"The bible test" Answered.

[xpastor]

Your arrogance is exactly what I don't appreciate. You [Drich] claimed that 2/3rds of the Bible (NT) is written by Paul, I disproved u, and yet you didn't even apologize for the mistake nor admit that you were mistaken. And that fact has nothing to do with faith.

Very true. I also noted that even as Drich was whinging about your "correcting a brother in the faith publicly," he was doing exactly the same thing himself with his contemptuous questioning if you had ever read Romans.

Drich brings nothing to a discussion but an arrogant display of his own ignorance, which is why I have decided to stop responding to him.

At least from my perspective I don't have to worry that he will go to hell for his sins.

[Drich]

Your arrogance is exactly what I don't appreciate. You claimed that 2/3rds of the Bible (NT) is written by Paul, I disproved u, and yet you didn't even apologize for the mistake nor admit that you were mistaken. And that fact has nothing to do with faith.

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.

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.

That said, You made a hypocritical statement I will not be able to let you get away with.

If you remember this whole arguement started because you made the claim that the bible states we are to bind ourselves to the Law. Or rather it is possiable to uphold the 'NT law.'

I Dis PROVED that claim by leaving the romans 7 passage. That says we have no hope in trying to keep the law as we are slaves to sin.

Now according to the 'christian' standard of behavior you were trying to hold me to (concerning arrogance), at this point where I literally disproved you/your belief of up holding the law(Because I provided proof) You should have appologized. Yet you choose try and find a technicality to dismiss me on. That is why you spoke to the volume of Luke's works. So that you could find a 'moral reason' to outright ignore what i have said here..

The only thing... You had to first do, what you are condemning me for doing, even though you failed to disprove anything.

As for correcting "brothers" in the faith, let me say this - it's the same thing I say to JW's that knock on my door. If you can prove to me that your quirky nonsense makes sense, then by all means prove it. Prove, for instance, that I should believe the Vulgate is holy inspired scripture?

Who said anything about the vulgate? What I said about "Concerning Brothers in the faith" has absolutly nothing to do with this. I was referencing what Christ said in Mat 18 starting at 15.

Most of all prove to me that the Bible says to confess your sins to a priest 1. and 2. that oil and water achieve magical properties when blessed by a Catholic bishop - prove it.

What makes you think I am catholic, or believe any of these things myself?

---

Very true. I also noted that even as Drich was whinging about your "correcting a brother in the faith publicly," he was doing exactly the same thing himself with his contemptuous questioning if you had ever read Romans.

The following correction is another example of why you do not respond to me anymore.

Mat 18 Chirst says if a brother wrongs you goto Him privatly and tell Him of this transgression, and then He escalates if the brother will not listen.

The bit in romans I left Him was not an example of Arackus doing anything wrong. The passage in Romans was left to correct his theology concerning sin and the law.

Like wise the bit explaining to him the difference between the act of disproving and disagreeing was not an example of me being wronged.

But, for him to say he feels I did not acknoweledge my mistake when he thought he 'proved' me wrong is.

[Aractus]

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.

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.

That's bullshit.

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.

[Ksa]

Brother Drich, are you circumcised?

[Drich]

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.

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.

That's bullshit.

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.

Sorry sport I am not In The habit of guessing or making stuff up.
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.

---

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.)

[Aractus]

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.

Yes, Luke could have written some of Paul's epistles - so what?

You're making it up as you go along. I never disagreed that they knew each other, this is established, however you need to contend with the hard fact that we don't have conclusive proof that Luke-Acts is written by Luke, all we know for certain is that it's written by the same author. You also need to contend with the fact that of course Luke knew other Apostles - he writes to Theophilus doesn't he?

[Drich]

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.

Yes, Luke could have written some of Paul's epistles - so what?

You're making it up as you go along. I never disagreed that they knew each other, this is established, however you need to contend with the hard fact that we don't have conclusive proof that Luke-Acts is written by Luke, all we know for certain is that it's written by the same author. You also need to contend with the fact that of course Luke knew other Apostles - he writes to Theophilus doesn't he?

Wasn't luke your pony? Didn't you bring him in to discredit my claim that Paul was responsiable for 2/3's of the works in the NT, and now your saying that luke was not the author?

So which is it? Are you using Luke to discredit my claim or are you saying luke was not the Author of the book of Luke?

[Ksa]

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)

Jesus Christ was circumcised when he was 8 days old. Why do you not follow Jesus Christ?

If God gets circumcised, it's the first thing I would do to myself if I really believed.

Wait so, in the Bible it says God said, let there be light. Did he utter the words with his mouth?

[Lemonvariable72]

Okay drich, the NT has 27 books over 358 pages
Now traditionally we attribute 14 books to paul (a few are disputed), and those books cover 112 pages

SO if you go by number of books, you get about half written by paul. If you go by number of pages you get roughly one third

[Drich]

Okay drich, the NT has 27 books over 358 pages
Now traditionally we attribute 14 books to paul (a few are disputed), and those books cover 112 pages

SO if you go by number of books, you get about half written by paul. If you go by number of pages you get roughly one third

So, again. Luke was Paul's disciple/personal scribe (the guy who did Paul's writting.) In exchange Luke learned everything he knew about Christ/The church from Paul. So one can attribute the writtings of Luke to... PAUL! Adding Luke's acredited works to Paul takes NT content well into the 2/3's range.