The Mark of the Beast

[twb1621]

**Myself, with contempt for the Gentiles? I don’t think so. How could I have contempt for the Gentiles if I am ready to walk miles to bring the Truth to the Gentiles? Jesus was the one with contempt for the Gentiles. Read Matthew 10:4,5. Every time he would send his disciples on a mission to spread the news of the Kingdom of God, he would warn them to go to the Gentiles. That’s contempt for the Gentiles. **

And to answer your question about Jesus being preached as Christ, the idea started with Paul in Antioch, about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. (Acts 11:26) So, all that time, even his Apostles did not know anything about such an idea.

Ben, You have some of the fruitiest ideas I have ever come across when it comes to scripture and the teachings of Christianity and its history. Regardless of what you may know or not know, your knowledge of Christianity is fictional. Your problem is you have come to this forum to convert Christians to your beliefs with no understanding of our beliefs or the Gospel. If you want to criticize our beliefs, the least you could do is learn the truth about what you are criticizing but you refuse to do that because you are a Jew and Jews don’t come to Christians to learn, or at least that is what you said.

If you are referring to Paul in Antioch and the first time the followers of Jesus were referred to as “Christians” , that is when they were first called Christians by the Pagans, not when the followers first recognized Jesus as the Christ.

By the way, I told you of the fact that Jesus first concentrated on the Jews in a previous thread so what is your problem with Mathew CH10; 4-5. Nice try at distorting the word but It doesn’t express contempt, it does express the initial design to save the chosen people of Israel. Why would that be a shock to anyone?

You didn’t respond to 960, if you would please…

 

[Ben_Masada]

Which idea? Jesus as the Christ or that Jesus’ teachings must be preached to all?
It is unfortunate you did not yet tell us which 20 % of the NT you believe to be true, otherwise I would refer you to Metthew 16:17 where Jesus is identified as the Christ, and Matthew 28:19 where we find an explicit command to preach Jesus as the Christ - that was way before Paul coverted.

placido

Placido, it’s your right to do whatever you want as long as you can explain the contradictions. If Jesus was known to be preached as Christ, why were not the disciples called Christians? Why would the writer of Acts need to say that the disciples were called Christians for the first time in Antioch, because Paul had spent a whole year there preaching about Jesus as Christ? Obviously, Paul was the one who started the whole Christology of Jesus. Otherwise, we are dealing with contradictions. And contradictions is the number one cause of lack of credibility.

 

[Ben_Masada]

**Galatians 4:21-31 **21 14 "Tell me, you who want to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the freeborn woman. 23 The son of the slave woman was born naturally, the son of the freeborn through a promise. 24 Now this is an allegory. These women represent two covenants. One was from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar. 25 Hagar represents Sinai, 15 a mountain in Arabia; it corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery along with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is freeborn, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written: “Rejoice, you barren one who bore no children; break forth and shout, you who were not in labor; for more numerous are the children of the deserted one than of her who has a husband.” 16 28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of the promise. 29 But just as then the child of the flesh persecuted the child of the spirit, it is the same now. 30 But what does the scripture say? “Drive out the slave woman and her son! For the son of the slave woman shall not share the inheritance with the son” of the freeborn. 31 Therefore, brothers, we are children not of the slave woman but of the freeborn woman.”

Historic Biblical Interpretation [21-31] Paul supports his appeal for the gospel (⇒ Gal 4:9; ⇒ 1:6-9; ⇒ 2:16; ⇒ 3:2) by a further argument from scripture (cf ⇒ Gal 3:6-18). It involves the relationship of Abraham (⇒ Gal 3:6-16) to his wife, Sarah, the freeborn woman, and to Hagar, the slave woman, and the contrast between the sons born to each, Isaac, child of promise, and Ishmael, son of Hagar (Genesis 16; 21). Only through Isaac is the promise of God preserved. This allegory (⇒ Gal 4:24), with its equation of the Sinai covenant and Mosaic law with slavery and of the promise of God with freedom, Paul uses only in light of previous arguments. His quotation of ⇒ Genesis 21:10 at ⇒ Gal 4:30 suggests on a scriptural basis that the Galatians should expel those who are troubling them (⇒ Gal 1:7).

