Mark 13:10

[JustTheFacts]

Not true. They knew Jesus came from Galilee

A requirement for what?

The point is that they reckon no prophet ever came out of Galilee.
They didn't ask for a thorough investigation. They just asked Nicodemus if a prophet ever came out of Galilee (implication that Jesus could not be a prophet).

If you put their rejection of Jesus in context, the religious leaders completely rejected him, nothing was going to change their minds, Do you really believe that their objection to Jesus was the Galilee criteria?

I didn't suggest that the author had a manuscript. You seem to be having reading problems.

Did he or did he not examine manuscripts? If so, he must have had an original to claim Natthee as the author. Or he had a validated copy from the author. Do you or do you not know what evidence he specifically had?

Meaning all your other requests have been jokes? That would explain a lot.

Meaning your comments have been silly so I wanted to make sure you make a serious response.

You never do, so no change there

 

[BruceLeiter]

I haven't been through all of Peter's mentions in Matthew and I don't expect all of them to be "Peter-promoting," but I went through several events and found a pattern. Nicodemus copied from the Gospel of Mark. All events will either have proof of copying or not. Those that do if they have additional information, regardless of whether they are "Peter-promoting" or not, need the additional information carefully scrutinized to find out why.

The comparison starts at the beginning of the event with Nicodemus copying the event from James [Mark] because he wasn't present:

Matthew 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
Mark 8:27 Jesus went out, with his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that I am?”

Matthew 16:14 They said, “Some say John the Baptizer, some, Elijah, and others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
Mark 8:28 They told him, “John the Baptizer, and others say Elijah, but others, one of the prophets.”

Matthew 16:15-16 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Mark 8:29 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ.”

Then there is the add-on by the false teachers:

Nicodemus did not copy these sections so where did they come from because he wasn't present? The are edits from the false teachers to build the Catholic Church. Then the accounts details match again:

Mark 8:30 commanded them that they should tell no one about him.

Mark 8:31 He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Mark 8:32 He spoke to them openly. Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.

Mark 8:33 But he, turning around, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you have in mind not the things of God, but the things of men.”

It doesn't matter what the Rock means because it wasn't said by Jesus. It was the only section that Nicodemus didn't copied from Mark's author. It was added later. Note that there is another instance of Peter claiming that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. I think it's recorded by John. There is a much different reaction by Jesus and it is in a section that address false teachers. Ya think Jesus was giving us a message. Also, the words used in Matthew for Peter, "Simon Peter," are not typical for Nicodemus as he never knew Peter as Simon. More proof of the fraud!

Doesn't matter what people think of it because if you so a similar analysis you will find that it didn't happen. It is fraud.

You just reviewed one. Feel free to perform the same analysis on Jesus walking on water and you will also find it to be fraud.

The same passages could be used even more clearly to say that Mark got his eyewitness account from Peter and that Matthew was the eyewitness of all these events. Again, the gospel writers picked and chose the details that would benefit their different audiences.

The early church before the Roman church was formed had to have resisted the false teachers just as Paul did earlier, because the copyists were very careful in their job of copying the manuscripts. Out of the 10,000 manuscripts we have now, the errors are minor and don't affect any of the teachings or history.

You have no evidence or proof that the false teachers did anything to change the manuscripts. You only have a theory that cannot be advanced to a fact for lack of evidence.

 

[JustTheFacts]

The same passages could be used even more clearly to say that Mark got his eyewitness account from Peter and that Matthew was the eyewitness of all these events. Again, the gospel writers picked and chose the details that would benefit their different audiences.

I’ve never heard of an eyewitness copying details from another person to address an important issue. This is proof of Jesus as God and there is nothing more important than eyewitness testimony in accordance with Deuteronomy-the word of God. In other words, there is zero chance that Matthew, if he was an eyewitness, copied from another eyewitness. Furthermore, Jesus didn’t breathe the Holy Spirit into the disciples so they could pick and choose what to write about. They got the Holy Spirit to guide them and remind them of all the details they were to document on behalf of God.

The early church before the Roman church was formed had to have resisted the false teachers just as Paul did earlier, because the copyists were very careful in their job of copying the manuscripts.

Where is your proof of this? It doesn’t match what is presented in prophecy and it is an opinion that promotes a certain belief rather than performing fact finding to find the truth.

Out of the 10,000 manuscripts we have now, the errors are minor and don't affect any of the teachings or history.

You don’t have the original documents do you? In other words the documents that have been passed on were accurately copied and translated through history meticulously, just as Jesus promised, but none of us know how accurate the initial documents are to what we have. Fortunately for us,the wording and prophecy point out the false teacher edits.

You have no evidence or proof that the false teachers did anything to change the manuscripts. You only have a theory that cannot be advanced to a fact for lack of evidence.

Analysis proves editing, and prophecy together with history records validate when the Church was taken over, and who the false teachers were who corrupted the word of God. I have much more evidence than those that claim I am wrong and thus far, there hasn’t been one conclusion I would change based on feedback from anyone here. I am all ears and open to considering that I could be wrong-but I will follow the facts and evidence. Thus far everything, including my visions, prove I am right.

 

[Stephen]

If you put their rejection of Jesus in context, the religious leaders completely rejected him, nothing was going to change their minds, Do you really believe that their objection to Jesus was the Galilee criteria?

You keep ignoring what I write or distort it.
You cannot supply evidence that Nicodemus wrote a gospel.
You cannot supply evidence that Nicodemus was a follower of Jesus.
I'm wasting no more time on this.

 

[JustTheFacts]

You keep ignoring what I write or distort it.
You cannot supply evidence that Nicodemus wrote a gospel.
You cannot supply evidence that Nicodemus was a follower of Jesus.

If I was bored and crazy enough to do your homework I would go step by step to show you that about 2/3rds of Matthew is copied from Mark's author. You would respond with a similar silly and lazy comments.

Then, I could do more of your homework for you and prove to you that the rest of the Gospel of Matthew was written by a religious leader who had access to the Pharisees, the guards Jesus' tomb, and Governor Pilate. You would respond with your same silly and lazy comments.

I'm wasting no more time on this.

You finally wrote a comment I can agree with and appreciate. You are blinded by Catholic theology and you can prove nothing I write to be erroneous, AND you have no interest in searching for the truth. Blessings and have a great day Stephen.