was much worry that no-one truly knew what Jesus had said or done, so they ratified just four Gospels: They picked the number four because "there were four winds, four points of the compass, four corners of the temple", mirroring the arguments of Irenaeus in the 2nd century - "just as the gospel of Christ has been spread by the four winds of heaven over the four corners of the earth, so there must be four and only four Gospels"2. The four canonical gospels comprise of synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) plus John. None are eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life and they are all written in Greek, not in the native tongues of anyone who met and followed Jesus. Many of the stories in the Gospels are copied from Greek god-man legends, especially those of Dionysus and Osiris. Although we now know them by the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they are all originally anonymous3.

 

[JohnDB]

You're just a bully.. Do you also reject the Nag Hammadi and the tablets at Ras Shamra and Dilmun? Does ignorance give you authority? Will your faith crash and burn if you learn something?

Yes, I reject (in order) everything that the gnostics taught, the writings in Ugarit, and the Canaanite god Enki which is the god of the dead and abyss....

This is exactly why I am claiming that you are a satanist and not a Christian....
John and Paul both were at war with the gnostics. In the book of revelations John specifically calls them out in some of the churches and gives them the same (albeit lighter) disrespect by mis-naming them deliberately with icons of centuries old religions that everyone already knew to be crap.

I'm not a bully...just firm. Miles of difference between the two.

Gnostics are not Christian
Enoki worshippers are not Christian
Old Caananite gods are not Christian.

However....old Caananite gods were put on the backs of golden calves to ride around on...which is exactly what Jeroboam son of Nebat did to deliberately change the worship of God...which is what you are attempting. Discrediting and discounting the accuracy of scriptures...just like Jeroboam did.

Then on top of this you quote a Satanist as authoritative on Christian matters.

Then you discredit respected secular History and historians...

And yet you claim I'm the bully? That's rich!
You don't believe the scriptures but yet you claim to be a Christian.
You don't believe Jesus but yet you claim to be a Christian.

Just because you know something of the bible doesn't mean that you are a Christian. Satan can quote scriptures quite well...but he is playing for the other team now isn't he?

What else are we to believe from the preponderance of evidence that you have given us?

 

[surada]

Yes, I reject (in order) everything that the gnostics taught, the writings in Ugarit, and the Canaanite god Enki which is the god of the dead and abyss....

This is exactly why I am claiming that you are a satanist and not a Christian....
John and Paul both were at war with the gnostics. In the book of revelations John specifically calls them out in some of the churches and gives them the same (albeit lighter) disrespect by mis-naming them deliberately with icons of centuries old religions that everyone already knew to be crap.

I'm not a bully...just firm. Miles of difference between the two.

Gnostics are not Christian
Enoki worshippers are not Christian
Old Caananite gods are not Christian.

However....old Caananite gods were put on the backs of golden calves to ride around on...which is exactly what Jeroboam son of Nebat did to deliberately change the worship of God...which is what you are attempting. Discrediting and discounting the accuracy of scriptures...just like Jeroboam did.

Then on top of this you quote a Satanist as authoritative on Christian matters.

Then you discredit respected secular History and historians...

And yet you claim I'm the bully? That's rich!
You don't believe the scriptures but yet you claim to be a Christian.
You don't believe Jesus but yet you claim to be a Christian.

Just because you know something of the bible doesn't mean that you are a Christian. Satan can quote scriptures quite well...but he is playing for the other team now isn't he?

What else are we to believe from the preponderance of evidence that you have given us?

Christians don't have to be ignorant. The Hebrews emerged from the North Coast Canaanites. They borrowed extensively for Psalms . Dan'el and the Flood story.