RE: "The bible test" Answered.
December 14, 2013 at 2:22 am
(This post was last modified: December 14, 2013 at 2:38 am by Drich.)
(December 14, 2013 at 12:11 am)Aractus Wrote:Sorry sport I am not In The habit of guessing or making stuff up.(December 13, 2013 at 10:27 am)Drich Wrote: No you did not disprove anything you made a counter claim, that's it. To dis-PROVE is to provide evidence to the contary. Because you left no evidence, and only made the counter claim stating luke's work in his two book 'volume wise' exceeded or matched paul's work, means nothing.That's bullshit.
Paul did write 2/3's of the total books of the NT. Or perhaps I should have said Paul is responsiable for 2/3's of the books in the NT. Their are 27 books in the NT, 13 of which he was directly credited to him. (by his own hand or scribe) The writtings of Luke can also be ascribed to Paul because Luke was Paul's desciple. Luke did not experience what He recorded in His Gospel, he got his gospel from his mentor and those Paul worked with. It is also unclear whether or not He was present at the establishment of the Chuirch (the first part of Acts.)
Eitherway without Paul 2/3's of the NT as we know it would be different or just missing.
You're making it up as you go along. Luke's writings are not based on Paul's, they write independent to each other. Furthermore, Luke also probably knew St. Peter, if true then it disproves the theory that Peter died in the 60's AD around the same time as Paul, and wold mean that Peter would have met his death no later than c.55 AD.
But you know, even if he didn't know Peter, he knew other early church figures and he himself was present at the events he describes from Acts 12 on. That means he's recording his own experiences from there on, and doesn't need to rely on anybody else.
The Gospel of Luke is based on Mark and the gospel of Matthew and at least one other written source. Or it is based on Mark and a Q document, either way he uses the writings of Mark extensively and this has nothing to do with Paul. He addresses his books to Theophilus, who has no connection that we know about to Paul.
I'll post back later and disprove what you claim about works/Paul.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_Evangelist
http://catholicism.about.com/od/evangeli...t-Luke.htm
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...Saint-Luke
http://www.novareinna.com/festive/luke.html
http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/jek/10/18.html
Do you want some more? Or do these references prove that Luke was not only a disciple of Paul, but luke was not known to consort with any of the other apstoles other than Paul. Luke was one of Paul's scribes Mean quite possibly Luke's Gospel was dictated by Paul or at the very least derived from the teachings of Paul. And conversely some of the letters paul was known for could have been penned down by Luke's hand.
Not looking to be a jerk, and know I am happen for the oppertunity to share Luke's back ground with a brother who appearently did not know, but if our roles were reversed honestly ask yourself how much crow would you have me eat for making a fatal error in basic church history like the one you made here? Look at the anger and resentment in your post. For what? Me challenging what you believe with the full context of Romans 7? Is this really where you are spiritually? Is this where you want to be? If you got a problem with what Paul wrote take it to God. I can't change any of this for you. All I can do is show you the truth of scripture, and show you where your 'truth' differs. Which is all I've done. This is not pride or arrogance. This is me defending my work here. This is me being responsible to what God has given me.
In the future, if you do not want me weighing your truth against the truth God gives us in the bible, then simply do not challenge what I say with your truth. Because when you do, your religious status will not be considered in how I examine what you have said. All that will matter is the content, context and the way you present it. Just like everyone else. I expect no quarter from my 'brothers' on this website when I go out of my way to argue with them (that is why I never start or rarely read what you all say) and none shall be given in return. We all have a responsiablity to what we have been given over to understand. It is complete foolishness to think we all should think believe the exact same thing. Remember we are of the same body but repersent different parts.
(December 14, 2013 at 12:16 am)Ksa Wrote: Brother Drich, are you circumcised?
What happened to pretending to be a biblical scholar? Did someone tell you I am making you look like fool, and all you have left are questions about my penis?
Sorry sport, Mrs Drich gets to know if Mr. pee pee sports a picklehaube (it's a German word, look it up for the punch line)
(I thought I might need to explain all of this because western culture/English does not seem to be your strong suit.)