Crazy Christian Theology

[BruceLeiter]

I'd be curious why you accepted it. But then again, we probably have much different backgrounds and expertise.

I consider the Gospels with the actual authors that I identified as completely authentic eyewitness testimony--in accordance with God's requirements specified in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15. I am finishing up another round of analyzing the resurrection accounts and my findings are very interesting and prove there are valid resurrection accounts to prove Jesus as the Messiah and God.

Stating that you obtained information from eyewitnesses does not validate it unless of course you name the eyewitnesses and none are named in Luke or Acts. An analysis of Acts indicates that the sources are Peter, Philip, and Paul, because of identifiers in that book.

I don't consider Luke a valid Gospel, but what is interesting is that the resurrection account witnessed by the two men on the road, was likely taken from the Gospel of Matthew and put into Luke. I hope you find it strange that two men witnessed Jesus on the road for Jesus' second resurrection appearance--and only one of the men is named. That is beyond strange--it just wouldn't happen unless it was intentional. That resurrection story is validated through James 16:12-13, just like he validated the story of Mary Magdalene written by John.

If you have thoroughly tried to assemble the resurrection story, you will know what I mean about the Gospels "reek of uncertainty." There are numerous contradictions, but through the uncertainty, the truth can be found--thanks to the Holy Spirit ensuring certain words were captured and stood the test of time.

James 16?? What specifically is that piece of writing? I'm not familiar with it. Is it a gospel? I'm leery of "validating" anything from extra-biblical sources and would prefer to stick with the eyewitnesses Matthew and John along with Mark and Dr. Luke, who both got their material from eyewitnesses.

What "contradictions" do you find in the gospels? Share with me one or two. The writers wrote to different audiences with different purposes. Therefore, they chose to include different details of Jesus' ministry. Those aren't contradictions.

For example, Matthew says that Jesus said the cup was the blood of the covenant to emphasize the Abrahamic covenant's continuity with the NT one, while Luke says that he said "new covenant" to emphasize the covenant's discontinuity with the OT. Both are true.

At first glance, I'm afraid that you are using modern thinking of a historian to examine ancient writing. I suggest that you look at it from the Bible's ancient viewpoint.

 

[JustTheFacts]

James 16?? What specifically is that piece of writing? I'm not familiar with it. Is it a gospel? I'm leery of "validating" anything from extra-biblical sources and would prefer to stick with the eyewitnesses Matthew and John along with Mark and Dr. Luke, who both got their material from eyewitnesses.

Sorry, I get used to calling the Gospels by their authors names. James is the author of the Gospel of Mark.

What "contradictions" do you find in the gospels? Share with me one or two. The writers wrote to different audiences with different purposes. Therefore, they chose to include different details of Jesus' ministry. Those aren't contradictions.

I summarized this today:
There are contradictions that must be dealt with in the resurrection accounts presented in Matthew. For example, why is it recorded that “some doubted?” If all doubted, I could see this being a reference to the disciples not recognizing Jesus. But this is not what is stated, we read that only “some doubted.” John wrote that after the disciples witnessed Jesus resurrected, they believed (John 2:22). Therefore, either John or this account is in error because they both can’t be right. In addition, there is another contradiction because, earlier in Matthew it is recorded that Jesus commanded the disciples to go to Galilee to witness him resurrected (Matthew 28:10), and Matthew 28:16 validates this happening. But why? According to John the disciples witnessed Jesus resurrected in Jerusalem in that locked room. Therefore, we have another contradiction.

The Gospel of Mark through James does not help resolve contradictions, and in fact it supports previous contradictions and presents new ones:



7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He goes before you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he said to you.’” 8 They went out, and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had come on them. They said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid. (Mark 16:7-8)



The disciples are again documented being commanded to go to Galilee to meet up with resurrected Jesus but this time the command came through an angel rather than Jesus. We have two accounts telling us that Jesus will meet with the disciples first in Galilee, but again John’s account told us that Jesus appeared to them in Jerusalem. But then there is another contradiction in this account in Mark because it claims that two women reported as Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James (Mark 16:1) found the empty tomb, saw a young man sitting, then left and said nothing. John recorded that one woman, Mary Magdalene found the tomb empty and left the tomb to tell John and Peter what she had witnessed. John’s account is verified through Matthew 28:8. John says there was only one woman and she wasn’t silent.

The contradictions continue as Matthew 28:9 claims Jesus appeared to the two women after they left the tomb, but John wrote that Jesus appeared to one woman, Mary Magdalene, while she was still at the tomb. Was there one woman or two women? Was Mary told to go tell the disciples, or did Mary Magdalene and another woman leave and remain silent? Were there angels and an earthquake as reported in Matthew 28:2? Were the disciples supposed to meet with Jesus in Galilee or remain in Jerusalem? Did the angels really tell the women to “go, tell his disciples and Peter” or was this another false teacher edit to separate Peter from the rest of the disciples to present him as their leader? It hurts my head trying to resolve all the contradictions that are presented in the Gospel resurrection accounts.

For example, Matthew says that Jesus said the cup was the blood of the covenant to emphasize the Abrahamic covenant's continuity with the NT one, while Luke says that he said "new covenant" to emphasize the covenant's discontinuity with the OT. Both are true.

