Full Version: Thieves Crucified With Christ
Three of the gospels relate about the two thieves crucified with Christ. Why do two of those gospels say that both thieves reviled Christ and one is totally different?
Have you tried using your search engine to look for possible answers on your own? I'll get you started:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/591
They don't come right out and say they "know" anything with certainity, but they tell of other, very plausible possibilities.
Try putting in "thieves on the cross, contradiction" into your search engine and read away...quite a few hits there.
If I am wrong about the impression I'm getting, I am deeply sorry, but this post looks to be a bait by someone who already has his/her mind made up and is just here to give the fundies a hard time. I'm a little suspicious of people who come to a religious form and their very first post is a question of this sort without showing any apparent evidence of having sought out the answer on their own -- from both opposing perspectives. Reg Finley, Dan Barker or Chris Harper may have their point of view, but so do J.P. Holding, A.S.A Jones or Jason Gastrich. It is ultimately up to the reader to decide which view they believe to be correct.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/591
They don't come right out and say they "know" anything with certainity, but they tell of other, very plausible possibilities.
Try putting in "thieves on the cross, contradiction" into your search engine and read away...quite a few hits there.
If I am wrong about the impression I'm getting, I am deeply sorry, but this post looks to be a bait by someone who already has his/her mind made up and is just here to give the fundies a hard time. I'm a little suspicious of people who come to a religious form and their very first post is a question of this sort without showing any apparent evidence of having sought out the answer on their own -- from both opposing perspectives. Reg Finley, Dan Barker or Chris Harper may have their point of view, but so do J.P. Holding, A.S.A Jones or Jason Gastrich. It is ultimately up to the reader to decide which view they believe to be correct.
{I thought we had to post ten answers before we could post a new thread???}
Show me the differences in scripture please.
bananna
Show me the differences in scripture please.
bananna
Matt. 27:44 -- both revile him
Mark 15:32 -- both revile him
Luke 23:39 -- "one" reviles him, the other does not.
There are several possible explanations for this apparent discrepancy. I hold the opinion that both reviled Him at first, but one had a change of heart shortly before Jesus died. Seeing as there are four gospel accounts, I would expect there to be a certain degree of variance between them, just in the same manner that in any given event experienced by a group of people, their retelling of said event will each be slightly different.
Mark 15:32 -- both revile him
Luke 23:39 -- "one" reviles him, the other does not.
There are several possible explanations for this apparent discrepancy. I hold the opinion that both reviled Him at first, but one had a change of heart shortly before Jesus died. Seeing as there are four gospel accounts, I would expect there to be a certain degree of variance between them, just in the same manner that in any given event experienced by a group of people, their retelling of said event will each be slightly different.
I agree too, that one of the thieves had a change of heart later on that day. This could happen to any one!
How many more people that we knew are now saved just because of a very late change of heart???
How many more people that we knew are now saved just because of a very late change of heart???
I'm guessing just the manner in which Yehoshuah(Jesus) died is enough to show light on the situation. He refused even the pain killer offered to drink. Wine mixed with Gall I have read is very bitter but is a "mixed Drink" as is in the proverbs, not to drink it.
Yes there are three perspectives. John was close enough to hear what was said when Yehoshuah gave his mother to the charge of John. Two gospels record different last words.
But then again the writing of the authors was to serve slightly differnet purposes and the memory of what happened can make some things more vividly clear than others
three Jews four opinions... LOL
bananna
Yes there are three perspectives. John was close enough to hear what was said when Yehoshuah gave his mother to the charge of John. Two gospels record different last words.
But then again the writing of the authors was to serve slightly differnet purposes and the memory of what happened can make some things more vividly clear than others
three Jews four opinions... LOL
bananna
[quote name='johnb' date='Dec 3 2006, 10:36 PM' post='94279']
Three of the gospels relate about the two thieves crucified with Christ. Why do two of those gospels say that both thieves reviled Christ and one is totally different?
[/quote]
johnB, I assume that when you say that only three gospels related to the fact that 2 thieves were crucified with Christ is because John was not specific about the other 2 men, because all gospels make reference to the fact that 3 were crucified that day. Matthew is the only gospel that says that the thieves rebuked Jesus. However specifics were not documented. We know that Matthew was not anywhere near so he would not have heard the words spoken while he may have been able to see that a dispute of some sort was going on. Because according to Luke the thieves basically argued with each other. The gospel of Luke is known to be the best investigative work in the NT. Luke gives us a thorough account of the conversation that took place. Therefore I have to disagree with you when you say that Luke's account was "totally different" (since you yourself were not very specific I have to assume that it is the gospel of Luke you are referring to when you say "totally different"). Luke simply focused in on the incident where the others merely mention the subject in passing. The fact that they mention it at all is a plus if you understand archeology. This is exactly what scholars look for when investigating history. If you have some vision of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John sitting down together to write their gospels, you have it all wrong. They were written at different times in different places. These Texts were collected and put together in what we know as the Bible in the fourth century a few hundred years after the fact. Their similarities are nothing short of miraculous. If the gospels did not vary somewhat the whole thing would be highly suspect.
sojourner
Three of the gospels relate about the two thieves crucified with Christ. Why do two of those gospels say that both thieves reviled Christ and one is totally different?
[/quote]
johnB, I assume that when you say that only three gospels related to the fact that 2 thieves were crucified with Christ is because John was not specific about the other 2 men, because all gospels make reference to the fact that 3 were crucified that day. Matthew is the only gospel that says that the thieves rebuked Jesus. However specifics were not documented. We know that Matthew was not anywhere near so he would not have heard the words spoken while he may have been able to see that a dispute of some sort was going on. Because according to Luke the thieves basically argued with each other. The gospel of Luke is known to be the best investigative work in the NT. Luke gives us a thorough account of the conversation that took place. Therefore I have to disagree with you when you say that Luke's account was "totally different" (since you yourself were not very specific I have to assume that it is the gospel of Luke you are referring to when you say "totally different"). Luke simply focused in on the incident where the others merely mention the subject in passing. The fact that they mention it at all is a plus if you understand archeology. This is exactly what scholars look for when investigating history. If you have some vision of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John sitting down together to write their gospels, you have it all wrong. They were written at different times in different places. These Texts were collected and put together in what we know as the Bible in the fourth century a few hundred years after the fact. Their similarities are nothing short of miraculous. If the gospels did not vary somewhat the whole thing would be highly suspect.
sojourner
Types amaze me.
Last week, I was reading about Joseph being sold into Egypt,
then for a bit I studied his interpreting dreams...
isn't it interesting how Joseph has two men in prison with him, one, the butler, goes on to life (serving the pharaoh), and the other, the baker, hangs on a tree - dies. (Gen 40)
Jesus, surrounded by two thieves, one goes to paradise / the other does not
50% saved / 50% lost
2 walking ... one taken / the other left behind
yes / no
on / off
1 / 0
black / white
choose ye this day whom ye will serve...
Last week, I was reading about Joseph being sold into Egypt,
then for a bit I studied his interpreting dreams...
isn't it interesting how Joseph has two men in prison with him, one, the butler, goes on to life (serving the pharaoh), and the other, the baker, hangs on a tree - dies. (Gen 40)
Jesus, surrounded by two thieves, one goes to paradise / the other does not
50% saved / 50% lost
2 walking ... one taken / the other left behind
yes / no
on / off
1 / 0
black / white
choose ye this day whom ye will serve...
[quote name='sojourner' date='Dec 6 2006, 09:53 AM' post='94497']
[quote name='johnb' date='Dec 3 2006, 10:36 PM' post='94279']
Three of the gospels relate about the two thieves crucified with Christ. Why do two of those gospels say that both thieves reviled Christ and one is totally different?
