Comments
1 - 20 of 46 Comments Last updated Apr 14, 2013
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: May 10

Hendersonville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Dec 25, 2012
 
I have a question for those on this forum who do not believe that the Apostle Paul was a true apostle or prophet of God. Do you believe that Luke's gospel and the gospel of Acts belong in the sacred canon of Scripture? What about Peter's epistles?
Rockroller

Yucaipa, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Dec 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hello Bro Wright. What you are saying is like someone saying that the tree of knowing good from evil should not have been in the Garden of Eden. That would have meant God would not have had to test Adam and Eve to be His true witness to the whole evil world. Thereby they would not have had a choice to make to obey or not.

Matthew 13's prophecy would NOT have come true IF Paul and Luke's writings were not found in the same place as the words of Jesus given to us by Matthew and John. Therefore, Paul and Luke and the unknown author of 1st and 2nd Peter HAVE to be found in the NT to make this prophecy come true. Without them, NO ONE would have a chance to choose the words of Jesus OVER all other writings!

Thereby there would not be any TEST for anyone to take and pass as the 144k do BEFORE the start of the time of trouble as found in Rev. 3's Philidelphia's warning to hold on to what they have as they have been tested already and the time of trouble will therefore NOT be a test for them.

As Abe Lincoln said, each side of the civil war claimed they were on God's side because of what was written in the NT. And that is why you find people on this blog believing what ever they WANT to believe because they can show evidence for their belief from Paul and Luke's writings.

Savvy?
Dennis

Yucaipa, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Dec 25, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brother_Wright wrote:
I have a question for those on this forum who do not believe that the Apostle Paul was a true apostle or prophet of God. Do you believe that Luke's gospel and the gospel of Acts belong in the sacred canon of Scripture? What about Peter's epistles?
Brother Wright, it is NOT a matter of simply 'believing' that Paul, Luke, and other writers in the NT were not put there by direct inspiration of God.'Believing' is simply too nebulous a word, because anyone can 'believe' anything they want about anything. I KNOW what I know because of what those that were actually FACE TO FACE with Jesus said. For me, personally, I CHOOSE to place the words of those disciples that were actually with Jesus during His ministry ABOVE those the NEVER SAW OR KNEW HIM while He was here on earth. I do not throw out anyone in the NT because they are there to show the differences between what Jesus said and what those that never met His have said that are contrary to what they (His own disciples) wrote. Whether Paul or anyone else is a 'true apostle' or not is not the point; the fact is they are in the Bible as we know it. The point is that IF what they say IS NOT EXACTLY what Jesus said then I will go with what Jesus and His own eyewitness disciples say.

I hope his helps.
DANNO

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Dec 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brother_Wright wrote:
I have a question for those on this forum who do not believe that the Apostle Paul was a true apostle or prophet of God. Do you believe that Luke's gospel and the gospel of Acts belong in the sacred canon of Scripture? What about Peter's epistles?
2nd Peter was NOT written by PETER!! You underestimate SATAN!

If Peter read GAL 2 he would NOT have written 2nd Peter!!

Do a research on 2nd Peter and who wrote it!

Dan
DANNO

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Dec 26, 2012
 

Since: May 10

Hendersonville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Dec 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

So let me get this straight. You accept Matthew and John, but not Luke, the epistles of Paul or Peter. How do you feel about Mark, Hebrews, James and Jude? That's about about all of the NT you have left.

Since: Aug 10

Pacific Northwest USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Dec 27, 2012
 
Brother_Wright wrote:
So let me get this straight. You accept Matthew and John, but not Luke, the epistles of Paul or Peter. How do you feel about Mark, Hebrews, James and Jude? That's about about all of the NT you have left.
They have already stated (on another thread) that they don't believe in those books/authors, either. Can you say, "Super-skinny Bible?"
Rockroller

Yucaipa, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Dec 27, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brother_Wright wrote:
So let me get this straight. You accept Matthew and John, but not Luke, the epistles of Paul or Peter. How do you feel about Mark, Hebrews, James and Jude? That's about about all of the NT you have left.
I doubt if you will ever get 'it' straight unless you make the right choice to follow Jesus ONLY.

Did you read what Dennis and I posted? Please re-read.

Luke was not Hebrew, but a Greek Gentile follower of Paul and his invented gospel. Luke was NOT an eye or ear witness to the ministry of JEsus so all of his words are hearsay at best.

