reyb Posted May 3, 2012 Author Posted May 3, 2012 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1336057616' post='2426511'] wrong. You don't need to see Jesus to be his witness. Luke saw Paul who saw Christ. Luke saw Mary who bore Christ. [/quote] [color=#000000]Are you saying Luke become a witness of Jesus Christ (although he did not see Jesus) because he is a follower of Paul? How about other followers of Paul like Theudas (Please see [/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas"][color=#000000]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas[/color][/url][color=#000000]) Or Linus (see [/color][url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy+4:21&version=NIV"][color=#000000][b]2 Timothy 4:21[/b][/color][/url][color=#000000])? Do you consider them witnesses of Jesus Christ too?[/color]
Mark of the Cross Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 [quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1335928986' post='2425926'] There's a big difference between Muslims giving their lives and Christians giving their lives. Early Christians were told, "Convert or die, or better yet we'll torture your kids in front of you." Muslims committed acts of war on people in the name of the faith. See the difference? [/quote] Reyb fails to get the connection between laying down your life for love (God) and laying it down for evil (satan).
thessalonian Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 [quote name='reyb' timestamp='1336051077' post='2426493'] To Catholics, Luke is not a witness of Christ but to me, he is a true witness. Please read my previous post. [/quote] [b] [url="http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5416666"]2Tim.2[/url][/b] [list=1] [*][[b]2[/b]] and what you have heard from me before many[b] witness[/b]es entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. [/list] Luke is a witness of this type. He heard from Paul and passed it along. Mark also is a witness of this type who heard from Peter. They wrote down what they gathered from Peter and Paul. Why is that difficult to understand. They heard the word of God and wrote it down. Non-catholics have this idea that everything happened so miraculously. God is at work in the ordinary. Luke and Mark didn't have to see visions and dream dreams. They saw God in the Apostles.
thessalonian Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) Reyb By the way one does not have to have written scripture to be a witness or to have spoken the word of God. Very few apostles wrote scripture. Were there words any less the Word of God when they told stories of Christ's life and spread the gospel? Were they lesser apostles because they did not write scripture like Mathew, John, Peter, Paul ....??? Edited May 3, 2012 by thessalonian
Groo the Wanderer Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 I find it incredibly odd Reyb, that you are so willing to discount the writings of those that were there in the beginning and for the next 2000 years, yet you display unshakable faith in Wikipedia. Catholic Church - 2000 years of history, wisdom, knowledge. Unbroken line of succession. Same teachings then as now. Wiki - around less than 20 years. Multiple entries containing false information. Editable by anyone. Banned by most colleges as a research tool. your call....
Mark of the Cross Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1336057616' post='2426511'] wrong. You don't need to see Jesus to be his witness. Luke saw Paul who saw Christ. Luke saw Mary who bore Christ. [/quote] Just askin' but if Luke wasn't a direct witness, how come he was the only one to tell of the 'good thief'? Where did Luke obtain this testimony? Anybody have any reason as to why the others ommitted such an important lesson? Possibly one of the most important!
Mark of the Cross Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1336087078' post='2426684'] I find it incredibly odd Reyb, that you are so willing to discount the writings of those that were there in the beginning and for the next 2000 years, yet you display unshakable faith in Wikipedia. Catholic Church - 2000 years of history, wisdom, knowledge. Unbroken line of succession. Same teachings then as now. Wiki - around less than 20 years. Multiple entries containing false information. Editable by anyone. Banned by most colleges as a research tool. your call.... [/quote] I hate to state the obvious but after all these years of discussion with Reyb, I'm sorry to say yer all wastin' yer time. He is fixated on his own opinions.
KnightofChrist Posted May 3, 2012 Posted May 3, 2012 [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1336087261' post='2426687'] Just askin' but if Luke wasn't a direct witness, how come he was the only one to tell of the 'good thief'? Where did Luke obtain this testimony? Anybody have any reason as to why the others ommitted such an important lesson? Possibly one of the most important! [/quote] Divine Revelation. This is how Moses could write of Noah and the flood never having actually witnessed the events.
Mark of the Cross Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1336088353' post='2426699'] Divine Revelation. This is how Moses could write of Noah and the flood never having actually witnessed the events. [/quote] And the other three?
Mark of the Cross Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1336088353' post='2426699'] Divine Revelation. This is how Moses could write of Noah and the flood never having actually witnessed the events. [/quote] I agree in principle that a person can be a witness by divine revelation. St Paul for example. However for the sake of discussion with sceptics we really need more earthly evidence.
KnightofChrist Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1336089682' post='2426711'] And the other three? [/quote] All four Gospels have truths that are uniquely taught in each. Because, in part, each were written for different audiences. The Gospels are not carbon copies of each other. Otherwise we'd need but one and not four.
KnightofChrist Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1336090872' post='2426717'] I agree in principle that a person can be a witness by divine revelation. St Paul for example. However for the sake of discussion with sceptics we really need more earthly evidence. [/quote] Define earthly evidence. Because I would define it as empirical evidence. Are you stating we need empirical evidence to prove that one can be a witness of Jesus Christ by Divine Revelation?