[/quote]
johnB, I assume that when you say that only three gospels related to the fact that 2 thieves were crucified with Christ is because John was not specific about the other 2 men, because all gospels make reference to the fact that 3 were crucified that day. Matthew is the only gospel that says that the thieves rebuked Jesus. However specifics were not documented. We know that Matthew was not anywhere near so he would not have heard the words spoken while he may have been able to see that a dispute of some sort was going on. Because according to Luke the thieves basically argued with each other. The gospel of Luke is known to be the best investigative work in the NT. Luke gives us a thorough account of the conversation that took place. Therefore I have to disagree with you when you say that Luke's account was "totally different" (since you yourself were not very specific I have to assume that it is the gospel of Luke you are referring to when you say "totally different"). Luke simply focused in on the incident where the others merely mention the subject in passing. The fact that they mention it at all is a plus if you understand archeology. This is exactly what scholars look for when investigating history. If you have some vision of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John sitting down together to write their gospels, you have it all wrong. They were written at different times in different places. These Texts were collected and put together in what we know as the Bible in the fourth century a few hundred years after the fact. Their similarities are nothing short of miraculous. If the gospels did not vary somewhat the whole thing would be highly suspect.
sojourner
[/quote]
I appreciate your thoughts. Problem I am having is just what is right. I thought I knew, but then find something like this that is very different one version to the other. I fully understand the differences in versions by different people regarding the same event - even if the event just happened.
For some of the rest of you, this was not a trick question on my part - nor a way to get an argument started. I just had a question and thought maybe someone could shed some light on it.
John b
[quote name='johnb' date='Dec 3 2006, 10:36 PM' post='94279']
Three of the gospels relate about the two thieves crucified with Christ. Why do two of those gospels say that both thieves reviled Christ and one is totally different?
[/quote]
johnB, I assume that when you say that only three gospels related to the fact that 2 thieves were crucified with Christ is because John was not specific about the other 2 men, because all gospels make reference to the fact that 3 were crucified that day. Matthew is the only gospel that says that the thieves rebuked Jesus. However specifics were not documented. We know that Matthew was not anywhere near so he would not have heard the words spoken while he may have been able to see that a dispute of some sort was going on. Because according to Luke the thieves basically argued with each other. The gospel of Luke is known to be the best investigative work in the NT. Luke gives us a thorough account of the conversation that took place. Therefore I have to disagree with you when you say that Luke's account was "totally different" (since you yourself were not very specific I have to assume that it is the gospel of Luke you are referring to when you say "totally different"). Luke simply focused in on the incident where the others merely mention the subject in passing. The fact that they mention it at all is a plus if you understand archeology. This is exactly what scholars look for when investigating history. If you have some vision of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John sitting down together to write their gospels, you have it all wrong. They were written at different times in different places. These Texts were collected and put together in what we know as the Bible in the fourth century a few hundred years after the fact. Their similarities are nothing short of miraculous. If the gospels did not vary somewhat the whole thing would be highly suspect.
sojourner
[/quote]
I appreciate your thoughts. Problem I am having is just what is right. I thought I knew, but then find something like this that is very different one version to the other. I fully understand the differences in versions by different people regarding the same event - even if the event just happened.
For some of the rest of you, this was not a trick question on my part - nor a way to get an argument started. I just had a question and thought maybe someone could shed some light on it.
John b
very good post Dani,
And where those who observe from far off see condemnation,
Those who draw near see hope and life.
bananna
And where those who observe from far off see condemnation,
Those who draw near see hope and life.
bananna
[center]^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[/center]
[center]<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/center]
Three of the gospels relate about the two thieves crucified with Christ. Why do two of those gospels say that both thieves reviled Christ and one is totally different?
[center](((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))[/center]
I will tell you the truth about this but I will guarantee you that you don't want to hear it. Before someone comes back at me with what the experts say. I have already read all of their lies and I don't want to hear them again. So without further a due here is the truth. Luke's Gospel was written in around 169 to 182 AD. Luke's gospel was written to the patriarch of Antioch, Theophilus who ruled in 169 to 182 AD. If this Luke is the same Luke that walked with Paul he would have been around 120 to 130 years old when He wrote the Gospel down for Theophilus the patriarch of Antioch if he was a young boy when he walked with Paul. Paul died in 67 to 71 AD. You do the math.
[center]<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/center]
Three of the gospels relate about the two thieves crucified with Christ. Why do two of those gospels say that both thieves reviled Christ and one is totally different?
[center](((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))[/center]
I will tell you the truth about this but I will guarantee you that you don't want to hear it. Before someone comes back at me with what the experts say. I have already read all of their lies and I don't want to hear them again. So without further a due here is the truth. Luke's Gospel was written in around 169 to 182 AD. Luke's gospel was written to the patriarch of Antioch, Theophilus who ruled in 169 to 182 AD. If this Luke is the same Luke that walked with Paul he would have been around 120 to 130 years old when He wrote the Gospel down for Theophilus the patriarch of Antioch if he was a young boy when he walked with Paul. Paul died in 67 to 71 AD. You do the math.
Godsloft, I don't know where you are getting your information, but the gospel of Luke was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Which was when? 70 AD. And how do we know this? Because he never mentions it. It's all simple archaeology. He states that he worked and traveled with St Paul, but never mentions the destruction of Jerusalem. This pretty much sets the date for us. It would be quite a stretch to relate someone who lived 100 years later just because he bore the name of [/i]Theophilus[i]. That would be alot like thinking that the patriarch Abraham was president of the United States. [/i]Theophilus[i] was a common name in that period.
Where ever you got this information is practicing sloppy, if not counterfeit scholatics.
sojourner
Where ever you got this information is practicing sloppy, if not counterfeit scholatics.
sojourner
I think we may be confusing "Writing" with "compiling" and in either case one either accepts the account or they do not.
There are similar arguments for the Gospel of John and I believe John was the oldest to survive.
Why would Luke compile the evidence and represent it as if he were an eye witness?
I believe that the original writings were in Hebrew and Aramaic of the Gospels and Acts and many of the other letters.
Revelations most certainly was in Hebrew ... but in the end it is all based on faith in something or someone or some source of information.
So be lead by the Holy spirit in all things.
bananna
There are similar arguments for the Gospel of John and I believe John was the oldest to survive.
Why would Luke compile the evidence and represent it as if he were an eye witness?
I believe that the original writings were in Hebrew and Aramaic of the Gospels and Acts and many of the other letters.
Revelations most certainly was in Hebrew ... but in the end it is all based on faith in something or someone or some source of information.
So be lead by the Holy spirit in all things.
bananna
[quote name='sojourner' date='Dec 7 2006, 09:56 AM' post='94646']
Godsloft, I don't know where you are getting your information, but the gospel of Luke was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Which was when? 70 AD. And how do we know this? Because he never mentions it. It's all simple archaeology. He states that he worked and traveled with St Paul, but never mentions the destruction of Jerusalem. This pretty much sets the date for us. It would be quite a stretch to relate someone who lived 100 years later just because he bore the name of [/i]Theophilus[i]. That would be alot like thinking that the patriarch Abraham was president of the United States. [/i]Theophilus[i] was a common name in that period.
Where ever you got this information is practicing sloppy, if not counterfeit scholatics.
sojourner
[/quote]
source:
http://www.evbctempe.org/luke/000background.php
Theophilus was probably a Gentile Christian of some means and social position. Identifying him specifically with any known historical person is not possible. Theophilius was a very common name.
Luke wrote both of his books for a certain Theophilus, concerning whom, unfortunately, we know next to nothing. ‘Most excellent Theophilus’ indicates knighthood, official position, or great wealth and prominence, it is uncertain just which. Some feel certain that this Theophilus was already a Christian, but this was not the case. In the Gospel Luke addresses his as ‘most excellent’, not so in the Acts. In all Christian literature, however, no brother Christian is ever addressed by such a title of earthly distinction. Hence when Luke wrote his Gospel to Theophilus, this distinguished man was not yet a Christian but was greatly interested in things Chrisitan; but when Luke sent the Acts to him, Theophilus had become a convert. Theophilus must have come into contact with Luke in later years, not so long before the Gospel was written for him. Those who suppose that he lived in Antioch overlook the fact that Luke left this city to join Paul on his journeys and in his work and, as far as we know, never went back to his native town. Somewhere, possibly in Rom, these two met with the result that not long after this time Luke wrote twice to his important friend.
