• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Book of Ezequiel

RAMOSS said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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
Click to expand...
wrong you are the one making the claim the burden of proof is on you no me.

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'
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
ludin said:
yes they were. Paul was a jew part of the sanhedran, Matthew was a converted Jewish tax collector
John was a disciple of Jesus, Peter was a disciple of Jesus.

there is now more evidence the luke was a jew as well. luke being his greek name.

you claim but have no evidence to support yourself.
Click to expand...


There are some very good reasons to think that Paul was a convert. For one, according to the Ebbonites, he was a convert to court a high priests daughter, but became bitter when he was rejected. Then, there is the total lack of understanding and respect for Jewish Law. Plus there is the statement 'Unto the Jew, I became a Jew', which indicates he wasn't a Jewish person.

As for Mathew, there is no indication that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.

From Gospel of Matthew

It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.

It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience.

Herman N. Ridderbos writes (Matthew, p. 7):

This means, however, that we can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew's authorship. At least two things forbid us to do so. First, the tradition maintains that Matthew authored an Aramaic writing, while the standpoint I have adopted does not allow us to regard our Greek text as a translation of an Aramaic original. Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles. Indeed Matthew's Gospel surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke had been among those who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry.

J. C. Fenton argues (The Gospel of Saint Matthew, p. 12):

It is usually thought that Mark's Gospel was written about A.D. 65 and that the author of it was neither one of the apostles nor an eyewitness of the majority of the events recorded in his Gospel. Matthew was therefore dependent on the writing of such a man for the production of his book. What Matthew has done, in fact, is to produce a second and enlarged edition of Mark. Moreover, the changes which he makes in Mark's way of telling the story are not those corrections which an eyewitness might make in the account of one who was not an eyewitness. Thus, whereas in Mark's Gospel we may be only one remove from eyewitnesses, in Matthew's Gospel we are at one remove further still.
Click to expand...
 
ernst barkmann said:
here is why you are wrong.......because you do not quote the person correctly

ludin did not say jesus, he said Christ.

it is foretold that Christ shall enter into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, about 500 years before it happened.

Zechariah 9:9 specifically speaks of the Messiah riding into Jerusalem on a young donkey and being hailed as a king. T
Click to expand...

But then it says:
He will proclaim peace to the nations.
His rule will extend from sea to sea
and from the River to the ends of the earth.
Click to expand...


And that didn't happen.
 
RAMOSS said:
There are some very good reasons to think that Paul was a convert. For one, according to the Ebbonites, he was a convert to court a high priests daughter, but became bitter when he was rejected. Then, there is the total lack of understanding and respect for Jewish Law. Plus there is the statement 'Unto the Jew, I became a Jew', which indicates he wasn't a Jewish person.

As for Mathew, there is no indication that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.
Click to expand...
Saul is Roman was a jew and a roman. He father was a high ranking Pharisee. He was a Jew by birth. His father did something that the Romans then granted him Roman citizenship as well.

before his conversion on the road he was on track to be one of the high priests as much as he was almost close to it.
there is no way that he could have been a part of the Sanhedrin without being a jew. so you are 100% wrong so far.

6 Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees.
there is also the fact that he used the churches soldiers to kill Christians. There is no way that the Jewish church would have let him lead their personal guards.
if he was a roman he simply could have asked. so once again we see that you are incorrect.

as for the gospel of matthew.

all of the founding church members give him credit for the book.
Mark was a disciple of Peter so it is very likely that Matthew ran into him.
The fact is that the two would very much overlap if they were exchanging information which more than likely they did.

there is nothing present that says it was not matthew that did not write the book.

if they overlap it simply gives credence to the truth that was being written. you also have to realize that while there are some similarities among all 4 gospels they are also each different in their own view points but still address the end result as the same.

this gives even more credence established by the early church that they wrote the books correctly.
so far you still have no proven anything.