Groo the Wanderer Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 4 different Evangelists writing at 4 different times, for 4 different sets of people with different circumstances. The Holy Spirit inspired them, He didn't make them into dictophones.
Mark of the Cross Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1336091680' post='2426729'] Define earthly evidence. Because I would define it as empirical evidence. Are you stating we need empirical evidence to prove that one can be a witness of Jesus Christ by Divine Revelation? [/quote] No! Didn't state that at all. Need empirical evidence for discussion with people like Reyb. Obviously after all these years just stating that it was by divine revelation won't do it for him. But you and I might agree on something accepting purely divine revelation. I would say that my own faith was by divine revelation more than empirical evidence but I do believe that I also have empirical evidence as well as intuition. Faith is not blind, it is a combination of things. If it were blind I would have no way of determining whether I should be a Christian, Muslim or Jew. If I don't use reason I have no way of knowing if I should be a Catholic or Protestant. I don't think we have any disagreement on this thread KofC so you needn't look for one. [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1336092857' post='2426748'] 4 different Evangelists writing at 4 different times, for 4 different sets of people with different circumstances. The Holy Spirit inspired them, He didn't make them into dictophones. [/quote] For sure! Four different accounts of the same story is very conclusive witness for the doubters. Just curious as to why 3 erred by omission of a very important point. Thought someone might be able to give an explanation that appeals to reason as well as spirit, apparently not.
KnightofChrist Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) There was no error by omission. The is no error in the Gospels. Because Luke alone was chosen to reveal a certain truth does not mean the Holy Ghost erred by omission in not revealing that same truth to the other three. The reasons I gave while short are sound, well reasoned and quite logical. All four tell the same story but each has a unique focus revealing diffrent parts of the same story. As for Reyb I'm not sure what could convence him that he is in error and teaches heresy. The reality that his belief system did not come into existance until his existance thousands of years after Christ transfered authority from the chair of Moses to the chair of Peter is perhaps a start. Edited May 4, 2012 by KnightofChrist
Groo the Wanderer Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]MotC - read John 21:25 please. Again...if the 4 writers gave a word for word account of exactly the same thing, there would be no need of 4 Gospel accounts in the Bible, eh? [b]Mark[/b][color=#000000] - Disciple of Peter. Bi-lingual Aramaic/Greek interpreter; wrote for the persecuted Gentile community; late 60's (Rome? later Alexandria?)[/color] [b]Matthew [/b][color=#000000]- Apostle. Jewish-Christian scribe; wrote for an educated community arguing with other Jews; 70's-80's (Galilee? Antioch?)[/color] [b]Luke [/b][color=#000000]- Disciple of Paul. Gentile Christian historian; wrote for a wealthier urban community becoming complacent; 80's (Antioch? Greece?)[/color] [b]John [/b][color=#000000]- Apostle. Wrote for Jewish Christian believers, in conflict with the "synagogue across the street"; 90's (Syria? later Ephesus?)[/color][/font][/size] Edited May 4, 2012 by Groo the Wanderer
mortify Posted May 4, 2012 Posted May 4, 2012 Reyb Sounds like youre starting your own heresy, with only you as its follower.
reyb Posted May 4, 2012 Author Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1336086413' post='2426680'] [b] [url="http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5416666"]2Tim.2[/url][/b][list=1] [*][[b]2[/b]] and what you have heard from me before many[b] witness[/b]es entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. [/list] Luke is a witness of this type. He heard from Paul and passed it along. Mark also is a witness of this type who heard from Peter. They wrote down what they gathered from Peter and Paul. Why is that difficult to understand. They heard the word of God and wrote it down. Non-catholics have this idea that everything happened so miraculously. God is at work in the ordinary. Luke and Mark didn't have to see visions and dream dreams. They saw God in the Apostles. [/quote] Please read 2 Timothy 2:2ff in its proper context. It is written…. You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many [b]witnesses[/b] entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. 3 Join with me in suffering, like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. 4 No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather tries to please his commanding officer. 5 Similarly, anyone who competes as an athlete does not receive the victor’s crown except by competing according to the rules. 6 The hardworking farmer should be the first to receive a share of the crops. 7 Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this. Who are these witnesses? Are they witnesses of Jesus or witnesses of Paul or witnesses of whatever Paul is saying? Our subject discussion is about Luke whether he is a true witness of Jesus Christ or not. Obviously, he is not a witness of your Jesus - the historical Jesus. But he is a witness of the real Jesus because he said 'fulfilled in us' - meaning the prophesied Word was fulfilled in him too. (see the beginning of his letter) Edited May 4, 2012 by reyb
reyb Posted May 4, 2012 Author Posted May 4, 2012 [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1336087078' post='2426684'] I find it incredibly odd Reyb, that you are so willing to discount the writings of those that were there in the beginning and for the next 2000 years, yet you display unshakable faith in Wikipedia. Catholic Church - 2000 years of history, wisdom, knowledge. Unbroken line of succession. Same teachings then as now. Wiki - around less than 20 years. Multiple entries containing false information. Editable by anyone. Banned by most colleges as a research tool. your call.... [/quote] Are you referring to the letters of your early fathers? (and Why I do not accept their letters?)
Recommended Posts