_______________________________________________
We MUST trust God that He is able to preserve His Word.
Godsloft, I don't know where you are getting your information, but the gospel of Luke was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Which was when? 70 AD. And how do we know this? Because he never mentions it. It's all simple archaeology. He states that he worked and traveled with St Paul, but never mentions the destruction of Jerusalem. This pretty much sets the date for us. It would be quite a stretch to relate someone who lived 100 years later just because he bore the name of [/i]Theophilus[i]. That would be alot like thinking that the patriarch Abraham was president of the United States. [/i]Theophilus[i] was a common name in that period.
Where ever you got this information is practicing sloppy, if not counterfeit scholatics.
sojourner
[/quote]
source:
http://www.evbctempe.org/luke/000background.php
Theophilus was probably a Gentile Christian of some means and social position. Identifying him specifically with any known historical person is not possible. Theophilius was a very common name.
Luke wrote both of his books for a certain Theophilus, concerning whom, unfortunately, we know next to nothing. ‘Most excellent Theophilus’ indicates knighthood, official position, or great wealth and prominence, it is uncertain just which. Some feel certain that this Theophilus was already a Christian, but this was not the case. In the Gospel Luke addresses his as ‘most excellent’, not so in the Acts. In all Christian literature, however, no brother Christian is ever addressed by such a title of earthly distinction. Hence when Luke wrote his Gospel to Theophilus, this distinguished man was not yet a Christian but was greatly interested in things Chrisitan; but when Luke sent the Acts to him, Theophilus had become a convert. Theophilus must have come into contact with Luke in later years, not so long before the Gospel was written for him. Those who suppose that he lived in Antioch overlook the fact that Luke left this city to join Paul on his journeys and in his work and, as far as we know, never went back to his native town. Somewhere, possibly in Rom, these two met with the result that not long after this time Luke wrote twice to his important friend.
_______________________________________________
We MUST trust God that He is able to preserve His Word.
I did not mean to get all this started when I asked the question.
I find it hard to understand the differences in the Gospels - since I was always taught the Bible represents the inspired word of God.
I suppose that one has to accept by faith. Then the question becomes what do we put our faith in - certainly Jesus - but maybe not so literally in the gospels.
I find it hard to understand the differences in the Gospels - since I was always taught the Bible represents the inspired word of God.
I suppose that one has to accept by faith. Then the question becomes what do we put our faith in - certainly Jesus - but maybe not so literally in the gospels.
[quote name='johnb' date='Dec 7 2006, 01:31 PM' post='94684']
I did not mean to get all this started when I asked the question.
I find it hard to understand the differences in the Gospels - since I was always taught the Bible represents the inspired word of God.
I suppose that one has to accept by faith. Then the question becomes what do we put our faith in - certainly Jesus - but maybe not so literally in the gospels.
[/quote]
OH HON!! It's ok!
You know, at some point or another almost all of us grapple with apparent inconsistancies in the Bible. Our faith teaches us that the Bible is God breathed. So, when one of these "differences" come up- take it to the Lord in prayer.
Say, "Lord, I know that the Bible is inerrant. I know that you do not contradict Yourself- and neither does the Word. But I see something here that doesn't look right. I don't understand- the Word says one thing here and something else here. Holy Spirit, can You reveal wisdom to me and give me understanding in this situation."
I promise you He will answer your prayer.
You are right! Faith is trusting when we don't have the answer!
Banana is right- remember that each Gospel was written to serve a different purpose. For instance, Luke is often called the Gospel for the Gentiles. The parable of the good Samaritan appears in this book. The woman at the well. The Roman centurian whose son is healed. All these folks are Gentiles- and it helps us Gentile folk (I'm assuming you aren't Jewish) to know that we are included in God's plan.
John's Gospel focuses on Christ's divinity. John is very etherial... and begins with, "In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God." He begins talking about Christ's divine nature.
Mark is a breathless Gospel. Jesus seems to fly from one place to the next, performing miracle after miracle in sweeping action! Jesus is POWERFUL!
Matthew is the Gospel for the Jews. In this Gospel you will find a lot of the focus on Christ's creditials so to speak. The book begins with Jesus' royal line and then the entire book is sprinkled with how Christ keeps his Jewish traditions and finally how He was the ultimate fulfillment of the law.
I love your question. You know- I'd never noticed that the thieves "rebuked" Jesus. I've read the Gospels- but never "seen" or focused on this particular aspect of the Gospels. I have learned something because of you today!
You are loved!
I did not mean to get all this started when I asked the question.
I find it hard to understand the differences in the Gospels - since I was always taught the Bible represents the inspired word of God.
I suppose that one has to accept by faith. Then the question becomes what do we put our faith in - certainly Jesus - but maybe not so literally in the gospels.
[/quote]
OH HON!! It's ok!
You know, at some point or another almost all of us grapple with apparent inconsistancies in the Bible. Our faith teaches us that the Bible is God breathed. So, when one of these "differences" come up- take it to the Lord in prayer.
Say, "Lord, I know that the Bible is inerrant. I know that you do not contradict Yourself- and neither does the Word. But I see something here that doesn't look right. I don't understand- the Word says one thing here and something else here. Holy Spirit, can You reveal wisdom to me and give me understanding in this situation."
I promise you He will answer your prayer.
You are right! Faith is trusting when we don't have the answer!
Banana is right- remember that each Gospel was written to serve a different purpose. For instance, Luke is often called the Gospel for the Gentiles. The parable of the good Samaritan appears in this book. The woman at the well. The Roman centurian whose son is healed. All these folks are Gentiles- and it helps us Gentile folk (I'm assuming you aren't Jewish) to know that we are included in God's plan.
John's Gospel focuses on Christ's divinity. John is very etherial... and begins with, "In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God." He begins talking about Christ's divine nature.
Mark is a breathless Gospel. Jesus seems to fly from one place to the next, performing miracle after miracle in sweeping action! Jesus is POWERFUL!
Matthew is the Gospel for the Jews. In this Gospel you will find a lot of the focus on Christ's creditials so to speak. The book begins with Jesus' royal line and then the entire book is sprinkled with how Christ keeps his Jewish traditions and finally how He was the ultimate fulfillment of the law.
I love your question. You know- I'd never noticed that the thieves "rebuked" Jesus. I've read the Gospels- but never "seen" or focused on this particular aspect of the Gospels. I have learned something because of you today!
You are loved!
My take on the "inspired word"
God's word... Is what God himself says.
Scripture is the inspired writing of the Torah, Histories, Prophets and writingings.
Different promises apply to the two different things. They can not have the promises about them mixed and matched.
Escentially everything we need to know is revealed by God through these writings, by the nation of Israel. The Books of the bible record the good the bad and the miraculous. The judgements and the Mercies of God. It reveals the future promises and reveals our past failures.
Like the History of man kind being written in the stars. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
The bible today has some basic translations difficulties. However the olderst version of Isaiah found in the Qumran valley and various fragments prove that these writings have retained the essencial truths over thousands of years, being copied hundreds of times over.
Typos are listed as errors, vowel point changes are listed as errors. We had a Dead sea scroll expert show is some of the true "changes in the pictures of the scroll of a psalm. And yet the passage as a whole did not change.
HTH
bananna
God's word... Is what God himself says.
Scripture is the inspired writing of the Torah, Histories, Prophets and writingings.
Different promises apply to the two different things. They can not have the promises about them mixed and matched.