No problem with this...but realize that Nicodemus the author wasn't present so he copied the account from James [Mark]. Note the exact wording.

From Matthew: 23 He answered, “He who dipped his hand with me in the dish will betray me. 24 The Son of Man goes even as it is written of him, but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for that man if he had not been born.” 25 Judas, who betrayed him, answered, “It isn’t me, is it, Rabbi?” He said to him, “You said it.” 26 As they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks for it, and broke it. He gave to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s Kingdom.” 30 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

From Mark: 20 He answered them, “It is one of the twelve, he who dips with me in the dish. 21 For the Son of Man goes, even as it is written about him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for that man if he had not been born.” 22 As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had blessed, he broke it, and gave to them, and said, “Take, eat. This is my body.” 23 He took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them. They all drank of it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Most certainly I tell you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it anew in God’s Kingdom.” 26 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Luke's author was not present so I haven't considered that change, but that author also copied from Mark's author James. Luke is meant to build the reputation of Peter and cover up their deceit. Can you explain the significance of that change to support that motive?

At first glance, I'm afraid that you are using modern thinking of a historian to examine ancient writing. I suggest that you look at it from the Bible's ancient viewpoint.

You are using ancient thinking to address the New Covenant. Jesus replaced the temple, therefore the Jewish temple is no longer important during the New Covenant. That is but one example. Is it more practical and wise to understand prophecy for the future in ancient terms or by using modern thinking?

 

[BruceLeiter]

Oh, okay. You'll forgive me if I continue to call that gospel Matthew.

1) The disciples had varying degrees of faith and doubt about Jesus' resurrection. John 2:22 emphasizes their faith, because he is big on faith in his gospel, but you notice that in that passage, it doesn't tell at what point they believed. Certainly, Thomas didn't believe right away. Matthew with Mark emphasizes the disciples' doubt and unbelief, perhaps to comfort doubters in their audiences in that even the inner circle doubted. However, you draw a conclusion that one of them has to be in error, because, again, you are looking at it as a modern analyzer instead of an ancient evaluator of an ancient text. I see this clearly because I taught literature interpretation as an English teacher. Context is everything also in the Bible.

2) The gospel writers include some details and exclude others depending on their purposes and audiences. Matthew's account emphasizes Galilee and leaves out the other appearances because Jesus' ministry began there and has come around to the same place, the way John does in a sense after the appearances he includes. Please don't judge the details the writer leaves out as mistakes. They just have different purposes for their different audiences. It's also interesting that John presents three Passovers, but the three show only one and emphasize Jesus' Galilee ministry much more, but it's not a contradiction for the reason I mention here.

3) The prophets and apostles who wrote the history of the Bible are not modern historians, but their accounts are what I call "preaching or teaching histories." The gospel writers gathered together the history as eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) or as writers (Mark and Luke) who got their history of Jesus' ministry from eyewitnesses and put them together according to certain themes that they wanted to emphasize like faith and doubt for the good of their audiences. So, to see "contradictions" is to look at them from a modern perspective that wants chronological descriptions is unfair to the writers and to God, who inspired them to write.

4) You refer to the Mark account of the resurrection. Read the whole book noting the many times he emphasizes the disciples' unbelief and doubt. The Jews had this overwhelming desire for a political Messiah who would kick the Romans out of their land and who would become the king there. Their doubt was genuine in that Jesus never really measured up to their expectations. Mark emphasizes their doubt, especially when Jesus showed his divine abilities like walking on water. Therefore, his account follows the same emphasis with the women's doubt as well on resurrection morning.

5) Different gospels have different versions of the women and the disciples' involvement with the results of the resurrection, again, because they choose different details to emphasize. Of course, the whole gospel of John emphasizes faith and our need to believe in Jesus as both God as well as man. So, it's not surprising that he shows the resurrection details that he does. Do you see the difference between "preaching" and modern, strictly-chronological history? When you do, most of the "contradictions" will go away, I predict.

May God bless you, @JustTheFacts.

 

[BruceLeiter]

Sorry, I get used to calling the Gospels by their authors names. James is the author of the Gospel of Mark.

I summarized this today:
There are contradictions that must be dealt with in the resurrection accounts presented in Matthew. For example, why is it recorded that “some doubted?” If all doubted, I could see this being a reference to the disciples not recognizing Jesus. But this is not what is stated, we read that only “some doubted.” John wrote that after the disciples witnessed Jesus resurrected, they believed (John 2:22). Therefore, either John or this account is in error because they both can’t be right. In addition, there is another contradiction because, earlier in Matthew it is recorded that Jesus commanded the disciples to go to Galilee to witness him resurrected (Matthew 28:10), and Matthew 28:16 validates this happening. But why? According to John the disciples witnessed Jesus resurrected in Jerusalem in that locked room. Therefore, we have another contradiction.

The Gospel of Mark through James does not help resolve contradictions, and in fact it supports previous contradictions and presents new ones:



7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He goes before you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he said to you.’” 8 They went out, and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had come on them. They said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid. (Mark 16:7-8)



The disciples are again documented being commanded to go to Galilee to meet up with resurrected Jesus but this time the command came through an angel rather than Jesus. We have two accounts telling us that Jesus will meet with the disciples first in Galilee, but again John’s account told us that Jesus appeared to them in Jerusalem. But then there is another contradiction in this account in Mark because it claims that two women reported as Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James (Mark 16:1) found the empty tomb, saw a young man sitting, then left and said nothing. John recorded that one woman, Mary Magdalene found the tomb empty and left the tomb to tell John and Peter what she had witnessed. John’s account is verified through Matthew 28:8. John says there was only one woman and she wasn’t silent.