Ok, so here it is. Now could you elaborate somewhat on what you are claiming here and to what you are arguing against specifically? No offenses but you do not have the most accurate track record for interpreting the gospel.

**The historical interpretation you present to explain the Pauline allegory on freedom in Galatians 4:21-31 only confirms my views about the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. And when you say that I do not interpret the gospels with accuracy, also, no offense meant, but I just can’t see any accuracy at all in your interpretation of the same gospels.

In the allegory of the bondwoman Hagar and the freewoman Sarah, Paul is very clear to compare Hagar to Mount Sinai as he refers to the Sinaitic Covenant and to compare her son to Israel. And then, as he compares free Jerusalem to Christianity and Isaac her son to Christians. And in the last verse 31, he warns Christians to get rid of both the Law and the People. That’s Replacement Theology. There is no other way to interpret that allegory, because he is too clear about what he means.

The introductory question, "Do you want to be under the Law? was made because the Galatians whom Paul was arguing with, used to belong to the Nazarene Synagogue of Galatia, which Paul did what he had done in Antioch, and overturned it into a Christian church. You know, like the cuckcoo bird that lays its egg in the nest of other birds to rob the little ones from the care of their real parents.

So, from Judea, some of the Nazarenes had been sent to salvage their Galatian Synagogue, and in fact many of the Galatians were returning to the Nazarenes. Then, Paul got so upset that he would wonder why so many and so fast were ready to return to “the other gospel” as he used to refer to the gospel of the Apostles. Moreover, he lost his patience and said that even if an angel came down from Heaven with a gospel different from his, it should be cursed. (Gal. 1:6-10) That’s the background to Galatian 4:21-31. And that’s how the NT must be interpreted: By letting one scripture interpret another. **

 

[placido]

Placido, it’s your right to do whatever you want as long as you can explain the contradictions. If Jesus was known to be preached as Christ, why were not the disciples called Christians? Why would the writer of Acts need to say that the disciples were called Christians for the first time in Antioch, because Paul had spent a whole year there preaching about Jesus as Christ? Obviously, Paul was the one who started the whole Christology of Jesus. Otherwise, we are dealing with contradictions. And contradictions is the number one cause of lack of credibility.

I was named placido on January 13, 1963, but I was born October 20, 1962. Did I axist before I was named placido? Of course I did.
Your argument is like me arguing that the geographic area now known as the USA did not exist before it was named the USA.
It is a pity, indeed, to see you confusing the date of naming with the date something came into existence.

placido

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, You have some of the fruitiest ideas I have ever come across when it comes to scripture and the teachings of Christianity and its history. Regardless of what you may know or not know, your knowledge of Christianity is fictional. Your problem is you have come to this forum to convert Christians to your beliefs with no understanding of our beliefs or the Gospel. If you want to criticize our beliefs, the least you could do is learn the truth about what you are criticizing but you refuse to do that because you are a Jew and Jews don’t come to Christians to learn, or at least that is what you said.

If you are referring to Paul in Antioch and the first time the followers of Jesus were referred to as “Christians” , that is when they were first called Christians by the Pagans, not when the followers first recognized Jesus as the Christ.

By the way, I told you of the fact that Jesus first concentrated on the Jews in a previous thread so what is your problem with Mathew CH10; 4-5. Nice try at distorting the word but It doesn’t express contempt, it does express the initial design to save the chosen people of Israel. Why would that be a shock to anyone?

You didn’t respond to 960, if you would please…

**Do you have the truth to teach me? Whatever you say is contradicted by other parts of your own NT. Whenever I point to the problem, you get upset that I have no knowledge of the Christian history or scripture. Can you tell me what the real knowledge is without contradicting yourself? Try it for a change.

For example you tell me that the disciples were called Christians for the first time because they were called so by pagans. Can you prove it? Can you show me a quotation or an evidence for what you say? You cannot. Do you know why? Because there isn’t any.