Escentially everything we need to know is revealed by God through these writings, by the nation of Israel. The Books of the bible record the good the bad and the miraculous. The judgements and the Mercies of God. It reveals the future promises and reveals our past failures.
Like the History of man kind being written in the stars. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
The bible today has some basic translations difficulties. However the olderst version of Isaiah found in the Qumran valley and various fragments prove that these writings have retained the essencial truths over thousands of years, being copied hundreds of times over.
Typos are listed as errors, vowel point changes are listed as errors. We had a Dead sea scroll expert show is some of the true "changes in the pictures of the scroll of a psalm. And yet the passage as a whole did not change.
HTH
bananna
[center]**************************************************[/center]
[center]>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/center]
[quote name='sojourner' date='Dec 7 2006, 06:56 AM' post='94646']
Godsloft, I don't know where you are getting your information, but the gospel of Luke was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Which was when? 70 AD. And how do we know this? Because he never mentions it. It's all simple archaeology. He states that he worked and traveled with St Paul, but never mentions the destruction of Jerusalem. This pretty much sets the date for us. It would be quite a stretch to relate someone who lived 100 years later just because he bore the name of [/i]Theophilus[i]. That would be alot like thinking that the patriarch Abraham was president of the United States. [/i]Theophilus[i] was a common name in that period.
Where ever you got this information is practicing sloppy, if not counterfeit scholatics.
sojourner
[center]((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))[/center]
Luke did not mention the destruction of Jerusalem because He was a Christian not a Jew and It was going on a hundred years past. Luke did not say He was an eye witness either. He does not say that the Luke in His writing is he himself. If you want to blind yourself to the actual date setting which is his address to Theophilus then thats up to you. Nothing that you have said is anything new I read it all before many times going on twenty years now. It was seriously wrong then and it is seriously wrong still. The address is to royalty most excellent which is also a Greek title of the era. Good records of everyone bearing the name Theophilus that was anybody were kept and the patriarch of Antioch was the first. So you go ahead and believe what they tell you like a good little brick and I will stick with what the Lord has revealed to me. Luke's copying of the acts of the apostles is in fact a copy of other writings that did not survive through time. The book of Luke is a copy of the book of Mathew with a few more tales of the Greek era thrown in and a few contradictions as well. Not only is it visible in the writing style it is visible in the Spirit rightly dividing the word of truth.
[center]>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/center]
[quote name='sojourner' date='Dec 7 2006, 06:56 AM' post='94646']
Godsloft, I don't know where you are getting your information, but the gospel of Luke was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Which was when? 70 AD. And how do we know this? Because he never mentions it. It's all simple archaeology. He states that he worked and traveled with St Paul, but never mentions the destruction of Jerusalem. This pretty much sets the date for us. It would be quite a stretch to relate someone who lived 100 years later just because he bore the name of [/i]Theophilus[i]. That would be alot like thinking that the patriarch Abraham was president of the United States. [/i]Theophilus[i] was a common name in that period.
Where ever you got this information is practicing sloppy, if not counterfeit scholatics.
sojourner
[center]((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))[/center]
Luke did not mention the destruction of Jerusalem because He was a Christian not a Jew and It was going on a hundred years past. Luke did not say He was an eye witness either. He does not say that the Luke in His writing is he himself. If you want to blind yourself to the actual date setting which is his address to Theophilus then thats up to you. Nothing that you have said is anything new I read it all before many times going on twenty years now. It was seriously wrong then and it is seriously wrong still. The address is to royalty most excellent which is also a Greek title of the era. Good records of everyone bearing the name Theophilus that was anybody were kept and the patriarch of Antioch was the first. So you go ahead and believe what they tell you like a good little brick and I will stick with what the Lord has revealed to me. Luke's copying of the acts of the apostles is in fact a copy of other writings that did not survive through time. The book of Luke is a copy of the book of Mathew with a few more tales of the Greek era thrown in and a few contradictions as well. Not only is it visible in the writing style it is visible in the Spirit rightly dividing the word of truth.
Godsloft.com-
In 1987, I witnessed a traffic accident in front of the bakery where I worked. The gentleman in the truck burned to death while my co-workers and I tried to get close enough to the fire to extinguish it.
To this day, in 2006, the five of us still have a different story (with some similarities depending on where we were at what moment) when we talk about it. Not a single one of us, nor the people we have told about it, doubt for a second what happened and how tragic (in the case of Y'shua...how wonderful) that event was.
Love You in Y'shua,
Angie
In 1987, I witnessed a traffic accident in front of the bakery where I worked. The gentleman in the truck burned to death while my co-workers and I tried to get close enough to the fire to extinguish it.
To this day, in 2006, the five of us still have a different story (with some similarities depending on where we were at what moment) when we talk about it. Not a single one of us, nor the people we have told about it, doubt for a second what happened and how tragic (in the case of Y'shua...how wonderful) that event was.
Love You in Y'shua,
Angie
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are an account of the same events...If you would purchase a book entitled "The Harmony of the Gospels" it would help you understand the jounery through the these 4 books.
As WATW has just stated above in her post, it is an account of the events, but told by different people. You won't have an exact match and some details may be left out of some.
As WATW has just stated above in her post, it is an account of the events, but told by different people. You won't have an exact match and some details may be left out of some.
[center]@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@[/center]
[center]$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$[/center]
[quote name='Pamela' date='Dec 8 2006, 10:04 AM' post='94844']
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are an account of the same events...If you would purchase a book entitled "The Harmony of the Gospels" it would help you understand the jounery through the these 4 books.
As WATW has just stated above in her post, it is an account of the events, but told by different people. You won't have an exact match and some details may be left out of some.
[center]&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&[/center]
[center]%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%[/center]
Luke was not an eye witness but writes how those who were eye witnesses wrote it down and delivered them. The Lord did not assemble the canon and Paul tells you to rightly devide the word of truth.
Those who know the Lord, know the things that were spoken by Him. Because His sheep hear His voice.
Those who write books, these days, know how to sell books for ungodly gain.
[center]$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$[/center]
[quote name='Pamela' date='Dec 8 2006, 10:04 AM' post='94844']
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are an account of the same events...If you would purchase a book entitled "The Harmony of the Gospels" it would help you understand the jounery through the these 4 books.
As WATW has just stated above in her post, it is an account of the events, but told by different people. You won't have an exact match and some details may be left out of some.
[center]&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&[/center]
[center]%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%[/center]
Luke was not an eye witness but writes how those who were eye witnesses wrote it down and delivered them. The Lord did not assemble the canon and Paul tells you to rightly devide the word of truth.
Those who know the Lord, know the things that were spoken by Him. Because His sheep hear His voice.
Those who write books, these days, know how to sell books for ungodly gain.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all being quoted from, and having their manuscripts copied, by the end of the first century. BTW, there was a manuscript of Matthew that was dated to 60 A.D.! There have been over 24,500 manuscripts found in total of Paul's letters and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which are essentially the same, barring slight spelling differences, from prior to the second century. It's downright amazing, and a testament to Our Lord, that so many have survived.
Your sister in Christ, Angela
Your sister in Christ, Angela
[quote name='johnb' date='Dec 7 2006, 01:31 PM' post='94684']
I did not mean to get all this started when I asked the question.
I find it hard to understand the differences in the Gospels - since I was always taught the Bible represents the inspired word of God.
I suppose that one has to accept by faith. Then the question becomes what do we put our faith in - certainly Jesus - but maybe not so literally in the gospels.
[/quote]
John, it appears that my impression of you was wrong and I apologize for the cold welcoming. We do get skeptics from time to time and usually the discussion degenarates into ad hominem attacks within a couple of posts, which is why I behaved in the manner that I did.