The contradictions continue as Matthew 28:9 claims Jesus appeared to the two women after they left the tomb, but John wrote that Jesus appeared to one woman, Mary Magdalene, while she was still at the tomb. Was there one woman or two women? Was Mary told to go tell the disciples, or did Mary Magdalene and another woman leave and remain silent? Were there angels and an earthquake as reported in Matthew 28:2? Were the disciples supposed to meet with Jesus in Galilee or remain in Jerusalem? Did the angels really tell the women to “go, tell his disciples and Peter” or was this another false teacher edit to separate Peter from the rest of the disciples to present him as their leader? It hurts my head trying to resolve all the contradictions that are presented in the Gospel resurrection accounts.

No problem with this...but realize that Nicodemus the author wasn't present so he copied the account from James [Mark]. Note the exact wording.

From Matthew: 23 He answered, “He who dipped his hand with me in the dish will betray me. 24 The Son of Man goes even as it is written of him, but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for that man if he had not been born.” 25 Judas, who betrayed him, answered, “It isn’t me, is it, Rabbi?” He said to him, “You said it.” 26 As they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks for it, and broke it. He gave to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s Kingdom.” 30 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

From Mark: 20 He answered them, “It is one of the twelve, he who dips with me in the dish. 21 For the Son of Man goes, even as it is written about him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would be better for that man if he had not been born.” 22 As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had blessed, he broke it, and gave to them, and said, “Take, eat. This is my body.” 23 He took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them. They all drank of it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Most certainly I tell you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it anew in God’s Kingdom.” 26 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Luke's author was not present so I haven't considered that change, but that author also copied from Mark's author James. Luke is meant to build the reputation of Peter and cover up their deceit. Can you explain the significance of that change to support that motive?


You are using ancient thinking to address the New Covenant. Jesus replaced the temple, therefore the Jewish temple is no longer important during the New Covenant. That is but one example. Is it more practical and wise to understand prophecy for the future in ancient terms or by using modern thinking?

I didn't address your last point. In order to understand any literature's meaning, including the Bible's, we need to study their writing from their own viewpoints, and then we can take the principles or main ideas they present and apply them to the present and to the future.

We must also learn from other students of the Bible who have approached it from the writers' viewpoints and the Bible's assumptions, not laying our own expectations and reasoning on them. The old and new covenants are a very big subject, but I'll summarize my understanding in the light of Scripture. First, we have to understand the meanings of the words from the Bible's usages. The meaning of the word "new" in the New Testament (kainos) is different from another word meaning new (neos--from which we get the word "new"). "Neos" means "brand-new" and is used for young child or baby, for obvious reasons.

Second, however, kainos in new covenant, new Jerusalem, new earth, and new heaven means something like "new and improved." Thus, the new covenant has both continuity and discontinuity with the old one. The outward form of the Old Testament laws has disappeared, but the inner meanings of those laws continue on for Christians.

Third, this understanding dispenses with seeming contradictions between mentions of the law being good and others that say the law has been abolished. Rightly understood within the Bible's meanings and contexts, no real contradictions exist.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Oh, okay. You'll forgive me if I continue to call that gospel Matthew.

1) The disciples had varying degrees of faith and doubt about Jesus' resurrection. John 2:22 emphasizes their faith, because he is big on faith in his gospel, but you notice that in that passage, it doesn't tell at what point they believed.

Hi Bruce, I'm not sure how you can claim that when it is apparent John is talking about the resurrection:

20 The Jews therefore said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple! Will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he spoke of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this, and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

Certainly, Thomas didn't believe right away.

Thomas didn't believe until he witnessed Jesus resurrected.

Matthew with Mark emphasizes the disciples' doubt and unbelief, perhaps to comfort doubters in their audiences in that even the inner circle doubted.

The account in Matthew, 28:16-20 that mentions doubt is a contradiction with what is written by John. For that and other reasons, that account in Matthew is an edit by false teachers.

However, you draw a conclusion that one of them has to be in error, because, again, you are looking at it as a modern analyzer instead of an ancient evaluator of an ancient text. I see this clearly because I taught literature interpretation as an English teacher. Context is everything also in the Bible.

Please explain how your expertise proves that I am wrong because I just don't see it.

2) The gospel writers include some details and exclude others depending on their purposes and audiences. Matthew's account emphasizes Galilee and leaves out the other appearances because Jesus' ministry began there and has come around to the same place, the way John does in a sense after the appearances he includes. Please don't judge the details the writer leaves out as mistakes.

Which is more feasible, the Gospel writers included what the Holy Spirit directed them to write or your theology. I'll go with the Holy Spirit believing that every validated word is the word of God and is there for a reason.

They just have different purposes for their different audiences. It's also interesting that John presents three Passovers, but the three show only one and emphasize Jesus' Galilee ministry much more, but it's not a contradiction for the reason I mention here.

