I've made no such claims --those are your perceptions. I am just doing what I've done all my professional life--evaluating data and providing conclusions. If you are so convinced that I am wrong, then tell me how the antichrist, rapture, and tribulation make sense? Prove to me how arrogant and wrong my conclusion is that the seven sevens of Daniel is a reference to Jesus and the seven is a reference to his seven year mission described in detail in Revelation. Or better yet, do an analysis and prove to me that Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew rather than Nicodemus. Or better yet, do an analysis on Peter walking on the water, the tax collector story, and Jesus assigning Peter to lead the Church and prove to me that they weren't add-ons by others, as I have found. I'd love to have someone prove my conclusions wrong because I missed some important data. I'm here to get educated feedback, not baseless criticism and accusations. So please stop telling me how wrong I am because everyone else has a different conclusion. I've done my homework and stand behind my conclusions. Please do your homework and come up with a facts-based conclusion on something...anything.
But you are certain that I am wrong so you must have HIDDEN special knowledge to be able to do that without any evidence.
I’ve given you enough data to start checking my conclusions. What I won’t do is spell out all the details because you will never get past, “but everybody else believes…”
Your last statement confused me. I thought immediately about what Paul commanded to Timothy:
But like i said, who gave Paul the ability and authority to tell the world what constitutes the word of God? You didn’t answer that. I could debate that Paul was referring to OT prophet scripture, but it doesnt matter unless Paul can designate himself as speaking for God, and he can’t.
Of course, Paul was describing the whole Old Testament, which the Jewish scholars had assembled by that time. Jesus designated Paul as one of the Apostles on the road to Damascus, but Peter said that Paul was writing Scriptures, just as Peter's letters are Scriptures:
That is my thinking, but it cannot be validated from that information.
There is no apostles. Jesus had his disciples, then the term apostles came into play after Jesus was crucified and resurrected. If you are referring to 2 Peter, the language in the letter does not indicate that Peter wrote it. Besides, Peter has no authority to say who can and who can't provide the word of God--that is specified in Deuteronomy.
Where did you get your ideas, JustTheFacts? The content of 2 Peter agrees with the rest of the Bible. That's the reason it was included. It is part of God's Word and was inspired by him.
God was very specific on what is the proven word of God. Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 were referred to by the Pharisees questioning Jesus to prove he was the Messiah and Jesus stated he met it. Deuteronomy 18:21-22 specified the requirements for prophets to be from God. Prophets are from God if the predict the one thing--the coming of Jesus. If a prophet predicted the coming of the Messiah he was proven to be sent by God because the Messiah did come--Jesus.
In your first sentence, you did not tell us the passage in which the Pharisees confronted Jesus with the two verses in Deuteronomy to give us Jesus' exact response, which we needed to evaluate your interpretation. Quote exactly what he said, please. By the way, the first reference is about Israelite idolatry, while the second is about any crime. Jesus rightly says that his and his Father's witness were enough, I believe.
Not sure what you want. The Pharisees knew the law and confronted Jesus to provide the two witnesses to validate himself as the Messiah Easy to find.
Deuteronomy 17:6 may have been precipitated by idol worship, but it doesn't matter because it addresses the penalty of death. Jesus claimed that his Father as a witness AND himself through his miracles was enough. John 5:31-37
Please point out other requirements and I'll be glad to review.
God ensured that the necessary testimony of eyewitnesses was presented so that all nations and people will believe.
How do you know what "apostles" did? Not only that, why is there even a reference to apostles? They are not eyewitnesses and may provide interesting information, but it is not testimony of Jesus.
I missed this in my previous response. Actually the fact that something hasnt been documented can be very important. For example, what the authors included, and what they didn’t write about proves their identity. Nicodemus is proven as the Author of Matthew from what he wrote about and what he copied and didn’t write about. The same goes for the author of Mark. When Mary Magdalene anointed Jesus, Mark‘s author does not mention Mary, Martha, and Lazarus as being present. John does because he was with Jesus during Lazarus’ resurrection event, so he knew them all. Marks author was a disciple who was with Jesus, but not close to him. He didn’t witness Lazarus’ resurrection and was mixed in with the crowd during Jesus’ anointing while John was next to Jesus and knew the family.
Arguing from silence in any literature is a bogus argument. You speak as if Nicodemus' authorship of Matthew is a fact. No, it's just your unproven theory that will never be proven. The four authors of the gospels included and excluded details and events with the purpose of meeting their audiences' needs, not for the purpose you imagine. That's why arguing from a gospel's silence is so bogus. It proves nothing. Please take it from this former English teacher (8 years) and pastor (27 years) with master's degrees in both.