Crazy Christian Theology

[JustTheFacts]

Crazy
Christian
Theology


When it comes to the Christian faith, the people of the world are faced with a very puzzling scenario—you are to believe an assembly of Crazy Christian Theology to believe in Jesus. Please let me explain. Jesus is said to have come into the world as the Messiah and Son of God who resurrected himself from the dead to remove a permanent death sentence from those who believe in Him. Believe in Jesus and you will live forever to be with God in an eternal paradise. Reject Jesus and you are condemned to the weeping and gnashing of teeth for eternity.

The word of God through Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 tells us that to believe this story we need the testimony of two or three eyewitnesses. This isn’t me providing this requirement—it is from the word of God in the Bible that Christians follow. But consider what you have been told through the Christian assembly of theology. The people of the world have the option of either believing or rejecting the story of Jesus told through Gospel authors that are a puzzling assembly of people. Only Matthew and John are said to be disciples and eyewitness of Jesus. However, there is no evidence in the Bible that Matthew saw anything Jesus did or said. Remove Matthew’s name from a list of the twelve disciples presented once each in four different books in the Bible and one reference in the Gospel of Matthew to the tax collector Levi as Matthew, and you have nothing to prove that Matthew was even a disciple. To top it off, John provided the most in-depth documentation of the recruitment of Jesus’ twelve disciples and John never once mentioned Matthew. The world does not have two or three eyewitness testimonies of Jesus, so the people of the world are either faced with believing the Gospel of John or they don’t.

Now ask yourself the following question: Do we have a God who was able to send his Son to the world to perform miracles and satisfy a prophesied sacrifice for our sin, but unable to provide two or three eyewitness testimonies to prove it all? That’s a ridiculous question because if God resurrected Jesus, he certainly ensured that we have eyewitness testimonies to prove it.

The good news is that we have the eyewitness testimony of Jesus—it’s presented in the Bible. The bad news is that it’s been hidden from you by false teachers who stole the Church from the disciples and the true followers of Jesus. My in-depth review reveals the evidence that God provided to the world to prove that Jesus is the Son of God, and that Jesus’ resurrection is the truth. In summary, you would be wise to believe.

 

[Frankj]

You can argue a lot of things, but I think arguing the Apostles didn't witness what Jesus did will fall flat.

 

[JustTheFacts]

You can argue a lot of things, but I think arguing the Apostles didn't witness what Jesus did will fall flat.

Did you read through the entire summary? I find that the Disciples DID witness Jesus.

 

[Lamb]

Did you read through the entire summary? I find that the Disciples DID witness Jesus.

Your OP is a little confusing. You wrote:
Only Matthew and John are said to be disciples and eyewitness of Jesus. However, there is no evidence in the Bible that Matthew saw anything Jesus did or said.

Why don't you believe Matthew to be a witness since he was a disciple?

 

[JustTheFacts]

Your OP is a little confusing. You wrote:
Only Matthew and John are said to be disciples and eyewitness of Jesus. However, there is no evidence in the Bible that Matthew saw anything Jesus did or said.

Why don't you believe Matthew to be a witness since he was a disciple?

My background is investigations and systems analysis. There is a lot of evidence supporting Nicodemus as the author of Matthew and zero evidence supporting Matthew. Why would a disciple copy from another eyewitness? Nicodemus as the author explains this. John is most thorough for discussing the twelve, yet he never mentioned Matthew. Why? John focused a lot on Nicodemus. Matthew’s account of the tax collector was also copied from Mark’s author then the name “Levi” is changed to “Matthew.” The man who is supposed to be Matthew and the author copied his recruitment event description from somebody else. This is nonsense, and in my field of expertise, considered intentional fraud with a motive. I’ve thought about posting my complete analysis thus far to show why that is my conclusion, but it’s not complete, it’s long, and will require more editing.

 

[Castle Church]

Why would a disciple copy from another eyewitness?

We definitely don't know that. There is some evidence to support the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was written first and possibly first in Hebrew or Aramaic before it was written in Greek.

 

[JustTheFacts]

We definitely don't know that. There is some evidence to support the idea that the Gospel of Matthew was written first and possibly first in Hebrew or Aramaic before it was written in Greek.

I have thoroughly been through the data and found no evidence to support your claim, but please, if you have some evidence of that, I would like to take a look at it.