The purpose of the Gospels is to provide the testimony of Jesus Christ. Audience doesn't matter because it is meant for all nations, people, and languages. The references to the Galilee appearance are false teacher edits. Each valid appearance of Jesus has one thing in common--can you find it?

3) The prophets and apostles who wrote the history of the Bible are not modern historians, but their accounts are what I call "preaching or teaching histories." The gospel writers gathered together the history as eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) or as writers (Mark and Luke) who got their history of Jesus' ministry from eyewitnesses and put them together according to certain themes that they wanted to emphasize like faith and doubt for the good of their audiences.

Matthew is not documented as witnessing anything so this theory falls apart with face value. There is no proof that Mark and Luke obtained their documentation from an eyewitness because none are named so that argument also falls apart. Your theology fails to pass the Deuteronomy test for Jesus as the Messiah. Does this sound like what God left the world?

So, to see "contradictions" is to look at them from a modern perspective that wants chronological descriptions is unfair to the writers and to God, who inspired them to write.

How do you know what is fair to writers and to God? Do you have special knowledge of this that I should understand. Why are you not taking the contradictions one by one and explaining to me why my understanding is in error?

4) You refer to the Mark account of the resurrection. Read the whole book noting the many times he emphasizes the disciples' unbelief and doubt.

John said the disciples didn't believe until they witnessed the resurrection so John validates their unbelief. John said they believed after witnessing the resurrection of Jesus. This is expected! The doubt and unbelief they had prior to that is also expected.

The Jews had this overwhelming desire for a political Messiah who would kick the Romans out of their land and who would become the king there. Their doubt was genuine in that Jesus never really measured up to their expectations. Mark emphasizes their doubt, especially when Jesus showed his divine abilities like walking on water. Therefore, his account follows the same emphasis with the women's doubt as well on resurrection morning.

But you haven't addressed any contradictions. Yes they had doubt prior to the resurrection. I agree.

5) Different gospels have different versions of the women and the disciples' involvement with the results of the resurrection, again, because they choose different details to emphasize.

But this doesn't explain the contradictions. It's the word of God so I expect it to be accurate and precise.

Of course, the whole gospel of John emphasizes faith and our need to believe in Jesus as both God as well as man. So, it's not surprising that he shows the resurrection details that he does. Do you see the difference between "preaching" and modern, strictly-chronological history? When you do, most of the "contradictions" will go away, I predict.

John is an eyewitness presenting what he saw. He had no special motive just like the others had no special audience or motive. That theology is nowhere in the Gospels or the word of God. It's a creation by religious leaders that is not valid.

So you object to me finding and revealing that the Gospels are eyewitness statements that prove Jesus as the Messiah and God?

May God bless you, @JustTheFacts.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I didn't address your last point. In order to understand any literature's meaning, including the Bible's, we need to study their writing from their own viewpoints, and then we can take the principles or main ideas they present and apply them to the present and to the future.

Again, their viewpoint is writing the testimony of Jesus Christ for the people of all nations and languages as specified in Mark 13:10. Are you basing that expectation on something I have missed or is that just more theology?

We must also learn from other students of the Bible who have approached it from the writers' viewpoints and the Bible's assumptions, not laying our own expectations and reasoning on them.

I choose not to be tainted by other students of the Bible. I read, pray, and write. The Gospels are meant to be understood, so there shouldn't be any mysteries or confusion that require me understanding what others have concluded. However, if you provide specific examples of a scripture verse I have misinterpreted and the reason for it, I will be glad to review your analysis and consider it.

The old and new covenants are a very big subject, but I'll summarize my understanding in the light of Scripture. First, we have to understand the meanings of the words from the Bible's usages. The meaning of the word "new" in the New Testament (kainos) is different from another word meaning new (neos--from which we get the word "new"). "Neos" means "brand-new" and is used for young child or baby, for obvious reasons.

Second, however, kainos in new covenant, new Jerusalem, new earth, and new heaven means something like "new and improved." Thus, the new covenant has both continuity and discontinuity with the old one. The outward form of the Old Testament laws has disappeared, but the inner meanings of those laws continue on for Christians.

I agree with this. The New Covenant of Jesus flowed from the Old Covenant to the New and the Law was not removed, they continue--just as Jesus described in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew.

Thanks for your thoughts Bruce.

Third, this understanding dispenses with seeming contradictions between mentions of the law being good and others that say the law has been abolished. Rightly understood within the Bible's meanings and contexts, no real contradictions exist.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I didn't address your last point. In order to understand any literature's meaning, including the Bible's, we need to study their writing from their own viewpoints, and then we can take the principles or main ideas they present and apply them to the present and to the future.

We must also learn from other students of the Bible who have approached it from the writers' viewpoints and the Bible's assumptions, not laying our own expectations and reasoning on them. The old and new covenants are a very big subject, but I'll summarize my understanding in the light of Scripture. First, we have to understand the meanings of the words from the Bible's usages. The meaning of the word "new" in the New Testament (kainos) is different from another word meaning new (neos--from which we get the word "new"). "Neos" means "brand-new" and is used for young child or baby, for obvious reasons.