You can’t even imagine how proud Paul and his disciples must have felt to be called Christians. Besides, the writer of Acts is the one who says that the disciples were called Christians. What’s the difficulty to understand this? Are you perhaps afraid that if you acknowledge this truth, you will be admitting that indeed Paul was the one who fabricated the idea that Jesus was Christ? What’s wrong with giving the credit to whom the credit is due? It’s just ethical to do so.**

 

[placido]

**Do you have the truth to teach me? Whatever you say is contradicted by other parts of your own NT. Whenever I point to the problem, you get upset that I have no knowledge of the Christian history or scripture. Can you tell me what the real knowledge is without contradicting yourself? Try it for a change.

For example you tell me that the disciples were called Christians for the first time because they were called so by pagans. Can you prove it? Can you show me a quotation or an evidence for what you say? You cannot. Do you know why? Because there isn’t any.

You can’t even imagine how proud Paul and his disciples must have felt to be called Christians. Besides, the writer of Acts is the one who says that the disciples were called Christians. What’s the difficulty to understand this? Are you perhaps afraid that if you acknowledge this truth, you will be admitting that indeed Paul was the one who fabricated the idea that Jesus was Christ? What’s wrong with giving the credit to whom the credit is due? It’s just ethical to do so.**

You are tempting me to suspect dishonesty on your part. In Matthew 16:17 Jesus is identified as the Christ (not by Paul), yet you persist in saying it was Paul who fabricated the idea that Jesus was the Christ.
Are for real?

placido

 

[Ben_Masada]

I was named placido on January 13, 1963, but I was born October 20, 1962. Did I axist before I was named placido? Of course I did.
Your argument is like me arguing that the geographic area now known as the USA did not exist before it was named the USA.
It is a pity, indeed, to see you confusing the date of naming with the date something came into existence.

placido

**Thank you for pitying my alleged confusion but your analalogy does not pay the bill here. You were not Placido for a whole year before you were named, but you had no other name. You became Placido because that’s what your parents wanted you to become.

Before Barnabas went toTarsus to look for Paul and invite him to help with the work in Antioch, the disciples were not called Christians but Nazarenes. Paul accepted the invitation and within exactly a whole year, those Nazarenes started being called Christians. There was a reason why. Because Paul spent a whole year preaching about Jesus as Christ. So, the use for your analogy is lost. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

You are tempting me to suspect dishonesty on your part. In Matthew 16:17 Jesus is identified as the Christ (not by Paul), yet you persist in saying it was Paul who fabricated the idea that Jesus was the Christ.
Are for real?

placido

Sorry Placido, but I think you are the one not for real. When the guy who wrote Matthew 16:17 in the year 85 CE, Paul had already more than 20 years of seniority in his work of preaching about Jesus as Christ or Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. Therefore, Matthew 16:17 cannot be claimed to be accurate, especially because he had been a former disciple of Paul. So, it was only natural to put down what Paul had taught him, considering that of Jesus, he knew only from hearsay.

 

[twb1621]

**Do you have the truth to teach me? Whatever you say is contradicted by other parts of your own NT. Whenever I point to the problem, you get upset that I have no knowledge of the Christian history or scripture. Can you tell me what the real knowledge is without contradicting yourself? Try it for a change. **

**I’m not upset, Ben. It is a fact that you can’t discuss something with someone who makes things up as they go along as you do. The only problem you have is you do not know or understand a single thing in Gospel and adlib as you go along. Show me where I contradicted myself or find something else ro claim. **

**For example you tell me that the disciples were called Christians for the first time because they were called so by pagans. Can you prove it? Can you show me a quotation or an evidence for what you say? You cannot. Do you know why? Because there isn’t any. **

**No, not BECAUSE they were called it by Pagans, they were called it because they followed the teachings of Christ. **
Again I prove you a fraud as another described you. You have no idea what you are talking about…

ACTS CH 11; 26 and when he had found him he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a large number of people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians. 5
[26] Christians: “Christians” is first applied to the members of the community at Antioch because the Gentile members of the community enable it to stand out clearly from Judaism.