To all here...regarding the "Devinely Inspired Word of God" business, I think it helps to understand the following: The greek word "Rhema" means spoken word. God's "Rhema" would certainly be devinely inspired and "inerrant." The greek word "Logos" means written words. Our word "Logo", as in "the company's logo is printed on the shirt", is borrowed from this greek word. The Bible is a book of "Logos" which tells stories of Jesus and Yaweh's "Rhema." Logos, physically written by man, should show evidence of having been written by man, otherwise I would be a bit skeptical as a result of everything being a little too "perfect", which would actually lead more credibility to this so-called "DaVinci Code" conspiracy nonsence.
I did not mean to get all this started when I asked the question.
I find it hard to understand the differences in the Gospels - since I was always taught the Bible represents the inspired word of God.
I suppose that one has to accept by faith. Then the question becomes what do we put our faith in - certainly Jesus - but maybe not so literally in the gospels.
[/quote]
John, it appears that my impression of you was wrong and I apologize for the cold welcoming. We do get skeptics from time to time and usually the discussion degenarates into ad hominem attacks within a couple of posts, which is why I behaved in the manner that I did.
To all here...regarding the "Devinely Inspired Word of God" business, I think it helps to understand the following: The greek word "Rhema" means spoken word. God's "Rhema" would certainly be devinely inspired and "inerrant." The greek word "Logos" means written words. Our word "Logo", as in "the company's logo is printed on the shirt", is borrowed from this greek word. The Bible is a book of "Logos" which tells stories of Jesus and Yaweh's "Rhema." Logos, physically written by man, should show evidence of having been written by man, otherwise I would be a bit skeptical as a result of everything being a little too "perfect", which would actually lead more credibility to this so-called "DaVinci Code" conspiracy nonsence.
[center]##############################[/center]
[center]%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%[/center]
[center]#############################[/center]
[quote name='AngelaNPraise' date='Dec 8 2006, 02:12 PM' post='94870']
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all being quoted from, and having their manuscripts copied, by the end of the first century. BTW, there was a manuscript of Matthew that was dated to 60 A.D.! There have been over 24,500 manuscripts found in total of Paul's letters and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which are essentially the same, barring slight spelling differences, from prior to the second century. It's downright amazing, and a testament to Our Lord, that so many have survived.
Your sister in Christ, Angela
[/quote]
[center]##############################[/center]
[center]%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%[/center]
[center]#############################[/center]
These are the oldest manuscripts known to those who actually go out to see them. There are many liars on the Net that have bammboosled you.
Papyrus 46 or P46
The oldest manuscript of the letters of Paul usually is referred to as papyrus 46, abbreviated P46. Judging from the handwriting used in this manuscript, it is dated around the year 200 and was produced in Egypt. The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor acquired parts of this manuscript, but most pages belong to the Chester Beatty collection in Dublin, Ireland.
Here is a list of the oldest manuscripts, their number and the supposed year. All are copies of Copies and there are no autographs.
200 AD--John--P66, 250 AD John-P45,P75
200 AD--Romans-Hebrews--P46
250 AD-Matthew--P45
250 AD-Mark--P45
250 AD--Acts--P45
250 AD--Apocalypse--P47
250 AD-Luke--P4,P45,P75
300 AD--James-Jude--P72
All translations of modern bibles are translated from these three following texts.
The Vaticanus from 300 AD, The Sinaiticus from 350 AD, and the Alexandrinus from 450 AD.
[center]%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%[/center]
[center]#############################[/center]
[quote name='AngelaNPraise' date='Dec 8 2006, 02:12 PM' post='94870']
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all being quoted from, and having their manuscripts copied, by the end of the first century. BTW, there was a manuscript of Matthew that was dated to 60 A.D.! There have been over 24,500 manuscripts found in total of Paul's letters and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which are essentially the same, barring slight spelling differences, from prior to the second century. It's downright amazing, and a testament to Our Lord, that so many have survived.
Your sister in Christ, Angela
[/quote]
[center]##############################[/center]
[center]%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%[/center]
[center]#############################[/center]
These are the oldest manuscripts known to those who actually go out to see them. There are many liars on the Net that have bammboosled you.
Papyrus 46 or P46
The oldest manuscript of the letters of Paul usually is referred to as papyrus 46, abbreviated P46. Judging from the handwriting used in this manuscript, it is dated around the year 200 and was produced in Egypt. The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor acquired parts of this manuscript, but most pages belong to the Chester Beatty collection in Dublin, Ireland.
Here is a list of the oldest manuscripts, their number and the supposed year. All are copies of Copies and there are no autographs.
200 AD--John--P66, 250 AD John-P45,P75
200 AD--Romans-Hebrews--P46
250 AD-Matthew--P45
250 AD-Mark--P45
250 AD--Acts--P45
250 AD--Apocalypse--P47
250 AD-Luke--P4,P45,P75
300 AD--James-Jude--P72
All translations of modern bibles are translated from these three following texts.
The Vaticanus from 300 AD, The Sinaiticus from 350 AD, and the Alexandrinus from 450 AD.
Greetings all:
Normally, I don't get involved in a debate about manuscripts datings, or whose translation is right or what the actual Hebrew/Greek word is, etc, etc, so I humbly won't go there. We are talking about 2 thieves being crucified along with Joshua, yes? And why are there varying accounts of the same event, yes? In Matthew and Mark, they were robbers, one on his left and one on his right, hurling insults at him. In Luke, again, two criminials, one on his left and one on his right. One had hurled insults at the Lord and the other one had rebuked him by saying that we are all under the same sentence. We got what we deserved but this Man has nothing wrong. Lord, please remember me. Not exactly in those words but close enough to get an idea that the other robber had an change of heart. And in John, there were two others that had been crucified, one on his right and one on his left. No mention of them either hurling insults or asking to be remembered. In the first 3 books, Simon of Cyrene was mentioned as helping Joshua carrys his cross. In John, he was not mentioned at all. But in all 4 books, Joshua was crucified in the middle of 2 others being crucified with Him. So there's at least one in agreement about that in all 4 books.
I think that it's natural and healthy to have an different perspective on the same event. We all don't think alike, now do we? Besides, I'd be scared if we all do. We all share in the faith of Joshua but our relationship with Him will be different from each other. I personally think that the real question is our reaction to the Lord when we have difficulities in our lives. Are we going to scream and hurl insults at the Lord, who have been crucificed, so He knows exactly what we are going through? Or we going to humble ourselves and just simply ask of God to remember us, that we are nothing more than dust that doesn't deserves anything? Our choices does reflect our attitudes.
Sincerely yours
Wendy
Normally, I don't get involved in a debate about manuscripts datings, or whose translation is right or what the actual Hebrew/Greek word is, etc, etc, so I humbly won't go there. We are talking about 2 thieves being crucified along with Joshua, yes? And why are there varying accounts of the same event, yes? In Matthew and Mark, they were robbers, one on his left and one on his right, hurling insults at him. In Luke, again, two criminials, one on his left and one on his right. One had hurled insults at the Lord and the other one had rebuked him by saying that we are all under the same sentence. We got what we deserved but this Man has nothing wrong. Lord, please remember me. Not exactly in those words but close enough to get an idea that the other robber had an change of heart. And in John, there were two others that had been crucified, one on his right and one on his left. No mention of them either hurling insults or asking to be remembered. In the first 3 books, Simon of Cyrene was mentioned as helping Joshua carrys his cross. In John, he was not mentioned at all. But in all 4 books, Joshua was crucified in the middle of 2 others being crucified with Him. So there's at least one in agreement about that in all 4 books.
I think that it's natural and healthy to have an different perspective on the same event. We all don't think alike, now do we? Besides, I'd be scared if we all do. We all share in the faith of Joshua but our relationship with Him will be different from each other. I personally think that the real question is our reaction to the Lord when we have difficulities in our lives. Are we going to scream and hurl insults at the Lord, who have been crucificed, so He knows exactly what we are going through? Or we going to humble ourselves and just simply ask of God to remember us, that we are nothing more than dust that doesn't deserves anything? Our choices does reflect our attitudes.