Second, however, kainos in new covenant, new Jerusalem, new earth, and new heaven means something like "new and improved." Thus, the new covenant has both continuity and discontinuity with the old one. The outward form of the Old Testament laws has disappeared, but the inner meanings of those laws continue on for Christians.

Third, this understanding dispenses with seeming contradictions between mentions of the law being good and others that say the law has been abolished. Rightly understood within the Bible's meanings and contexts, no real contradictions exist.

Bruce, Do you see the differences in our approaches? I believe that the word of God is precise and accurate and I will understand it if I put it into perspective and context with Prophecy and additional words of God. The contradictions are not from God so I try to explain what happened from the word of God. Prophecy tells me there is corruption in it, so I need to understand the motive for the corruption in order to separate out the word of God from false teacher edits. You are trying to rationalize the Gospel writing and contradictions through theology. We will make progress only if you leave theology behind and support your points with words from the Bible.

 

[Lamb]

Bruce, Do you see the differences in our approaches? I believe that the word of God is precise and accurate and I will understand it if I put it into perspective and context with Prophecy and additional words of God. The contradictions are not from God so I try to explain what happened from the word of God. Prophecy tells me there is corruption in it, so I need to understand the motive for the corruption in order to separate out the word of God from false teacher edits. You are trying to rationalize the Gospel writing and contradictions through theology. We will make progress only if you leave theology behind and support your points with words from the Bible.

Your personal prophecy is that valuable to you? You don't think Satan is influencing you at all to want to remove important portions of God's Word in holy scripture?

 

[JustTheFacts]

Your personal prophecy is that valuable to you? You don't think Satan is influencing you at all to want to remove important portions of God's Word in holy scripture?

I understand your concerns because I talk about some of the things that have happened in my life and either get strange looks or people related their experiences to me. Let me give some examples why I know my visions and dreams aren't from Satan. Was it Satan who made my alarm clock fail so that I had to cancel my training session for several other people, then me and those operators were spared death when an explosion of a tanker truck destroyed the area about 30 minutes after I cancelled it? Did the spirt that hovered over me as I was sleeping at age 42 and woke me in the middle of the night at the same time our Christian friend unknowingly died, come from Satan? Our friend was a devout Christian who died in her mid-30s with breast cancer that same night about 1300 miles away. Was the person named Zeke that I worked with for three days when I was eighteen years old who directed me to a martial arts school that changed my life come from Satan? My boss and the martial arts instruction who Zeke he trained him, had both never heard of Zeke--apparently I worked with a ghost with the name of Ezekiel. My friend and I still talk about Zeke because he mysteriously met us while he was in a parking lot walking around with the temperature about 10 F. Was Zeke sent by Satan? Only positive came out of that experience too.

More recently, did the dream I had that told me my wife had cancer come from Satan, even though a month later we went for a prescheduled dermatology appointment and she was found to have skin cancer on her arm? I've had many dreams and visions about corruption to the Church and prophecy has proved them all to be found in the word of God. I've even had dreams telling me what verses to look at to get answers to difficult sections of the word of God I'm trying to understand.

I can go on and on about my dreams and visions that have directed me to understand prophecy and the word of God, and have found to be true later. I've also had dreams and visions that I hope don't come true, but I'm not scared because I know my future and it isn't with Satan. In my humble opinion, I've seen nothing that would indicate the devil is in my life. Satan remained in my life for twenty years as I claimed to be a Christian, but left when I dedictated my life to Jesus and the word of God.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Your personal prophecy is that valuable to you? You don't think Satan is influencing you at all to want to remove important portions of God's Word in holy scripture?

Contesting the word of God would be Satan working in me and I don't do that. The spread and widespread belief of theology is the work of Satan, and this is the message my visions and dreams give me. People accept theology as though it is the word of God, but theology is based on only opinions; it does not come from God.

 

[Lamb]

I understand your concerns because I talk about some of the things that have happened in my life and either get strange looks or people related their experiences to me. Let me give some examples why I know my visions and dreams aren't from Satan. Was it Satan who made my alarm clock fail so that I had to cancel my training session for several other people, then me and those operators were spared death when an explosion of a tanker truck destroyed the area about 30 minutes after I cancelled it? Did the spirt that hovered over me as I was sleeping at age 42 and woke me in the middle of the night at the same time our Christian friend unknowingly died, come from Satan? Our friend was a devout Christian who died in her mid-30s with breast cancer that same night about 1300 miles away. Was the person named Zeke that I worked with for three days when I was eighteen years old who directed me to a martial arts school that changed my life come from Satan? My boss and the martial arts instruction who Zeke he trained him, had both never heard of Zeke--apparently I worked with a ghost with the name of Ezekiel. My friend and I still talk about Zeke because he mysteriously met us while he was in a parking lot walking around with the temperature about 10 F. Was Zeke sent by Satan? Only positive came out of that experience too.

More recently, did the dream I had that told me my wife had cancer come from Satan, even though a month later we went for a prescheduled dermatology appointment and she was found to have skin cancer on her arm? I've had many dreams and visions about corruption to the Church and prophecy has proved them all to be found in the word of God. I've even had dreams telling me what verses to look at to get answers to difficult sections of the word of God I'm trying to understand.