You can’t even imagine how proud Paul and his disciples must have felt to be called Christians. Besides, the writer of Acts is the one who says that the disciples were called Christians. What’s the difficulty to understand this? Are you perhaps afraid that if you acknowledge this truth, you will be admitting that indeed Paul was the one who fabricated the idea that Jesus was Christ? What’s wrong with giving the credit to whom the credit is due? It’s just ethical to do so.

Hey Ben, look at what other Jews have to say about you and others who speak fraudulently regarding Paul and Jesus as you do. Its actually a known scam;

Paul has been accused of intentionally distorting the teachings of Jesus in order to make Christianity more appealing to the gentiles. What information exists to prove or disprove this theory?
It seems fair to presume that one cannot claim Jesus’ teachings were distorted without first knowing what Jesus taught. Do those who claim distortion demonstrate knowledge of Jesus’ teachings? People who accuse Paul of creating a new religion usually say that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah, nor did he claim to be the son of God. Many repeat that allegation without ever having read Jesus’ teachings. One need only read the first four books of the New Testament (not written by Paul) to see the invalidity of this objection.

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/paul/blamepaul

I think I am about done with you Ben, you are here to entertain yourself through ignorance and lack of knowledge and there are others who are honestly wishing to discuss issues here. Come back when you have something honest to offer. I’ll pray for you…

 

[adrift]

Sorry Placido, but I think you are the one not for real. When the guy who wrote Matthew 16:17 in the year 85 CE, Paul had already more than 20 years of seniority in his work of preaching about Jesus as Christ or Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. Therefore, Matthew 16:17 cannot be claimed to be accurate, especially because he had been a former disciple of Paul. So, it was only natural to put down what Paul had taught him, considering that of Jesus, he knew only from hearsay.

The dates of when the Gospels were written is a debated question. 85 ad is a late dating and the latest I have seen is 80 ad. The earliest dating and the traditional one is 65 ad as is the authorship being not the guy but St Matthew Apostle of Jesus. This of course is when it was written down but it had been preached from the time of Jesus’ resurrection. Matthew being an Apostle of Jesus would have therefore been a witness to Matthew 16:17.

 

[SteveLohr]

Sorry Placido, but I think you are the one not for real. When the guy who wrote Matthew 16:17 in the year 85 CE, Paul had already more than 20 years of seniority in his work of preaching about Jesus as Christ or Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. Therefore, Matthew 16:17 cannot be claimed to be accurate, especially because he had been a former disciple of Paul. So, it was only natural to put down what Paul had taught him, considering that of Jesus, he knew only from hearsay.

Mainstream scholarship accepts the following dates for the authorship of the various gospels. Of note, there is no serious body of scholarship that argues for later dates than these: (source: Oxford Encylopedia of Christianity)

John:85-95 AD
Matthew 85-90 AD
Mark 65-75 AD
Luke 80-85 AD

However, most of these late dates are based on the belief that the existence of “Q,” as well as the alleged more advanced theological development of these later gospels. That presumes, of course, that Christianity developed slowly, vice being revealed. However, there are excellent arguments for earlier dates. In fact, scholarship appears to be increasingly leaning towards earlier dating of the Gospels, for reasons that I will go into in this and subsequent posts. For example, William F. Albright has written “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80" and “In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75)” Robinson in “Redating the New Testament” places Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from before 40 to after 65. This would mean that one or two Gospels could have been written as early as seven years after the crucifixion. Below are some of the arguments to show that Luke was written pre-63 AD:

**“The Gospel of Luke was written by the same author as the Acts of the Apostles, who refers to Luke as the “former account” of “all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1). The destiny (“Theophilus”), style, and vocabulary of the two books betray a common author. Roman historian Colin Hemer has provided powerful evidence that Acts was written between A.D. 60 and 62 (see ACTS, HISTORICITY OF). This evidence includes these observations:

1. There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70.
2. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time.
3. There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s.
4. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1.200).
5. The significance of Gallio’s judgment in Acts 18:14–17 may be seen as setting a precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism.
6. The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.
7. The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke’s Gospel) does not fit well in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia. At that time a new phase of conflict began with Christianity.
8. Acts seems to antedate the arrival of Peter in Rome and implies that Peter and John were alive at the time of the writing.
9. The prominence of “God-fearers” in the synagogues may point to a pre-70 date, after which there were few Gentile inquirers and converts to Judaism.
10. Luke gives insignificant details of the culture of an early, Julio-Claudian period.
11. Areas of controversy described presume that the Temple was still standing.
12. Adolf Harnack contended that Paul’s prophecy in 20:25 (cf. 20:38) may have been contradicted by later events. If so, the book must have appeared before those events.
13. Christian terminology used in Acts reflects an earlier period. Harnack points to use of Iusous and Ho Kurios, while Ho Christos always designates “the Messiah,” and is not a proper name for Jesus.
14. The confident tone of Acts seems unlikely during the Neronian persecution of Christians and the Jewish War with Rome during the late 60s.
15. The action ends very early in the 60s, yet the description in Acts 27 and 28 is written with a vivid immediacy. It is also an odd place to end the book if years have passed since the pre-62 events transpired.”**

Source: Geisler, The Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, under “New Testament, dating of.”

 

[SteveLohr]

Additional evidence for the earlier dating of the Gospels is their frequent citation by early Church fathers. ** "Of the four Gospels alone there are 19,368 citations by the church fathers from the late first century on. This includes 268 by Justin Martyr (100–165), 1038 by Irenaeus (active in the late second century), 1017 by Clement of Alexandria (ca. 155–ca. 220), 9231 by Origen (ca. 185–ca. 254), 3822 by Tertullian (ca. 160s–ca. 220), 734 by Hippolytus (d. ca. 236), and 3258 by Eusebius (ca. 265–ca. 339; Geisler, 431). Earlier, Clement of Rome cited Matthew, John, and 1 Corinthians in 95 to 97. Ignatius referred to six Pauline Epistles in about 110, and between 110 and 150 Polycarp quoted from all four Gospels, Acts, and most of Paul’s Epistles. Shepherd of Hermas (115–140) cited Matthew, Mark, Acts, 1 Corinthians, and other books. Didache (120–150) referred to Matthew, Luke, 1 Corinthians, and other books. Papias, companion of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John, quoted John. This argues powerfully that the Gospels were in existence before the end of the first century, while some eyewitnesses (including John) were still alive. " **Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia

 

[SteveLohr]

There is some archelogical evidence for support of the earlier, pre-60s dates for the writing of the Gospels. Jose O’Callahan, a Spanish Jesuit paleographer, identified a manuscript fragment from Qumran partof the Gospel of Mark. Fragments from this cave had previously been dated between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50. O’Callahan compared sequences of letters with existing documents and eventually identified nine fragments as belonging to one Gospel, Acts, and a few Epistles. Some of these were dated slightly later than 50, but still extremely early:
text fragment approx. date
Mark 4:28 7Q6 A.D. 50
Mark 6:48 7Q15 A.D. ?
Mark 6:52, 53 7Q5 A.D. 50
Mark 12:17 7Q7 A.D. 50
Acts 27:38 7Q6 A.D. 60 +
Rom. 55:11, 12 7Q9 A.D. 70 +
1 Tim. 3:16; 4:1–3 7Q4 A.D. 70 +

Source: Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics

 

[heiscominginthe]

**Now, your next step is to define what you mean by physical laws and spiritual laws. To me, when Jesus declared that he had come to confirm the Law and the Prophets, he meant all the Jewish laws down to the letter, and he established no distinction between laws and laws. (Mat. 5:19)

Then, about 30 years later, when Paul declared that the Law of commandments had been abolished on the cross, he, likewise did not distinguish between laws and laws. (Ephe 2:15) Therefore, someone must be wrong here, and I don’t think it was Jesus. **

The difference between the physical law and the spiritual law can be explained this way.

With the physical law, men obeyed not because they wanted to, but because they had to.

With the spiritual law, the law is written in the heart of the man and the man obeys the law, not because he has to, but because he wants to. He loves the law. For the law is Christ and Christ resides in the heart of all who believe.