 

[Lamb]

My background is investigations and systems analysis. There is a lot of evidence supporting Nicodemus as the author of Matthew and zero evidence supporting Matthew. Why would a disciple copy from another eyewitness? Nicodemus as the author explains this. John is most thorough for discussing the twelve, yet he never mentioned Matthew. Why? John focused a lot on Nicodemus. Matthew’s account of the tax collector was also copied from Mark’s author then the name “Levi” is changed to “Matthew.” The man who is supposed to be Matthew and the author copied his recruitment event description from somebody else. This is nonsense, and in my field of expertise, considered intentional fraud with a motive. I’ve thought about posting my complete analysis thus far to show why that is my conclusion, but it’s not complete, it’s long, and will require more editing.

You didn't answer the question I asked. Why don't you think Matthew wasn't a witness?

 

[The Jason]

I don't know if I believe hell is eternal, but this would lock me out of much of this forum. Also, I know Christain Zionism is wrong and that makes me seem like a radical Islam lover and anti-American.

 

[JustTheFacts]

You didn't answer the question I asked. Why don't you think Matthew wasn't a witness?

Pretty sure I did.

1. John never mentioned Matthew as being a disciple.
2. The only thing written about Matthew is presented in an account claimed to have been written by him (Matthew 9:9-11), but that account was copied (Mark 2:13-16) and the name was changed from ”Levi.”
3. False teachers had a clear motive to attribute the Gospel of Matthew written by Nicodemus to a disciple. They needed a disciple who was present to validate Peter as walking on water like Jesus (Matthew 14:22-33) and being assigned by Jesus to lead the Church (Matthew 16:13-20). Nicodemus did not witness these events so he copied then from Mark’s author. If you compare the two event descriptions you will find that the information about Peter has been added to the accounts in Mark.

The evidence in the Gospels is clear that Matthew is a fabrication by false teachers, not a disciple. This is supported by Jesus warnings to the disciples in the Olivet Discourse and through 1 John 2:18-19.

Do you have evidence supporting Matthew as the author that I haven’t seen?

 

[JustTheFacts]

I don't know if I believe hell is eternal, but this would lock me out of much of this forum. Also, I know Christain Zionism is wrong and that makes me seem like a radical Islam lover and anti-American.

Are you in the wrong post? Why would you not believe that hell is eternal? You claim to be a Christian and Jesus clearly stated that it is the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth that you can never leave. Also, Revelation is very clear on permanent eternal destinations. Finally, i see no connection between Zionism, the Muslims, and the word of God. Men and women cause war and corrupt the word of God. Focus on the words of Jesus and you will have peace.

 

[Lamb]

Pretty sure I did.

1. John never mentioned Matthew as being a disciple.
2. The only thing written about Matthew is presented in an account claimed to have been written by him (Matthew 9:9-11), but that account was copied (Mark 2:13-16) and the name was changed from ”Levi.”
3. False teachers had a clear motive to attribute the Gospel of Matthew written by Nicodemus to a disciple. They needed a disciple who was present to validate Peter as walking on water like Jesus (Matthew 14:22-33) and being assigned by Jesus to lead the Church (Matthew 16:13-20). Nicodemus did not witness these events so he copied then from Mark’s author. If you compare the two event descriptions you will find that the information about Peter has been added to the accounts in Mark.

The evidence in the Gospels is clear that Matthew is a fabrication by false teachers, not a disciple. This is supported by Jesus warnings to the disciples in the Olivet Discourse and through 1 John 2:18-19.

Do you have evidence supporting Matthew as the author that I haven’t seen?

I'm not claiming Matthew is an author. I'm saying that you really don't provide sufficient evidence that Matthew was not a disciple.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I'm not claiming Matthew is an author. I'm saying that you really don't provide sufficient evidence that Matthew was not a disciple.

Good point. I can’t prove that he wasn’t a disciple. In my professional opinion it could go either way. John stated that there were twelve (John 20:24) and didn't name two of them (John 21:2). That fact plus Nicodemus copying from Mark’s author validating that Mark’s author was an eyewitness who provided his testimony and Matthew is listed as one of the twelve in his book, have me leaning towards believing Matthew was one of the twelve. The editing and fraud has me wondering about it. But, in the big picture it doesn’t matter either way. Jesus is proven through Nicodemus, John, and Mark’s author. Through those three eyewitnesses, Deuteronomy requirements for Jesus to be the Messiah and God are met.

 

[BruceLeiter]

The problem with your approach is that you use a secular model and your own reasoning to discover the truth of the Bible. We need to approach the Bible from its own assumptions, because it is God's Word.

 

[JustTheFacts]

The problem with your approach is that you use a secular model and your own reasoning to discover the truth of the Bible. We need to approach the Bible from its own assumptions, because it is God's Word.