I can go on and on about my dreams and visions that have directed me to understand prophecy and the word of God, and have found to be true later. I've also had dreams and visions that I hope don't come true, but I'm not scared because I know my future and it isn't with Satan. In my humble opinion, I've seen nothing that would indicate the devil is in my life. Satan remained in my life for twenty years as I claimed to be a Christian, but left when I dedictated my life to Jesus and the word of God.

Those dreams have nothing to do with the Word of God though.

 

[Lamb]

Contesting the word of God would be Satan working in me and I don't do that. The spread and widespread belief of theology is the work of Satan, and this is the message my visions and dreams give me. People accept theology as though it is the word of God, but theology is based on only opinions; it does not come from God.

People accept the Bible as the word of God and you are here trying to tell our members that it is wrong?

 

[JustTheFacts]

People accept the Bible as the word of God and you are here trying to tell our members that it is wrong?

The Bible has all the word of God in it, but not everything in the Bible is the word of God. Thus far nobody has presented any evidence here that would change my investigation conclusions. Per the word of God in the Bible, the words of prophets meeting Deuteronomy 18:21-22. Prophets are proven to be speaking the word of God if their prophecy of the Messiah came true. The Messiah must be proven true by two- or three-witnesses per Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15. My investigation found that there are three eyewitness testimonies presented in the Bible--Matthew written by Nicodemus, Mark written by James, and John written by Jesus chosen special disciple John. I just finished wrapping up the last portion of my investigation on the resurrection accounts. Jesus is not proven to be the Messiah if there isn't eyewitness testimony of his resurrection. I found that Jesus' resurrection is proven true--there are five validated and verified resurrection appearances that Jesus make in the Gospels. The word of God in the Bible proves Jesus as the Messiah and God. What is confusing you and why are you claiming I'm telling members that the Bible is not the word of God?

 

[JustTheFacts]

Those dreams have nothing to do with the Word of God though.

I don 't speak the word of God and my dreams don't give me the word of God to speak. You have the same word of God that I do-written in the Bible. You find meaning of the word of God through theology--the opinions of others, some who claim to be experts. Throughout my career I've dealt with numerous so-called experts--many with PhDs, and found them to be lacking common sense and analytical skills. I use my investigative and interrogation training experience, assessment and audit training and experience, proven document analytical skills, along with my dreams/visions to study the word of God in the Bible.

My results do not support common theology that many Christians believe and hold dear to their hearts. I debate the word of God with verses that are in the Bible AND proven through Deuteronomy to be the word of God. Most Christians don't like this--they want to debate me with theology, but I won't do it because theology is unproven opinions of others and I focus on facts--not opinions.

 

[Lamb]

I don 't speak the word of God and my dreams don't give me the word of God to speak. You have the same word of God that I do-written in the Bible. You find meaning of the word of God through theology--the opinions of others, some who claim to be experts. Throughout my career I've dealt with numerous so-called experts--many with PhDs, and found them to be lacking common sense and analytical skills. I use my investigative and interrogation training experience, assessment and audit training and experience, proven document analytical skills, along with my dreams/visions to study the word of God in the Bible.

My results do not support common theology that many Christians believe and hold dear to their hearts. I debate the word of God with verses that are in the Bible AND proven through Deuteronomy to be the word of God. Most Christians don't like this--they want to debate me with theology, but I won't do it because theology is unproven opinions of others and I focus on facts--not opinions.

Actually, the theology I receive is from the Holy Spirit because it's from my Holy Bible.

 

[Lamb]

The Bible has all the word of God in it, but not everything in the Bible is the word of God. Thus far nobody has presented any evidence here that would change my investigation conclusions. Per the word of God in the Bible, the words of prophets meeting Deuteronomy 18:21-22. Prophets are proven to be speaking the word of God if their prophecy of the Messiah came true. The Messiah must be proven true by two- or three-witnesses per Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15. My investigation found that there are three eyewitness testimonies presented in the Bible--Matthew written by Nicodemus, Mark written by James, and John written by Jesus chosen special disciple John. I just finished wrapping up the last portion of my investigation on the resurrection accounts. Jesus is not proven to be the Messiah if there isn't eyewitness testimony of his resurrection. I found that Jesus' resurrection is proven true--there are five validated and verified resurrection appearances that Jesus make in the Gospels. The word of God in the Bible proves Jesus as the Messiah and God. What is confusing you and why are you claiming I'm telling members that the Bible is not the word of God?

You're telling members that the bible isn't the word of God because you're saying that some of the books within are NOT. That's not acceptable.

 

[JustTheFacts]

The Bible is where the word of God is found. There is no other place where we can get to the word of God besides the Bible. Yes we disagree on theology because I have used the word of God to prove that some of what has been put into the Bible is not the word of God.

Is this a forum where we can discuss what we have found and put our conclusions up for debate, or is this a threat to boot me off because my conclusions are unacceptable? They may be unacceptable to some but I'm still waiting for somebody to prove my conclusions wrong through the word of God in the Bible. What is so threatening about that?

 

[JustTheFacts]

Actually, the theology I receive is from the Holy Spirit because it's from my Holy Bible.

Where in the word of God does it say that theology comes from the Holy Spirit? The word of God comes from the Holy Spirit, but I haven't read anything pointing me to Theology as the word of God. Please share.

 

[BruceLeiter]

Hi Bruce, I'm not sure how you can claim that when it is apparent John is talking about the resurrection:

20 The Jews therefore said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple! Will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he spoke of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this, and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.


Thomas didn't believe until he witnessed Jesus resurrected.

The account in Matthew, 28:16-20 that mentions doubt is a contradiction with what is written by John. For that and other reasons, that account in Matthew is an edit by false teachers.

Please explain how your expertise proves that I am wrong because I just don't see it.

Which is more feasible, the Gospel writers included what the Holy Spirit directed them to write or your theology. I'll go with the Holy Spirit believing that every validated word is the word of God and is there for a reason.

The purpose of the Gospels is to provide the testimony of Jesus Christ. Audience doesn't matter because it is meant for all nations, people, and languages. The references to the Galilee appearance are false teacher edits. Each valid appearance of Jesus has one thing in common--can you find it?

Matthew is not documented as witnessing anything so this theory falls apart with face value. There is no proof that Mark and Luke obtained their documentation from an eyewitness because none are named so that argument also falls apart. Your theology fails to pass the Deuteronomy test for Jesus as the Messiah. Does this sound like what God left the world?

How do you know what is fair to writers and to God? Do you have special knowledge of this that I should understand. Why are you not taking the contradictions one by one and explaining to me why my understanding is in error?

John said the disciples didn't believe until they witnessed the resurrection so John validates their unbelief. John said they believed after witnessing the resurrection of Jesus. This is expected! The doubt and unbelief they had prior to that is also expected.

But you haven't addressed any contradictions. Yes they had doubt prior to the resurrection. I agree.

But this doesn't explain the contradictions. It's the word of God so I expect it to be accurate and precise.

John is an eyewitness presenting what he saw. He had no special motive just like the others had no special audience or motive. That theology is nowhere in the Gospels or the word of God. It's a creation by religious leaders that is not valid.

So you object to me finding and revealing that the Gospels are eyewitness statements that prove Jesus as the Messiah and God?

Why is Matthew 28:16-20 a contradiction with John? Please be specific.
First, God taught me how to interpret literature in general and then reinforced that knowledge with the best interpretation of the Bible with which I preached for 27 years, because there are many parallels. The differences have to do primarily with the content, of course, because the Bible is divinely inspired. The others were not.
Second, theology can be unbiblical or biblical depending on several factors. If it interprets Scripture according to its own assumptions and meanings instead of the writer's extra-biblical assumptions and meanings, it is good theology. But if it takes the writer's extra-biblical ideas and imposes them on texts, it is wrong. Also, if that bad theology takes verses out of context and weaves them together in the "garment" of an unbiblical idea, it is also bad theology.
Third, good theology takes into account the kind of literature, the main idea of a passage, the verses around any verse, and the audience of the passage. For example, Kings and Chronicles cover the same history, but Kings was written during the exile to show Israel why they went into exile and their need to repent. Chronicles was written after the people returned from exile to emphasize their need to rebuild the walls and the temple, hence, the attention to the temple worship.
Fourth, how do you know that all of the gospels have the same purpose? Yes, they present Jesus to us, but their emphases are different. Matthew presents Jesus as the Messiah who fulfilled the Old Testament. Mark probably wrote to persecuted Romans who either disbelieved in and/or had doubts about Jesus as the Son of God, as you can see when you look at it noting the emphasis on the disciples' unbelief and doubts. After thoroughly investigating the eyewitnesses, as Dr. Luke says, he more than likely wrote the gospel and Acts to a seeker who was probably a mid-level Roman administrator with the clear proof that Jesus was miraculously conceived and did many miracles as the King of the universe and of his people.
Fifth, you say that Matthew is "not documented" to witness anything. Why does he have to be documented independently? Again, you're using a modern-history approach. The Holy Spirit led him to remember his eyewitness experiences. Isn't that enough (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:16-21)?
Sixth, why does the Matthew 28:16-20 passage have to be a false-teacher edit? What is wrong with its content?
Seventh, why do you condemn "theology" as if all theology is the same? It's not; I know that it's not from personal education and experience. I suggest that you get into a biblical church and into a small group which discusses God's Word in order to get other people's perspectives on it. I have found it a real blessing. Individual Bible study can lead a person astray from the truth.
Eighth, we will all have to give account and answer for what we thought, did, felt, and shared with believers when we appear before our heavenly Father. Some will have many doubts when they read your thoughts.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Why is Matthew 28:16-20 a contradiction with John? Please be specific.

For one thing, the account says that some doubted. John 2:22 stated that after witnessing Jesus resurrected the disciples believed. This is to be expected--someone witnesses somebody resurrected they will believe that person to be God. Also, consider that there are no eyewitness details presented for the only appearance recorded in Matthew. Even the locations isn't clear. The disciples went "into Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had sent them. The disciples have just witnessed Jesus alive but there is no description of Jesus, the disciples, or anything about where they were or what they were doing. Analysis indicates that it is not a valid resurrection account.

First, God taught me how to interpret literature in general and then reinforced that knowledge with the best interpretation of the Bible with which I preached for 27 years, because there are many parallels. The differences have to do primarily with the content, of course, because the Bible is divinely inspired. The others were not.

