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.
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'
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.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.
But then it says:
And that didn't happen.
But then it says:
And that didn't happen.
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.
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.
Even Paul admits he is a liar. (1 Corthians 9:20).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?