I don’t rely on reasoning, I rely on analysis of the written word and logic while listening and following the Holy Spirit. You don’t like what I’ve written because it counters your thoughts, but you can’t prove any of it wrong. I have no assumptions like you—I simply follow the word of God. What do you follow in your assumptions?

 

[BruceLeiter]

I don’t rely on reasoning, I rely on analysis of the written word and logic while listening and following the Holy Spirit. You don’t like what I’ve written because it counters your thoughts, but you can’t prove any of it wrong. I have no assumptions like you—I simply follow the word of God. What do you follow in your assumptions?

Do you think that your reliance on your own analysis and logic in approaching the Bible can ever be wrong? I rely on the Bible's own assumptions and reasoning instead of my own rationality, which I have done for much of the 66 years I've been a Christian during my 82 years. After all, God says in Isaiah 55:8-9:
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
It appears to me that we need to depend on his ways and thoughts revealed in the Bible, therefore, to interpret it.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Do you think that your reliance on your own analysis and logic in approaching the Bible can ever be wrong? I rely on the Bible's own assumptions and reasoning instead of my own rationality, which I have done for much of the 66 years I've been a Christian during my 82 years. After all, God says in Isaiah 55:8-9:
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
It appears to me that we need to depend on his ways and thoughts revealed in the Bible, therefore, to interpret it.

Well, the visions I’ve had over the past five years have helped provide direction, and when I’m struggling, through prayer, I continue to find answers that make sense. Of course I can be wrong. I’m on here to present what I’ve been directed to write and get input from others. BTW, the Bible cannot make assumptions nor give you reasoning because it’s a book. So I don’t understand your point. If you are referring to the professional opinions of others, I respect that, but my focus is different. I consider evidence. With my find that the Gospels are eyewitness documented statements, we have evidence. With inspired words of God we have no evidence, only claims.

 

[BruceLeiter]

How can you be absolutely certain that those visions and that direction are always from God? They can be from another source to confuse Christians, since your questioning of Scripture are truly confusing.

By the Bible's assumptions I mean that the Bible assumes that God created the universe and guides its history too; that humanity rebelled against God with Satan; that God chose Israel, who also by and large rebelled against him, to bring forth the Messiah; that Jesus is fully human in dying to redeem his people and fully God to rise again permanently to give his believers new and growing life; and that he will come again to renew his universe and people in their resurrection from the dead. Those are some of the assumptions that the Bible reveals, because God inspired it (2 Timothy 3:16-17), which is its direct teaching.

 

[Lamb]

Well, the visions I’ve had over the past five years have helped provide direction, and when I’m struggling, through prayer, I continue to find answers that make sense. Of course I can be wrong. I’m on here to present what I’ve been directed to write and get input from others. BTW, the Bible cannot make assumptions nor give you reasoning because it’s a book. So I don’t understand your point. If you are referring to the professional opinions of others, I respect that, but my focus is different. I consider evidence. With my find that the Gospels are eyewitness documented statements, we have evidence. With inspired words of God we have no evidence, only claims.

For the word of God is living and active... Hebrews 4:12. ESV

It does not return to Him empty. Isaiah 55:11

 

[JustTheFacts]

For the word of God is living and active... Hebrews 4:12. ESV

It does not return to Him empty. Isaiah 55:11

I get it, but who wrote Hebrews and who gave that person authority to speak for God? Did the author of Hebrews meet Deuteronomy requirements for being a prophet who spoke for God? We don't know so we cannot claim that Hebrews is the word of God. However, setting that aside, let's consider what is written. From Hebrews 4 in the WEB:

12 For the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and is able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 There is no creature that is hidden from his sight, but all things are naked and laid open before the eyes of him to whom we must give an account.

If anything, I read this as referring to the word of God that is in existence, not stating that others can speak it. The word of God is living and acrtive in my life, in your life, and in the life of everyone who honestly attempts to follow the word of God. The Holy Spirit will help guide us and provide wisdom if we seek it and we have the word of God as a foundation.

Isaiah is proven to have spoken for God, so what does Isaiah say about this subject? You have referenced 55:11, so taking a look at that, from the WEB:

10 For as the rain comes down and the snow from the sky,
and doesn’t return there, but waters the earth,
and makes it grow and bud,
and gives seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
11 so is my word that goes out of my mouth:
it will not return to me void,
but it will accomplish that which I please,
and it will prosper in the thing I sent it to do.

To me that claims that the word of God is to be active in our lives so that it helps us spiritually grow. It doesn't give anyone authority to speak for God.