Sincerely yours
Wendy
[quote name='Godsloft.com' date='Dec 8 2006, 02:26 PM' post='94850']
[center]@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@[/center]
[center]$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$[/center]
[quote name='Pamela' date='Dec 8 2006, 10:04 AM' post='94844']
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are an account of the same events...If you would purchase a book entitled "The Harmony of the Gospels" it would help you understand the jounery through the these 4 books.
As WATW has just stated above in her post, it is an account of the events, but told by different people. You won't have an exact match and some details may be left out of some.
[center]&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&[/center]
[center]%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%[/center]
Luke was not an eye witness but writes how those who were eye witnesses wrote it down and delivered them. The Lord did not assemble the canon and Paul tells you to rightly devide the word of truth.
Those who know the Lord, know the things that were spoken by Him. Because His sheep hear His voice.
Those who write books, these days, know how to sell books for ungodly gain.
[/quote]
Godsloft, you are sounding more and more like a gnostic. Gnosticism rejects most scripture and the only thing that gnostics can agree on is that they don't agree.
sojourner
[center]@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@[/center]
[center]$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$[/center]
[quote name='Pamela' date='Dec 8 2006, 10:04 AM' post='94844']
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are an account of the same events...If you would purchase a book entitled "The Harmony of the Gospels" it would help you understand the jounery through the these 4 books.
As WATW has just stated above in her post, it is an account of the events, but told by different people. You won't have an exact match and some details may be left out of some.
[center]&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&[/center]
[center]%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%[/center]
Luke was not an eye witness but writes how those who were eye witnesses wrote it down and delivered them. The Lord did not assemble the canon and Paul tells you to rightly devide the word of truth.
Those who know the Lord, know the things that were spoken by Him. Because His sheep hear His voice.
Those who write books, these days, know how to sell books for ungodly gain.
[/quote]
Godsloft, you are sounding more and more like a gnostic. Gnosticism rejects most scripture and the only thing that gnostics can agree on is that they don't agree.
sojourner
[quote name='Godsloft.com' date='Dec 8 2006, 05:13 AM' post='94774']
[center]**************************************************[/center]
[center]>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/center]
[quote name='sojourner' date='Dec 7 2006, 06:56 AM' post='94646']
Godsloft, I don't know where you are getting your information, but the gospel of Luke was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Which was when? 70 AD. And how do we know this? Because he never mentions it. It's all simple archaeology. He states that he worked and traveled with St Paul, but never mentions the destruction of Jerusalem. This pretty much sets the date for us. It would be quite a stretch to relate someone who lived 100 years later just because he bore the name of [/i]Theophilus[i]. That would be alot like thinking that the patriarch Abraham was president of the United States. [/i]Theophilus[i] was a common name in that period.
Where ever you got this information is practicing sloppy, if not counterfeit scholatics.
sojourner
[center]((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))[/center]
Luke did not mention the destruction of Jerusalem because He was a Christian not a Jew and It was going on a hundred years past. Luke did not say He was an eye witness either. He does not say that the Luke in His writing is he himself. If you want to blind yourself to the actual date setting which is his address to Theophilus then thats up to you. Nothing that you have said is anything new I read it all before many times going on twenty years now. It was seriously wrong then and it is seriously wrong still. The address is to royalty most excellent which is also a Greek title of the era. Good records of everyone bearing the name Theophilus that was anybody were kept and the patriarch of Antioch was the first. So you go ahead and believe what they tell you like a good little brick and I will stick with what the Lord has revealed to me. Luke's copying of the acts of the apostles is in fact a copy of other writings that did not survive through time. The book of Luke is a copy of the book of Mathew with a few more tales of the Greek era thrown in and a few contradictions as well. Not only is it visible in the writing style it is visible in the Spirit rightly dividing the word of truth.
[/quote]
Godsloft, again you are displaying an ignorance in Archeological protocol. There are precious few records of that period inwhich you state "Good records of everyone bearing the name Theophilus that was anybody were kept and the patriarch of Antioch was the first." Perhaps you do not realize the length that Titus went to in the destruction of Jerusalem in 130 ad. Not even a tree was left standing, let alone any records. Nero's persecutions involved the burning and destruction of all that was christian where ever the long arm of Rome extended. The onslaught of the barbarian invasions that eventually brought Rome to it's knees brought the destruction of all churches, universities, libraries or anything that conveyed any sort of sophisticated civilization prior to the dark ages in Europe. Followed by Islams destruction of anything Christian left in the east. Satan did his work well, but he is no match for God. Scripture has survived only by the grace of God. Fault is not in the scriptures but in men's interpretations. If you have been studying for 20 years as you state, then maybe you are knowingly gnostic but have chosen not to reveal this to us here.
sojourner
[center]**************************************************[/center]
[center]>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[/center]
[quote name='sojourner' date='Dec 7 2006, 06:56 AM' post='94646']
Godsloft, I don't know where you are getting your information, but the gospel of Luke was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Which was when? 70 AD. And how do we know this? Because he never mentions it. It's all simple archaeology. He states that he worked and traveled with St Paul, but never mentions the destruction of Jerusalem. This pretty much sets the date for us. It would be quite a stretch to relate someone who lived 100 years later just because he bore the name of [/i]Theophilus[i]. That would be alot like thinking that the patriarch Abraham was president of the United States. [/i]Theophilus[i] was a common name in that period.
Where ever you got this information is practicing sloppy, if not counterfeit scholatics.
sojourner
[center]((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))[/center]
Luke did not mention the destruction of Jerusalem because He was a Christian not a Jew and It was going on a hundred years past. Luke did not say He was an eye witness either. He does not say that the Luke in His writing is he himself. If you want to blind yourself to the actual date setting which is his address to Theophilus then thats up to you. Nothing that you have said is anything new I read it all before many times going on twenty years now. It was seriously wrong then and it is seriously wrong still. The address is to royalty most excellent which is also a Greek title of the era. Good records of everyone bearing the name Theophilus that was anybody were kept and the patriarch of Antioch was the first. So you go ahead and believe what they tell you like a good little brick and I will stick with what the Lord has revealed to me. Luke's copying of the acts of the apostles is in fact a copy of other writings that did not survive through time. The book of Luke is a copy of the book of Mathew with a few more tales of the Greek era thrown in and a few contradictions as well. Not only is it visible in the writing style it is visible in the Spirit rightly dividing the word of truth.
[/quote]
Godsloft, again you are displaying an ignorance in Archeological protocol. There are precious few records of that period inwhich you state "Good records of everyone bearing the name Theophilus that was anybody were kept and the patriarch of Antioch was the first." Perhaps you do not realize the length that Titus went to in the destruction of Jerusalem in 130 ad. Not even a tree was left standing, let alone any records. Nero's persecutions involved the burning and destruction of all that was christian where ever the long arm of Rome extended. The onslaught of the barbarian invasions that eventually brought Rome to it's knees brought the destruction of all churches, universities, libraries or anything that conveyed any sort of sophisticated civilization prior to the dark ages in Europe. Followed by Islams destruction of anything Christian left in the east. Satan did his work well, but he is no match for God. Scripture has survived only by the grace of God. Fault is not in the scriptures but in men's interpretations. If you have been studying for 20 years as you state, then maybe you are knowingly gnostic but have chosen not to reveal this to us here.
sojourner
[quote name='Godsloft.com' date='Dec 9 2006, 08:02 PM' post='94990']
[quote name='AngelaNPraise' date='Dec 8 2006, 02:12 PM' post='94870']
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all being quoted from, and having their manuscripts copied, by the end of the first century. BTW, there was a manuscript of Matthew that was dated to 60 A.D.! There have been over 24,500 manuscripts found in total of Paul's letters and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which are essentially the same, barring slight spelling differences, from prior to the second century. It's downright amazing, and a testament to Our Lord, that so many have survived.
