When Christ's character shall be perfectly reproduced in his people...

[Guest]

Men love to fancy themselves independent. But let the cross be preached, let it be made known that in man dwells no good thing and that all must be received as a gift, and straightway someone is offended."

Ellet J.Waggoner

[Woody]

Quote:

You need to take a break!

That would be good advice for a lot of people on this thread.

[wayfinder]

Richard,

I was not presenting a case against the "gospel of Luke", I was presenting a case against the robbers conversion on the cross. As far as throwing out books of the Bible goes, my understanding is this, if the book presents a true and accurate account it is deemed trustworthy. If it can be shown that a book is unreliable why would you use it for anything?

This is not the only place where Luke presents a very different account of events from those in the other gospels, not to mention the parables unique to Luke. When one is honest with them self, the question of a purposed theology in Luke's account is easy to discern and how easily it supports Paul's salvation theology, is no coincidence.

[Guest]

I see no reason to throw out Paul either. Let's take this to the private forum set up for us. "Checking the integrity"

[wayfinder]

John317,

I was making a general and widely accepted statement concerning salvation, as it is commonly believed.

A statement was made concerning Dr. Rich, that he failed to produce evidence to back up his claims, which any investigative lawyer would always do. I presented evidence and was told that the evidence presented was incomplete. I then pointed out that the evidence clearly and unquestionably shows that Luke's account cannot be made to fit into the events described.

I have no doubt that you want to know, understand and practice the truth. The issue than is what we accept as truth. You hold that Luke, Paul and EGW are reliable sources of truth; I on the other hand do not. This is not a personal issue it is a truth issue. What is truth?

[Guest]

WF, I didn't see anything unquestionable or clear in what you said about Luke.

[wayfinder]

RH,

I know you didn't see anything.... Is that because you didn't want to see it or that the evidence isn't there. All three accounts concerning the robbers conclude prior to the arrival of the sixth hour. It would be an assumption to try and squeeze the "conversion" of the one robber into the timing given by all three writers. Luke never mentions the "converted" robber ever insulting or blaspheming the Son of God. It would require an assumption in that regard also.

[John317]

The problem here is that you don't know how much time or what happened between the time the robbers insulted Jesus and the sixth hour. You are assuming that it happened just before the sixth hour but you don't know that. It doesn't say it. It just says that even the robbers who were crucified with him had reviled him, but it doesn't say when that happened or for how long. No one knows how much time there was between verse 44 and 45.

Let's suppose someone wrote a report:

Entry#1-- The 2 robbers made fun of Christ.

Entry#2-- At 3: 00 PM, Christ died.

Does that tell you when, or for how long, they were making fun of Christ? NO.

Does it prove that 1 of the robbers did not change his mind, as another witness says? Again, NO.

[Guest]

<<"Is that because you didn't want to see it or that the evidence isn't there.">>

I could ask you the same question.

<<"All three accounts concerning the robbers conclude prior to the arrival of the sixth hour">>

That dosn't prove it didn't happen. So their account is prior to the sixth hour. So what? That's not proof of anything.

If luke fit in with your view, would you need to throw out Matt, Mark and John?

[Guest]

Amen John

[John317]

You hold that Luke, Paul and EGW are reliable sources of truth; I on the other hand do not.

This is all true. I give the benefit of the doubt to Luke, Paul, 1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, James, Jude, Acts, Mark, and Ellen G. White.

[Guest]

There is more room for belief than there is for doubt.

[John317]

That dosn't prove it didn't happen. So their account is prior to the sixth hour. So what? That's not proof of anything.

Imagine their trying to prove this in a court of law, that because it happened sometime before 3 PM, it proves that Luke is lying. Oh boy. LOL

[wayfinder]

John wrote, the conversion experience took place later, meaning that at first both robbers were hurling insults and then the Holy Spirit impressed the one of the right hand and he was converted. Look at the accounts. In Matthew and Mark both robbers are insulting and unrepentant and then the sixth hour. In Luke only one robber is insulting and unrepentant the other is never insulting and is repentant from the start, and then the sixth hour.

I am saying this to show why I find Luke unreliable. This is not the only abberation from the eyewitness accounts.

Luke 24:49

"And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."

Matthew 28:10,16

Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me."

But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated.

John 21:1

After these things Jesus manifested Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and He manifested Himself in this way.

When Jesus returned to the Father, they were either in Jerusalem/Bethany or Galilee (Tiberias).

Luke is clearly setting the stage for the events of the day of Pentecost, again strangely absent from the other Gospels.

[Guest]

Luke is clearly setting the stage for the events of the day of Pentecost,

Somebody had to tell about it!

[wayfinder]

Actually the sixth hour is noon, the ninth hour is 3pm. A court of law decides what is truth based upon the testimony of eyewitnesses.

[wayfinder]

John 20:21,22 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

Why would the Son of God tell His disciples to wait for the Holy Spirit to come upon them with power, when He had already given them the Holy Spirit.

[Guest]

John317 and Richard Holbrook,

I am the investigator, I search for the truth I have found that I must observe every detail.

You are not THE investigator. Not the only. Men of God that were guided by the Holy Spirit searched and studied out the pillars of our faith. New light may come but truth never changes.

[Guest]

The spirit can be dealt in different measures.

[John317]

John 20:21,22 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

Why would the Son of God tell His disciples to wait for the Holy Spirit to come upon them with power, when He had already given them the Holy Spirit.

Are the things that you've said up to now the main reasons you reject Paul, Luke, Mark, etc.? Is this all you have? And you want the SDA church to do the same and for the same reasons you've mentioned?

[Twilight]

Quote:

If you don't know what the "latter rain" is about, either you are not a seventh-day adventist or you just became one and have not heard about it yet.

Since there are accusations of people not being SDAs ....

May I ask the accuser ...

Sky are you a member of any SDA Church?

Your views certainly do not mesh with any SDA that I have met.

Look forward to your answer.

Do you have this saved so that you can cut and paste it on any board you get opportunity to?

You have been warned on other boards for trying to bait Sky in this manner.

Mark

[wayfinder]

This doesn't even scratch the surface.

My comment about being the investigator was in response to your question about investigation, posed to Dr. Rich. I study everything that has validity; my standard by which I measure everything is the words of God and the testimony of the Son of God. I am not trying to make enemies; I am searching for the truth. Without a reliable truth standard, searching is a waste of time.

[phkrause]

Wasn't it Paul, that Luke got his info from? I'm wondering than, how it is that Paul had all this info? Maybe from the other Apostle's?

pk

[wayfinder]

It wouldn't appear that Paul and the other Apostles were on speaking terms, at least they never worked together in their missionary endeavors. When Paul does mention the apostles by name it is usually to show that he has as much authority as they have.

2 Corinthians 11:12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

Galatians 2:6-8 But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),

Paul makes clear the separation of the gospel (circumsised and uncircumcised)in less than flattering words ("what they were...")

Who are those who disguise themselves as apostles of Christ? The only ones Paul names are John, Cephas and James. If this is so, than Paul puts these apostles in the same class as Satan (disguised as an angel of light).It is interesting to note that James is said to have received a vision of an angel of light telling him to lead the Jerusalem assembly.

[Guest]

Paul wasn't talking about John, Cephas, or James.