So what I am saying is the physical law was abolished by that which was spiritual. That is what Paul meant.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Hey Ben, look at what other Jews have to say about you and others who speak fraudulently regarding Paul and Jesus as you do. Its actually a known scam;

**What is this, revenge because you could not prove what you said that the disciples were called Christians first by the Pagans? The explanation you brought about Acts 11:26 does not fit your statement. Perhaps you thought I don’t know your own NT? Take a look at your post # 966. Here is what you wrote: ** "If you are referring to Paul in Antioch and the first time the followers of Jesus were referred to as Christians, that is when they were first called Christians by the Pagans."

Paul has been accused of intentionally distorting the teachings of Jesus in order to make Christianity more appealing to the gentiles. What information exists to prove or disprove this theory?

**Here is the information: Jesus himself declared that he did not come to abolish the Jewish laws. (Mat. 5:17) About 30 years later, Paul came and declared that the laws of commandments were abolished on the cross. (Ephe. 2:15) Who is lying here, Jesus or Paul? This is intentional distortion of the teachings of Jesus. **

It seems fair to presume that one cannot claim Jesus’ teachings were distorted without first knowing what Jesus taught. Do those who claim distortion demonstrate knowledge of Jesus’ teachings?

I have given you above what Jesus taught and how Paul distorted it. And regarding my knowledge of Jesus’ teachings, I challenge you to try me.

People who accuse Paul of creating a new religion usually say that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah, nor did he claim to be the son of God. Many repeat that allegation without ever having read Jesus’ teachings. One need only read the first four books of the New Testament (not written by Paul) to see the invalidity of this objection.

**Those gospels were written more than 20 years after Paul was done with his writings and teaching about Jesus as Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. What did you want them to write if not according to their master? **

I think I am about done with you Ben, you are here to entertain yourself through ignorance and lack of knowledge and there are others who are honestly wishing to discuss issues here. Come back when you have something honest to offer. I’ll pray for you…

**I can see why you are done with me. First, because you have failed to prove a statement you affirmed with regards Acts 11:26 and second, if you can forgive my lack of modesty, you can’t meet me in the Scriptures that Jesus used to handle, and if I can further be so bold, neither in your own NT. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

The dates of when the Gospels were written is a debated question. 85 ad is a late dating and the latest I have seen is 80 ad. The earliest dating and the traditional one is 65 ad as is the authorship being not the guy but St Matthew Apostle of Jesus. This of course is when it was written down but it had been preached from the time of Jesus’ resurrection. Matthew being an Apostle of Jesus would have therefore been a witness to Matthew 16:17.

**The Catholic Saint Joseph’s Edition of the NAB prefaces every gospel with the following dates: Mark, soon after the Jewish-Roman War of 70 CE, Luke in the year 75 CE, Matthew in 85 CE and John in between 95 and 100 CE.

None of the writings of the Nazarenes, followers of Jesus was approved into the Canon of the NT by the Fathers of the Church, due to their controversial character vis-a-vis the writings of Paul. Therefore, none of the gospels was written by any of the Apostles. They were all former disciples of Paul. Futhermore, they wrote those gospels after Paul was done with his writings which were finished about 65 CE. And also for the Letters, after those of Paul’s, especially the one of Peter’s, the preface mentions that an unknown author wrote it and attributed it to Peter. We can assume that the same happened to all the books of the NT.**

 

[colliric]

I might add a little more. Way back around 1990/91 I was discussing politics with my old Protestant pastor. We got onto a particular Australian politician, whom I thought was pretty much straight forward. The pastor didn’t think so though. And I might add he wasn’t given much to last days stuff - most of it originates from the US, and his opinion ws that American last days theology was a “bit weird. The Europeans don’t think like that and they’ve had a much longer Christian experience.”

However he commented about this particular politician, “I think the devil’s put him there. I’ve heard a few stories about what he’s like when he can’t get his own way. He’s a spoilt brat, and very vindictive.” I’m left wing, and the pastor was right wing as was the politician in question. I’m pretty sure the pastor had close ties to what we call the National Party, which used to be the Country Party, representing the man on the land. He grew up on a small farm himself, and had been posted to various country towns at times.

He went on, “I think he might be one of the ‘ten kings’. If he is, he’ll be a real little tyrant. About the only thing we’ll have going for us is his age. I think he’ll be in his seventies before all this starts to happen.”