Mark was not an eye witness either but since we have evidence Mark left Paul for Peter because he saw the problems with Paul, then Mark may have written for Peter because Peter could not read or write. Many things in Mark agree with Matthew and John, so this would be a good sign that Mark was the scribe for Peter on much of that gospel.

Hebrews has an unknown writer who may have been Paul, but from what was written there, it was probably Apolis. Many things in Hebrews are not correct at all such as chapter 8.

James was NOT a disciple of Jesus and was not given the Holy Spirit. He was the half brother of JEsus who, along with Jude attempting to get Jesus to go to Jerusalem before 'His time" in order to have Jesus killed. While James sounds good, there are a few texts, like the last one, that are clearly not true.

Here is the thing: One must first KNOW every word in Matthew and John from the lips of Jesus in order to fully know what the others wrote fits or not. Without doing this, one is lost in the mix.

It's much the same as knowing a real dollar from a counterfeit dollar. Know the truth first, then the rest is easy to spot.

Use this as your guide: 2nd John 7-12.
DANNO

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Dec 28, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

GrammyJoanne wrote:
<quoted text>They have already stated (on another thread) that they don't believe in those books/authors, either. Can you say, "Super-skinny Bible?"
Do you think GOD does not know you have REFUSED to learn his message in Matt 13: 24-26? Do you think God does not know that you are NOT interested to know all about his message in Matt 13: 24-26? and on REV 2: 2

Dan
DANNO

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Dec 28, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

GrammyJoanne wrote:
<quoted text>They have already stated (on another thread) that they don't believe in those books/authors, either. Can you say, "Super-skinny Bible?"
Grammy

Do you think God is not aware of your testimony and false accusations on the HOLY Spirit that JESUS did away with the 10 commandments and that the LAW is just for Israel and the 4th HOLY Sabbath cammandment is no longer applicaple to Christians? All your posts aginst his law and the hly 4th commandment are recoreded in Heaven! Matt 12: 36

Since: Aug 10

Pacific Northwest USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Dec 28, 2012
 
DANNO wrote:
<quoted text>
Grammy
Do you think God is not aware of your testimony and false accusations on the HOLY Spirit that JESUS did away with the 10 commandments and that the LAW is just for Israel and the 4th HOLY Sabbath cammandment is no longer applicaple to Christians? All your posts aginst his law and the hly 4th commandment are recoreded in Heaven! Matt 12: 36
Good! Then it is recorded that I told the truth.
Rockroller

Yucaipa, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Dec 28, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Try this: Acts was written by Luke who first wrote his alleged gospel before anyone else did.
Acts 1:4 has two problems. First it has Jesus commanding His apostles/disciples to remain in Jerusalem. Problem is, that Matthew, John and Mark has Jesus telling His disciples to go to Galilee which is over 80 miles from Jerusalem.
Second, Luke has them waiting for what the Father promised. Well, the Father did not promiss anything, but Jesus did and had already given the Holy Spirit to His disciples as found in John 20:19-22.
So right of the bat, Luke's words in Acts, while being hearsay, are a total lie! This is proof that Luke did NOT get this information from ANY of the true disciples of Jesus!
Third, Luke has Jesus saying in Acts 1:7 "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority. but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.."
This too is a lie as Jesus said in Matthew 24:37 that ONLY the Father knows and will make known. Rev. 1:1 proves Matthew's account was correct because we now see that the Father told His Son and the Son has 'told' His bondservants living in the last generation!
Of course Jesus has given the Holy Spirit already, so the whole alleged event from Acts 1:12 to Acts 2:47 is a total lie! Clearly NONE of the true disciples of Jesus gave this information to Luke!
Lay Worker

Yea, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Dec 28, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Rockroller wrote:
Try this: Acts was written by Luke who first wrote his alleged gospel before anyone else did.
Acts 1:4 has two problems. First it has Jesus commanding His apostles/disciples to remain in Jerusalem. Problem is, that Matthew, John and Mark has Jesus telling His disciples to go to Galilee which is over 80 miles from Jerusalem.
Second, Luke has them waiting for what the Father promised. Well, the Father did not promiss anything, but Jesus did and had already given the Holy Spirit to His disciples as found in John 20:19-22.
So right of the bat, Luke's words in Acts, while being hearsay, are a total lie! This is proof that Luke did NOT get this information from ANY of the true disciples of Jesus!
Third, Luke has Jesus saying in Acts 1:7 "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority. but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you.."
This too is a lie as Jesus said in Matthew 24:37 that ONLY the Father knows and will make known. Rev. 1:1 proves Matthew's account was correct because we now see that the Father told His Son and the Son has 'told' His bondservants living in the last generation!
Of course Jesus has given the Holy Spirit already, so the whole alleged event from Acts 1:12 to Acts 2:47 is a total lie! Clearly NONE of the true disciples of Jesus gave this information to Luke!
Bizaar!
Rockroller