Intro to Matthew
https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/matthew.cfm
https://bible.org/seriespage/1-matthew-introduction-argument-and-outline

and proven wrong again.
 
spud_meister said:
But then it says:


And that didn't happen.
Click to expand...

yep and they missed it like you just did. Christ wasn't setting a kingdom here and the vison of Daniel was the same. it wasn't an earthly kingdom but a heavenly kingdom.
so there yet again nothing that disproves Christ as the messiah.
 
ludin said:
Saul is Roman was a jew and a roman. He father was a high ranking Pharisee. He was a Jew by birth. His father did something that the Romans then granted him Roman citizenship as well.
Click to expand...

Yet, Epiphanius in Panarion, 16, says that the Ebionites insist he was a pagan convert to Judaism. Considering that there is a strong lack of understanding and sympathy for Jewish law in his writings, that makes perfect sense. It seems at least least one ancient writing disagrees.

Even Paul admits he is a liar. (1 Corthians 9:20).

So, it's not all that clear cut. His writings certainly do not have the Jewish mind set.
 
RAMOSS said:
On the contrary. None of the prophets talked about Jesus at all. The writers of the New Testament took phrases out of context, vague references, and wrote to them to promote Jesus as the messiah, but if you actually look at what they said, the writers of the new Testament misused those phrases.
Click to expand...

Isaiah's description of the Messiah clearly described Jesus.
 
RAMOSS said:
Even Paul admits he is a liar. (1 Corthians 9:20).
Click to expand...

Let's put that in context.
Since he was not among those who served with Jesus, and considering his background as a persecutor of Christians, 1 Cor 9 talks about Paul's rights as an Apostle.

Here is the part you've referred to:

1 Corinthians 9 (NIV)

Paul’s Use of His Freedom

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.



When he said he was all those things to different people - he spoke about seeing them in their level, of understanding. It is his way of reaching out.

He reminds me of a social worker who's been trained to understand the problem of his "case," which includes the level (age, mental state, history, etc.)....and then, reaches out appropriately from there. Having the trust of the "case" is crucial to have him/her to open up. There wouldn't be any dialogue, or any real understanding of the root of any problem if the one with the problem does not open up. There will be no real help if the professional social worker does not fully understand what is needed.

That isn't being a liar. It's a technique, used even today.



Yet, Epiphanius in Panarion, 16, says that the Ebionites insist he was a pagan convert to Judaism. Considering that there is a strong lack of understanding and sympathy for Jewish law in his writings, that makes perfect sense. It seems at least least one ancient writing disagrees.
Click to expand...


Paul is being painted as a false prophet by those who adheres to the Hebrew Roots Movement - which is the belief that the Church had strayed far from the true teachings and Hebrew concept of the Bible, saying that Christianity has been influenced by the culture and philosophy of the Greeks and Romans, and that Christianity being taught in churches today has been corrupted by pagan imitations.


Paul's apostolic authority is well-documented in the Bible, beginning with that encounter on the road to Damascus, AFTER the Resurrection of Jesus.
He's been specifically chosen, and spoken to by Jesus, and was given a specific task: Gentiles.

Paul's authority as an Apostle was also comfirmed by the other Apostles....therefore, there is absolutely no doubt that Paul is indeed an authorized apostle.




Considering that there is a strong lack of understanding and sympathy for Jewish law in his writings, that makes perfect sense. It seems at least least one ancient writing disagrees.
Click to expand...

It's not that he lacks understanding for Jewish laws. As a Christian, he's no longer bound by them!

He was writing as a Christian - so of course, his writings will be different from those who adheres and endorses Jewish laws (Mosaic Law).
Plus the fact that his "clientele" were non-Jews (GENTILES) - he reminds me of a lawyer who's fiercely battling for his client's rights! :lol:

Christians are not bound by Jewish laws! That's the fact he's been fighting for.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
Yet, Epiphanius in Panarion, 16, says that the Ebionites insist he was a pagan convert to Judaism. Considering that there is a strong lack of understanding and sympathy for Jewish law in his writings, that makes perfect sense. It seems at least least one ancient writing disagrees.