Your sister in Christ, Angela
[/quote]
These are the oldest manuscripts known to those who actually go out to see them. There are many liars on the Net that have bammboosled you.
Papyrus 46 or P46
The oldest manuscript of the letters of Paul usually is referred to as papyrus 46, abbreviated P46. Judging from the handwriting used in this manuscript, it is dated around the year 200 and was produced in Egypt. The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor acquired parts of this manuscript, but most pages belong to the Chester Beatty collection in Dublin, Ireland.
[/quote]
Unfortunately for you, I was not bamboozald by anything on the net concerning this, as I get most of my knowledge from hard copy or other media. The manuscript of Matthew to which I was refering was dated to 60 A.D. and was NOT printed on papyrus, it was on vellum. I've learned to view with scepticism the word of anyone who is is so quick to claim that someone who doesn't automatically agree with them has been 'lied' to, especially when they don't know the source of the information. The truth will stand up to any gnostic claims.
In Christ, Angela
[quote name='AngelaNPraise' date='Dec 8 2006, 02:12 PM' post='94870']
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all being quoted from, and having their manuscripts copied, by the end of the first century. BTW, there was a manuscript of Matthew that was dated to 60 A.D.! There have been over 24,500 manuscripts found in total of Paul's letters and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which are essentially the same, barring slight spelling differences, from prior to the second century. It's downright amazing, and a testament to Our Lord, that so many have survived.
Your sister in Christ, Angela
[/quote]
These are the oldest manuscripts known to those who actually go out to see them. There are many liars on the Net that have bammboosled you.
Papyrus 46 or P46
The oldest manuscript of the letters of Paul usually is referred to as papyrus 46, abbreviated P46. Judging from the handwriting used in this manuscript, it is dated around the year 200 and was produced in Egypt. The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor acquired parts of this manuscript, but most pages belong to the Chester Beatty collection in Dublin, Ireland.
[/quote]
Unfortunately for you, I was not bamboozald by anything on the net concerning this, as I get most of my knowledge from hard copy or other media. The manuscript of Matthew to which I was refering was dated to 60 A.D. and was NOT printed on papyrus, it was on vellum. I've learned to view with scepticism the word of anyone who is is so quick to claim that someone who doesn't automatically agree with them has been 'lied' to, especially when they don't know the source of the information. The truth will stand up to any gnostic claims.
In Christ, Angela
[quote name='sojourner' date='Dec 10 2006, 08:44 AM' post='95015']
[quote name='Godsloft.com' date='Dec 8 2006, 02:26 PM' post='94850']
[center]@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@[/center]
[center]$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$[/center]
[quote name='Pamela' date='Dec 8 2006, 10:04 AM' post='94844']
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are an account of the same events...If you would purchase a book entitled "The Harmony of the Gospels" it would help you understand the jounery through the these 4 books.
As WATW has just stated above in her post, it is an account of the events, but told by different people. You won't have an exact match and some details may be left out of some.
[center]&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&[/center]
[center]%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%[/center]
Luke was not an eye witness but writes how those who were eye witnesses wrote it down and delivered them. The Lord did not assemble the canon and Paul tells you to rightly devide the word of truth.
Those who know the Lord, know the things that were spoken by Him. Because His sheep hear His voice.
Those who write books, these days, know how to sell books for ungodly gain.
[/quote]
Godsloft, you are sounding more and more like a gnostic. Gnosticism rejects most scripture and the only thing that gnostics can agree on is that they don't agree.
sojourner
[/quote]
Sojourner I am only quoting here, because I didn't want to quote the same thing twice...I happen to agree with what you have said...
I am addressing Godsloft here: I for one can agree that books are sold for ungodly gain...I for one am also a forerunner to read and seek knowledge from the bible itself than turn to the books about the bible written by men who are using "THEIR" knowledge, belief or revealed things to sell it for their profit.
BUT there is a difference when it comes to bringing something into a unity, which the Harmony of the Gospels do. It can been seen even by a babe that the gospels are accounts of the same events. Some things are left out and some things are added, making it vary from each book. When you run the events in order and take the accounts from each book, it brings a new understanding to a lot of issues in those 4 books...In other words, it closes the gaps...
The Harmony of the Gospels can no where be compared to say a book by Joyce Meyers, John Hagee, Creflo Dollar, Tim LaHaye....It is a totally different avenue all together...
[quote name='Godsloft.com' date='Dec 8 2006, 02:26 PM' post='94850']
[center]@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@[/center]
[center]$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$[/center]
[quote name='Pamela' date='Dec 8 2006, 10:04 AM' post='94844']
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are an account of the same events...If you would purchase a book entitled "The Harmony of the Gospels" it would help you understand the jounery through the these 4 books.
As WATW has just stated above in her post, it is an account of the events, but told by different people. You won't have an exact match and some details may be left out of some.
[center]&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&[/center]
[center]%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%[/center]
Luke was not an eye witness but writes how those who were eye witnesses wrote it down and delivered them. The Lord did not assemble the canon and Paul tells you to rightly devide the word of truth.
Those who know the Lord, know the things that were spoken by Him. Because His sheep hear His voice.
Those who write books, these days, know how to sell books for ungodly gain.
[/quote]
Godsloft, you are sounding more and more like a gnostic. Gnosticism rejects most scripture and the only thing that gnostics can agree on is that they don't agree.
sojourner
[/quote]
Sojourner I am only quoting here, because I didn't want to quote the same thing twice...I happen to agree with what you have said...
I am addressing Godsloft here: I for one can agree that books are sold for ungodly gain...I for one am also a forerunner to read and seek knowledge from the bible itself than turn to the books about the bible written by men who are using "THEIR" knowledge, belief or revealed things to sell it for their profit.
BUT there is a difference when it comes to bringing something into a unity, which the Harmony of the Gospels do. It can been seen even by a babe that the gospels are accounts of the same events. Some things are left out and some things are added, making it vary from each book. When you run the events in order and take the accounts from each book, it brings a new understanding to a lot of issues in those 4 books...In other words, it closes the gaps...
The Harmony of the Gospels can no where be compared to say a book by Joyce Meyers, John Hagee, Creflo Dollar, Tim LaHaye....It is a totally different avenue all together...
[center]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/center]
[center]0000000000000000000000000[/center]
[center]_______________________________________________________________[/center]
Godsloft, again you are displaying an ignorance in Archeological protocol. There are precious few records of that period inwhich you state "Good records of everyone bearing the name Theophilus that was anybody were kept and the patriarch of Antioch was the first." Perhaps you do not realize the length that Titus went to in the destruction of Jerusalem in 130 ad.
[center]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/center]
[center]0000000000000000000000000[/center]
[center]_______________________________________________________________[/center]
I apologize for the "the patriarch of Antioch was the first" statement. I got to thinking about it and there was a Greek ruler theophilis in about 85 BC.
Since when has the Spirit cared about any of mans protocols?
What does a Greek name have to do with records kept in Jerusalem and the destruction of Jerusalem?
[center]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/center]
[center]0000000000000000000000000[/center]
[center]_______________________________________________________________[/center]
Sojourner I am only quoting here, because I didn't want to quote the same thing twice...I happen to agree with what you have said...
I am addressing Godsloft here: I for one can agree that books are sold for ungodly gain...I for one am also a forerunner to read and seek knowledge from the bible itself than turn to the books about the bible written by men who are using "THEIR" knowledge, belief or revealed things to sell it for their profit.
BUT there is a difference when it comes to bringing something into a unity, which the Harmony of the Gospels do. It can been seen even by a babe that the gospels are accounts of the same events. Some things are left out and some things are added, making it vary from each book. When you run the events in order and take the accounts from each book, it brings a new understanding to a lot of issues in those 4 books...In other words, it closes the gaps...
The Harmony of the Gospels can no where be compared to say a book by Joyce Meyers, John Hagee, Creflo Dollar, Tim LaHaye....It is a totally different avenue all together...