The politician in question turns 70 this year - pretty soon actually. Now at the time we were talking he wasn’t even leader of the opposition. But he’s come a long way since, particularly in the accolades of the US establishment.

So if my old pastor was right, and I used to find he was pretty accurate, the next few years are going to be rather instructive. It seems Mary might have been trying to warn us about something with her appearances at Lourdes, Fatima, and Akita et al. The pastor’s comment on Marian apparitions? “There’s been a lot of them. I think she’s warning us. And I think they’re a judgment on a divided church.”

which politician is that?

It’s not a certain Greens Party Senator right?

 

[Ben_Masada]

For example, William F. Albright has written “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80" and “In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75)”

Sorry Steve, but the statement above by this William Albright invalidates and discredits him about any other opinion he might have about the NT. Luke was an acknowledged Greek Gentile Medical Doctor, who was never a Jew and much less a baptized Jew, if there was such a thing. He was a baptized Christian disciple of Paul’s.

**“The Gospel of Luke was written by the same author as the Acts of the Apostles, who refers to Luke as the “former account” of “all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1). The destiny (“Theophilus”), style, and vocabulary of the two books betray a common author. Roman historian Colin Hemer has provided powerful evidence that Acts was written between A.D. 60 and 62 (see ACTS, HISTORICITY OF). This evidence includes these observations:

If Luke accounted for ALL that Jesus began to do and teach, how come he ignores the slaughter of the children with the purpose to get Jesus? How come he ignores Jesus’ trip to Egypt? How come he ignores the visit of the three Astrologers from the East? How come he ignores the spear-piercing? And many other howcomes.**

 

[SteveLohr]

SteveLohr;5442880:

For example, William F. Albright has written “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80" and “In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75)”

Sorry Steve, but the statement above by this William Albright invalidates and discredits him about any other opinion he might have about the NT. Luke was an acknowledged Greek Gentile Medical Doctor, who was never a Jew and much less a baptized Jew, if there was such a thing. He was a baptized Christian disciple of Paul’s.

The quote from Albright is intended to show how scholarship is increasingly coming to believe that the Gospels were written earlier than the late-1st cent. dates that have been accepted. They were not intended to raise an entirely new topic on Luke’s ethnic heritage. However, I would add that your statement that Luke was an “acknowledge gentile” does not appear in either Luke or Acts. Further, there is debate on what Luke’s heritage was. See generally
rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu.dpqF1K4XQAtDdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnZlZnRlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw–/SIG=11asntuq5/EXP=1247738345/**http%3a//www.google.com/

and
rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu.dpqF1K4XQAtDdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnZlZnRlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw–/SIG=11asntuq5/EXP=1247738345/**http%3a//www.google.com/

Accordingly, I don’t see Mr. Albright’s view that Luke was a Jew to be beyond the bounds of acceptable scholarship. I’m not going to get into a discussion of the relative merits of the gentile or jew position, because it is simply not important to this discussion. My objective is simply to point out that Mr. Albright’s scholarship on the dating of the gospels should not be questioned simply because he takes one side of a different debate, whose answer is unclear.

Regards,
SteveLohr

 

[SteveLohr]

**“The Gospel of Luke was written by the same author as the Acts of the Apostles, who refers to Luke as the “former account” of “all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1). The destiny (“Theophilus”), style, and vocabulary of the two books betray a common author. Roman historian Colin Hemer has provided powerful evidence that Acts was written between A.D. 60 and 62 (see ACTS, HISTORICITY OF). This evidence includes these observations:

If Luke accounted for ALL that Jesus began to do and teach, how come he ignores the slaughter of the children with the purpose to get Jesus? How come he ignores Jesus’ trip to Egypt? How come he ignores the visit of the three Astrologers from the East? How come he ignores the spear-piercing? And many other howcomes.**

Ben-You answer your own question. As you point out, Luke is interested in Jesus and His teachings. The trip to Egypt, the slaughter of the children, the birth narritive and the spear piercing really don’t address the teachings. In short, Luke made editorial decisions to talk about the issues that he wanted his gospel to address.

Regards,
SteveLohr