Yucaipa, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Dec 28, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Lay Worker wrote:
<quoted text>
Bizaar!
Thanks Lay Worker! Yes, it is quite shocking or bizaar for most to grasp the fullness of the deception that has been pulled upon us! But words do not lie! This is why it is necessary to FIRST know what Jesus said from Matthew and John to fully understand and find when and where the words from others do not agree. 2nd John 7-12 prove that John fully understood the seriousness of what Luke and Paul had done!
Lay Worker

Yea, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Dec 28, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rockroller wrote:
<quoted text> Thanks Lay Worker! Yes, it is quite shocking or bizaar for most to grasp the fullness of the deception that has been pulled upon us! But words do not lie! This is why it is necessary to FIRST know what Jesus said from Matthew and John to fully understand and find when and where the words from others do not agree. 2nd John 7-12 prove that John fully understood the seriousness of what Luke and Paul had done!
MOre of the Laodicean confused mindset within contemporary Adventism.
Rockroller

Yucaipa, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Dec 28, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Lay Worker wrote:
<quoted text>
MOre of the Laodicean confused mindset within contemporary Adventism.
It's not about me, you or even Adventism--it's all about the real ONE absolute truth, the words of JEsus given to us by ONLY His eye and ear witnesses, Matthew and John!
Lay Worker

Yea, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Dec 28, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rockroller wrote:
<quoted text> It's not about me, you or even Adventism--it's all about the real ONE absolute truth, the words of JEsus given to us by ONLY His eye and ear witnesses, Matthew and John!
Rocky Bull Wrinkle aint an eyewitness,
aint a reliable witness of the Testimnony of Jesus

try harder Rocky Bull Wrinkle -
Whereas Paul was a witness and Apostle of the Lord Jesus.

Since: May 10

Hendersonville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Dec 30, 2012
 
Rockroller wrote:
<quoted text> Luke was not Hebrew, but a Greek Gentile follower of Paul and his invented gospel. Luke was NOT an eye or ear witness to the ministry of Jesus so all of his words are hearsay at best.
First let me say, thank you for taking the time to explain a little more about where you are coming from. You are correct in that Luke was a gentile and was converted to Christianity. You are also correct that he was not an eyewitness of the events in the life of Christ. He was an historian, and we cannot discount the possibility that he was guided by God in the collection of his historic accounts. Luke tells us the purpose of his gospel in verses 1 to 5 of chapter 1. "1 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed."

In the Old Testament, we have a number of books such as Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles which unknown authors, but were compiled by godly men and are accepted as accurate Biblical history and canonical books.
Rockroller wrote:
<quoted text>Mark was not an eye witness either but since we have evidence Mark left Paul for Peter because he saw the problems with Paul, then Mark may have written for Peter because Peter could not read or write. Many things in Mark agree with Matthew and John, so this would be a good sign that Mark was the scribe for Peter on much of that gospel.
Many Biblical scholars actually see Mark as the original "Q" source that was used by Matthew and Luke. Some have also called it Peter's gospel, because it is believed that Mark got a lot of his information from Peter. Mark may well have witnessed some of the events that he wrote about such as the arrest of Jesus. Most likely John Mark is the young man that fled naked after the arrest of Jesus (Mark 14:51,52). You mention evidence for your position that Mark left Paul for Peter. What evidence is that? The only evidence I'm aware of is what Luke wrote, and that is that John Mark got discouraged and left Paul and Barnabas in the middle of Paul's first missionary journey. After the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), Paul and Barnabas got into a contention over John Mark and went their separate ways - Paul with Silas and Barnabas with John Mark. Later, Paul realized he had made a mistake in judging Mark, and said he "was useful to me for ministry".(2 Pet. 4:11)
Rockroller wrote:
<quoted text>James was NOT a disciple of Jesus and was not given the Holy Spirit. He was the half brother of JEsus who, along with Jude attempting to get Jesus to go to Jerusalem before 'His time" in order to have Jesus killed. While James sounds good, there are a few texts, like the last one, that are clearly not true.
James did not accept Jesus as the Messiah when Jesus was alive, however, he was converted and became a disciple of Christ. According to Acts 15, he was the leader of the church in Jerusalem.
How do you know he didn't receive the Holy Spirit? It seems clear to me that while James didn't accept Jesus as His Lord and Savior while Jesus was alive, he did after the resurrection and could certainly have been among the 120 that were in the upper room on the day of Pentecost.

In summary, all Scripture, when properly understood, is in complete harmony with the other books of the Bible. There are no discrepancies, and if you are really sincere in thinking there are, I will be happy to explain these "apparent" contradictions. It is a very dangerous thing to set oneself up as a critic of Scripture and decide what is inspired and what is not.
Klink

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Dec 30, 2012
 
The books of the NT were completed before the close of the 1st century with the Gospels completed before 70 AD including Luke & Acts. Luke had direct access to those earliest Christians who were witnesses and accepted Paul just as they were witnesses and accepted the virgin birth. We were not there to witness this, they were.

Who wrote the NT books and when?

http://carm.org/wasnt-new-testament-written-h...

http://www.datingthenewtestament.com/Fathers....

Rejecting Paul and other books is usually found among gnostics who then add apocryphal & gnostic books, especially the book of Enoch. They have many strange beliefs.

How the books became the KJV

www.youtube.com/watch...
DANNO

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Dec 30, 2012
 
Brother_Wright wrote:
<quoted text>
First let me say, thank you for taking the time to explain a little more about where you are coming from. You are correct in that Luke was a gentile and was converted to Christianity. You are also correct that he was not an eyewitness of the events in the life of Christ. He was an historian, and we cannot discount the possibility that he was guided by God in the collection of his historic accounts. Luke tells us the purpose of his gospel in verses 1 to 5 of chapter 1. "1 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed."
In the Old Testament, we have a number of books such as Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles which unknown authors, but were compiled by godly men and are accepted as accurate Biblical history and canonical books.
<quoted text>
Many Biblical scholars actually see Mark as the original "Q" source that was used by Matthew and Luke. Some have also called it Peter's gospel, because it is believed that Mark got a lot of his information from Peter. Mark may well have witnessed some of the events that he wrote about such as the arrest of Jesus. Most likely John Mark is the young man that fled naked after the arrest of Jesus (Mark 14:51,52). You mention evidence for your position that Mark left Paul for Peter. What evidence is that? The only evidence I'm aware of is what Luke wrote, and that is that John Mark got discouraged and left Paul and Barnabas in the middle of Paul's first missionary journey. After the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), Paul and Barnabas got into a contention over John Mark and went their separate ways - Paul with Silas and Barnabas with John Mark. Later, Paul realized he had made a mistake in judging Mark, and said he "was useful to me for ministry".(2 Pet. 4:11)
<quoted text>
James did not accept Jesus as the Messiah when Jesus was alive, however, he was converted and became a disciple of Christ. According to Acts 15, he was the leader of the church in Jerusalem.
How do you know he didn't receive the Holy Spirit? It seems clear to me that while James didn't accept Jesus as His Lord and Savior while Jesus was alive, he did after the resurrection and could certainly have been among the 120 that were in the upper room on the day of Pentecost.
In summary, all Scripture, when properly understood, is in complete harmony with the other books of the Bible. There are no discrepancies, and if you are really sincere in thinking there are, I will be happy to explain these "apparent" contradictions. It is a very dangerous thing to set oneself up as a critic of Scripture and decide what is inspired and what is not.
Are the following in HARMONY?

GAL 2: 16 & ROM 2: 13 & ROM 10: 4 & ROM 7: 12 & GAL 3: 10-11 & ROM 3: 28 & Eph 2: 8 & HEB 8: 13 & HEB 8: 10 & REV 14: 12

Gal 4: 9-11 & Rom 14: 5 & Matt 5: 19-20

Gal 5: 14 & MATT 22: 37-40

Dan

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Seventh-day Adventist Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Was Mrs.White Right or Wrong? 26 min usefull 802
B iRDIE WHY DO YOU RUN FROM HEB 8: 13 ? (Oct '12) 58 min Stephen Levi 20
THE CURSE of the LAW ,,, GAL 3: 10-13 1 hr DANNO 107
Mr. Martinez was right re: Islam. Beheading Ch... 1 hr christine 189
MANY SDA's believe WEDNESDAY Crucifixion, WHY? (Feb '11) 4 hr Gerhard Ebersoehn 3,183
Ten Commandments were not given to Adam and Eve (Jul '13) 4 hr His4everFriend 2,887
...The number OF A MAN 6 hr Earburner 285
The Blasphemy of Jesus 7 hr Eyeswideopen 93

Search the Seventh-day Adventist Forum:
•••