[center]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/center]
[center]0000000000000000000000000[/center]
[center]_______________________________________________________________[/center]
There is no Harmony of the Gospels.
Among the twelve that Christ chose, one was a devil. The Lord himself chose one devil to secure His place on the cross. Christ also spoke to them in parables so that seeing they would not perceive and hearing they would not understand. Securing the place that says not all are fit for the kingdom of God.
You can not reconcile the discrepancies between gospels unless you are debased in other scriptures and only then by not believing the written gospels of those who walked with Christ. We know that Matthew and John were Apostles. So in rightly dividing the word of truth I would believe Matthew and Johns account over any other.
The only perfection on the face of the earth today is in the heavens that surround us where clouds and tempest form. The Bible is not the undefiled word of God. Anything that man has his hands in, gets distorted and corrupted.
Which incidentally I would like to apologize again for the statement that "the patriarch of Antioch was the first Theophilis. There was a Greek ruler Theophilis in 85 BC.
[center]0000000000000000000000000[/center]
[center]_______________________________________________________________[/center]
Godsloft, again you are displaying an ignorance in Archeological protocol. There are precious few records of that period inwhich you state "Good records of everyone bearing the name Theophilus that was anybody were kept and the patriarch of Antioch was the first." Perhaps you do not realize the length that Titus went to in the destruction of Jerusalem in 130 ad.
[center]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/center]
[center]0000000000000000000000000[/center]
[center]_______________________________________________________________[/center]
I apologize for the "the patriarch of Antioch was the first" statement. I got to thinking about it and there was a Greek ruler theophilis in about 85 BC.
Since when has the Spirit cared about any of mans protocols?
What does a Greek name have to do with records kept in Jerusalem and the destruction of Jerusalem?
[center]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/center]
[center]0000000000000000000000000[/center]
[center]_______________________________________________________________[/center]
Sojourner I am only quoting here, because I didn't want to quote the same thing twice...I happen to agree with what you have said...
I am addressing Godsloft here: I for one can agree that books are sold for ungodly gain...I for one am also a forerunner to read and seek knowledge from the bible itself than turn to the books about the bible written by men who are using "THEIR" knowledge, belief or revealed things to sell it for their profit.
BUT there is a difference when it comes to bringing something into a unity, which the Harmony of the Gospels do. It can been seen even by a babe that the gospels are accounts of the same events. Some things are left out and some things are added, making it vary from each book. When you run the events in order and take the accounts from each book, it brings a new understanding to a lot of issues in those 4 books...In other words, it closes the gaps...
The Harmony of the Gospels can no where be compared to say a book by Joyce Meyers, John Hagee, Creflo Dollar, Tim LaHaye....It is a totally different avenue all together...
[center]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/center]
[center]0000000000000000000000000[/center]
[center]_______________________________________________________________[/center]
There is no Harmony of the Gospels.
Among the twelve that Christ chose, one was a devil. The Lord himself chose one devil to secure His place on the cross. Christ also spoke to them in parables so that seeing they would not perceive and hearing they would not understand. Securing the place that says not all are fit for the kingdom of God.
You can not reconcile the discrepancies between gospels unless you are debased in other scriptures and only then by not believing the written gospels of those who walked with Christ. We know that Matthew and John were Apostles. So in rightly dividing the word of truth I would believe Matthew and Johns account over any other.
The only perfection on the face of the earth today is in the heavens that surround us where clouds and tempest form. The Bible is not the undefiled word of God. Anything that man has his hands in, gets distorted and corrupted.
Which incidentally I would like to apologize again for the statement that "the patriarch of Antioch was the first Theophilis. There was a Greek ruler Theophilis in 85 BC.
Yep, godsloft, you're a gnostic whether you know it or not. The church has done battle with your predecessors for nearly 2 milleniums. The Bible was compiled as a rigid testamony of facts regarding the basis of the Christian faith to protect us from gnostic ideas. I suggest you read Deborah's thread on gnostism.
sojourner
sojourner
I find it interesting, Godsloft, that you say there is no harmony in the Gospels... but then read your signature "believe the Gospel."
Do you not believe that God can keep His Word?
And I'm gonna repeat what Miki said earlier... you really need to change your avatar. It looks satanic... not godly. We are supposed to be as innocent as doves.
Do you not believe that God can keep His Word?
And I'm gonna repeat what Miki said earlier... you really need to change your avatar. It looks satanic... not godly. We are supposed to be as innocent as doves.
LOL
What do you people think about?
His avitar looks like he just stepped in dog doo doo and smells something fishy. Look at that expression.
If you want a real gnostic, go to your doctor. He'll give you a healthy dose of gnosticism. LOL
Bananna
What do you people think about?
His avitar looks like he just stepped in dog doo doo and smells something fishy. Look at that expression.
If you want a real gnostic, go to your doctor. He'll give you a healthy dose of gnosticism. LOL
Bananna
Very interesting. I have enjoyed reading each of these posts. I must come to the defense of Godsloft because I think labels do not do anyone justice. A label is too restrictive and can never encompass the complexity of a human. At the same time there are some flaws in his research. Godsloft said:
[i]"I will tell you the truth about this but I will guarantee you that you don't want to hear it. Before someone comes back at me with what the experts say. I have already read all of their lies and I don't want to hear them again. So without further a due here is the truth. Luke's Gospel was written in around 169 to 182 AD. Luke's gospel was written to the patriarch of Antioch, Theophilus who ruled in 169 to 182 AD. If this Luke is the same Luke that walked with Paul he would have been around 120 to 130 years old when He wrote the Gospel down for Theophilus the patriarch of Antioch if he was a young boy when he walked with Paul. Paul died in 67 to 71 AD. You do the math."[/i]
However, Justin Martyr who lived from 100AD to 165AD quotes the gospel of Luke in his book "Apology." The "Apology" was written somewhere between 153 and 155. Here is where he quote Luke:
[i]"For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do in remembrance of Me, (Luke 22:19) this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone."[/i]
Of course the original did not have the part in parentheses since that connotation was not added to scripture until much later in history I think the 11th century but I could be wrong on that.
Point being that if He quoted Luke in 155 then it must have been written before that time and he also mentions that they were called the Gospels and that they were the memoirs of the Apostles. Of course Luke being the follower of Paul he recorded the memoirs of Paul.
I think the more important question that I haven't seen addressed is: If the New Testament is as God wanted it, which is what most Christians believe, then what message was God giving us by the apparent discrepancies?
[i]"I will tell you the truth about this but I will guarantee you that you don't want to hear it. Before someone comes back at me with what the experts say. I have already read all of their lies and I don't want to hear them again. So without further a due here is the truth. Luke's Gospel was written in around 169 to 182 AD. Luke's gospel was written to the patriarch of Antioch, Theophilus who ruled in 169 to 182 AD. If this Luke is the same Luke that walked with Paul he would have been around 120 to 130 years old when He wrote the Gospel down for Theophilus the patriarch of Antioch if he was a young boy when he walked with Paul. Paul died in 67 to 71 AD. You do the math."[/i]
However, Justin Martyr who lived from 100AD to 165AD quotes the gospel of Luke in his book "Apology." The "Apology" was written somewhere between 153 and 155. Here is where he quote Luke:
[i]"For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do in remembrance of Me, (Luke 22:19) this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone."[/i]
Of course the original did not have the part in parentheses since that connotation was not added to scripture until much later in history I think the 11th century but I could be wrong on that.
Point being that if He quoted Luke in 155 then it must have been written before that time and he also mentions that they were called the Gospels and that they were the memoirs of the Apostles. Of course Luke being the follower of Paul he recorded the memoirs of Paul.
I think the more important question that I haven't seen addressed is: If the New Testament is as God wanted it, which is what most Christians believe, then what message was God giving us by the apparent discrepancies?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.