That is commendable. We all do the best we can. Me, I was the go-to guy for a quick analysis. Hand me an inch thick report from Washington D.C. and ask me what I think, and in an hour or two I'll highlight some issues. I speed read and connect the dots. The Bible has been different. I was frustrated with important parts of prophecy, prayed, then had a dream/vision to carefully read and examine every word, and I will understand. That is when I learned that every word of God is intentional. It's the WOW factor.

Second, theology can be unbiblical or biblical depending on several factors. If it interprets Scripture according to its own assumptions and meanings instead of the writer's extra-biblical assumptions and meanings, it is good theology. But if it takes the writer's extra-biblical ideas and imposes them on texts, it is wrong. Also, if that bad theology takes verses out of context and weaves them together in the "garment" of an unbiblical idea, it is also bad theology.

My results show that theology isn't needed because if a person focuses on the word of God, all of our issues and questions are addressed by God. A person relying on theology is considering the opinions of people. Theology causes factions in the Church because one group follow this theology and another follows that. Theology is damaging to the one true Church that God started and it isn't necessary. I challenge you to give me one piece of theology that I need to understand God. We are smart people and if we go to the word of God, we have our answers--that is the words of Jesus and the prophets--those who God designated to speak for him!

Third, good theology takes into account the kind of literature, the main idea of a passage, the verses around any verse, and the audience of the passage. For example, Kings and Chronicles cover the same history, but Kings was written during the exile to show Israel why they went into exile and their need to repent. Chronicles was written after the people returned from exile to emphasize their need to rebuild the walls and the temple, hence, the attention to the temple worship.

What does that add to the New Covenant of Jesus?

Fourth, how do you know that all of the gospels have the same purpose? Yes, they present Jesus to us, but their emphases are different. Matthew presents Jesus as the Messiah who fulfilled the Old Testament.
Mark probably wrote to persecuted Romans who either disbelieved in and/or had doubts about Jesus as the Son of God, as you can see when you look at it noting the emphasis on the disciples' unbelief and doubts. After thoroughly investigating the eyewitnesses, as Dr. Luke says, he more than likely wrote the gospel and Acts to a seeker who was probably a mid-level Roman administrator with the clear proof that Jesus was miraculously conceived and did many miracles as the King of the universe and of his people.

If we know who wrote them it explains their eyewitness testimony. As you stated, Nicodemus wrote Matthew in response to the challenge of his fellow Pharisees. James [Mark} was a wallflower and his testimony was to the point. He wasn't close to Jesus and there is no documentation of him having any conversations with Jesus. He was distant and the details he wrote are simple and to the point. John was the special disciple who was close to the action, knew the religious leaders and was chosen to receive the Revelation vision.

What can you tell me about Matthew, John Mark, and Luke? Zip, zilch, zero. You don't know anything about their personalities and they never met Jesus. We know Nicodemus, James, and John because they are in the Gospel accounts.

What would God leave the world? Would God select twelve disciples then have unknowns write their testimony about him. Yes Matthew is an unknown. You can do a quick check of the accounts of Matthew the tax collector. The copy in Matthew has been copied from Mark and the name changed. That is the only difference between the copied account and the original. My job is analyzing stuff like this. Matthew did not write that Gospel!

Everyone believes theology yet the basic theology of the Gospel authors when scrutinized, is proven false.

Fifth, you say that Matthew is "not documented" to witness anything. Why does he have to be documented independently? Again, you're using a modern-history approach. The Holy Spirit led him to remember his eyewitness experiences. Isn't that enough (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:16-21)?

But there is no documentation that Matthew witnessed anything. You have the words of later Church leaders telling you a story and you believe it. My job was to search for the truth and I did. BTW do you know who wrote 2 Peter? There is evidence in it that it was written by Paul--search the word "tent," a word Paul used in reference to him being a tentmaker. Are you connecting those verses to allow others to speak for God?

Sixth, why does the Matthew 28:16-20 passage have to be a false-teacher edit? What is wrong with its content?

I specified above that it is not eyewitness testimony regardless of who wrote it. There is nothing in that account indicating that the author saw anything--this is analysis from my career. I don't make this stuff up. You were a pastor, i was an interrogator, assessors, fraud investigator, etc.

Seventh, why do you condemn "theology" as if all theology is the same? It's not; I know that it's not from personal education and experience. I suggest that you get into a biblical church and into a small group which discusses God's Word in order to get other people's perspectives on it. I have found it a real blessing. Individual Bible study can lead a person astray from the truth.

I'll ask again, please provide one example of theology I need to believe in Jesus. I am 100% committed to Jesus and I'm a gear-hear analyst. I don't need theology and neither does anyone else. They only need the true word of God.

Eighth, we will all have to give account and answer for what we thought, did, felt, and shared with believers when we appear before our heavenly Father. Some will have many doubts when they read your thoughts.

I am 100% believer of Jesus and my work proves eyewitness testimonies of Jesus by those who knew Jesus. My work also proves God through prophecy predicted the future from the time of Jesus until now. There may be some created resurrection accounts but there are enough valid ones to prove Jesus resurrected. If you read though this and want to know, I'll respond how you can tell a true resurrection account from false teacher edits. Once they are separated, all contradictions in the resurrection accounts disappear. It's in the details!!!

How can any of my work be damaging to anyone?