Even Paul admits he is a liar. (1 Corthians 9:20).

So, it's not all that clear cut. His writings certainly do not have the Jewish mind set.
Click to expand...

I think I will go with accurate historical sources over you which have proven to be unreliable on a great many things.
There is no way that Paul could enter the temple and get in as far as he did without being a jew. even converted jews were only allowed
so far into the temple area.

he could not have been a Pharisee without being a natural born Jew.
The ebionites are not the authority in this manner.

LOL He understood perfectly Jewish Law in his writings and after his conversion was fully against it. he finally realized how corrupt it had become under
the priesthood.

taking bible verses out of context only shows how weak your argument is. he was already a jew, however to witness to the jews he lived like they lived.
is he referring back to Acts 16:3; Acts 18:18; Acts 21:21-27; Acts 23:1-6.

you once again have failed to prove anything that they lied.
 
ludin said:
I think I will go with accurate historical sources over you which have proven to be unreliable on a great many things.
There is no way that Paul could enter the temple and get in as far as he did without being a jew. even converted jews were only allowed
so far into the temple area.

he could not have been a Pharisee without being a natural born Jew.
The ebionites are not the authority in this manner.

LOL He understood perfectly Jewish Law in his writings and after his conversion was fully against it. he finally realized how corrupt it had become under
the priesthood.

taking bible verses out of context only shows how weak your argument is. he was already a jew, however to witness to the jews he lived like they lived.
is he referring back to Acts 16:3; Acts 18:18; Acts 21:21-27; Acts 23:1-6.

you once again have failed to prove anything that they lied.
Click to expand...

Uh.. you know that the pharasiees where a political party, not a religious one ?? I have, despite your rejection, showed that there is reasonable doubt. THe fact is you have some preconceptions that make you unwilling to examine other concepts, or reports, plus you don't understand Judaism enough to see the gaping holes in the knowledge and attitudes that Paul has.
 
RAMOSS said:
Uh.. you know that the pharasiees where a political party, not a religious one ?? I have, despite your rejection, showed that there is reasonable doubt. THe fact is you have some preconceptions that make you unwilling to examine other concepts, or reports, plus you don't understand Judaism enough to see the gaping holes in the knowledge and attitudes that Paul has.
Click to expand...

No they were the religious rulers at the time. again you prove you do not know what you are talking about.
No you have not shown anything. so far everything you have posted has been refuted.

Historical fact is not preconceptions it is called historical fact for a reason.

You don't like the fact that Paul turned his back on the church as another poster referred to.
To the orthodox Jew paul is a black sheep. He was in a position of power and prestige and left it to follow Christ.

PS you don't get the High Priest (ol yea I know not a religious figure right?) to let you take temple guards to arrest
jewish Christians if you are not a jew yourself.

Saul was a jew from the tribe of Benjamin unless you want to call him a liar as well.
 
ludin said:
No they were the religious rulers at the time. again you prove you do not know what you are talking about.
No you have not shown anything. so far everything you have posted has been refuted.

Historical fact is not preconceptions it is called historical fact for a reason.

You don't like the fact that Paul turned his back on the church as another poster referred to.
To the orthodox Jew paul is a black sheep. He was in a position of power and prestige and left it to follow Christ.

PS you don't get the High Priest (ol yea I know not a religious figure right?) to let you take temple guards to arrest
jewish Christians if you are not a jew yourself.

Saul was a jew from the tribe of Benjamin unless you want to call him a liar as well.[/QUOTe}

Paul/Saul admitted to being a liar. And because of the issues with that entire story about the trial, and the High priest, as far as I can see, that entire story is false. The entire Sanhedrin would have to violate Jewish law, Roman law, and violate the High holy days for it to be true, as well as not follow the law when it comes to the procedures for trial.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom