- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 57,470
- Reaction score
- 14,587
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
And, that is what Luke claimed Jesus said.
You have to show that 1) Luke, who was writing between 90 and 110 ce , what telling the truth. 2) you have to show how he knew that.. he admits he heard story from elsewhere, so all he did was take stories he heard.
I don't have to prove he was telling the truth we have the documented manuscripts. it was easy to show how he knew that. if you read the beginning of luke he had first hand accounts.
He was a historian. prove he was lying which will be very difficult to do since he has a very accurate record of being a historian. Luke also knew the disciples themselves in his travels with Paul. Nothing you say here proves he is lying or distorting scripture.
wrong you are the one making the claim the burden of proof is on you no me.So, you have to show that what he heard was true, that he didn't make it up himself, and it was relayed to him unaltered
and, that the phrase 'Son of Man' is literal, rather than how the Jews used it.
Until you dot hat, you are doing what is known as 'Shifting the Burden of Proof'
no that is you. you are making the claim he is lying or they are. it is your job to prove the claim. you have yet to do so and instead are shifting the burden of
proof onto someone else to prove your claim for you. you can either prove they are lying and dishonest or you can't.
so far you are losing as you have not posted 1 single thing that disproves anything.
As for 'son of man'.. that is an idiom that was used in the Jewish culture to mean 'Human'. That shows that the author of the gospel of matthew was misusing the terms to sell to people who didn't understand the Jewish culture.
Since Matthew was a jew he understand Jewish culture very well.
The Son of Man references back to the vision in Daniel 7.
So both Christ and Matthew refer back to this as proof that Christ is the messiah. They would have known the reference and what he was claiming.
Plus, since the author of the Gospel of Matthew (whodoes not appear to be Matthew) was not an eye witness, you can't show that incident actually happened as written
yes the author of matthew was matthew also called levi who was a disciple of Christ.
so he was an eye witness to many of the events that he wrote about.
so yes I can.