What is meant by ...

[Guest]

Either you have grossly mis-judged what I believe, or you are lying. Which is it?

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Doug, great question, and fairly easily answered.

I am referring to those Disciples that were eyewitnesses to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. In the Bible they are Matthew, Peter (Mark writing for Peter) and John. Luke was a convert of Paul and never met Jesus.

So, Luke is out. Are both Peter and Mark in, or just Mark? Does that mean that the Books of Acts and Luke are out too? If so, We're down to Matthew, Mark, John (including 1,2,3 John,and Revelation)and Peter,right? How about,Hebrews? Weren't James and Jude also eyewitnesses?Are they in?

I don't mind giving the list again, and the reasons.

Luke is out only in those places where he disagrees with the testimony of the eyewitnesses (ex. the repentant criminal on the cross next to Jesus. The other gospel writers do not have this testimony. In their gospels both criminals were cursing Jesus).

Mark was not an eyewitness and never met Jesus. Mark did read and write in Greek, which was why Peter needed him to write out Peter's gospel. John was an eye witness and the 'beloved' disciple, which was why Jesus used him as a primary source, and as the person who Jesus used as his conduit for the information given in Revelation.

Both James and Jude were the brothers of Jesus and were not disciples. They did not follow Jesus throughout His ministry and were not part of the inner circle of Disciples. James actually usurped the role that Jesus gave to Peter in making him the head of the new church based in Jerusalem. Ref. "James the Brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman. Until this occurred James was antagonistic to Jesus and His ministry. He saw Paul gain recognition by saying that he had a vision, so James made the same claim which apparently trumped Peter's commission from Jesus Himself.

No one knows who actually wrote Hebrews, but we do know that it wasn't Paul because of the style of the writing and the content. In Paul's letters he does not mention the term 'High Priest' a single time. In Hebrews the term "High Priest" is use 15 times. This by itself is evidence enough that Paul did not write Hebrews. The problem is there are any number of things that disagree with with what Jesus taught, and we don't know who the author was, which makes Hebrews an unreliable source.

[doug yowell]

Wayfinder is the teacher who started our bible study class called "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" in our Calimesa SDA Sabbath School class that we have been broadcasting weekly on the internet and on skype. We have around 2,000 people around the world that download this and listen to it.

Is Elvis still one of them?

[Musicman1228]

Doug,

Don't go the way of Richard and start getting nasty. No one here is forcing you to believe anything that you don't want to. Chill.

[olger]

Ok.

Luke is out.

Paul = out.

How about Moses? He in or out?

g

[wayfinder]

Moses is way in. Moses wrote from God's account, which I would accept as first hand. Jesus questioned those who questioned His authority by saying if you truly understood and followed Moses would believe and follow Me, so there appeared to be the same conflict in understanding at the time of Christ as there is today.

[doug yowell]

Doug,

Don't go the way of Richard and start getting nasty. No one here is forcing you to believe anything that you don't want to. Chill.

No one's going nasty on anyone here MM. I just couldn't resist giving in to my intuition for a second, sorry.Think I'll take your advice and have a bowl of ice cream. Thanks.

[doug yowell]

Mark was not an eyewitness and never met Jesus. Mark did read and write in Greek, which was why Peter needed him to write out Peter's gospel

Both James and Jude were the brothers of Jesus and were not disciples. They did not follow Jesus throughout His ministry and were not part of the inner circle of Disciples. James actually usurped the role that Jesus gave to Peter in making him the head of the new church based in Jerusalem. Ref. "James the Brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman. Until this occurred James was antagonistic to Jesus and His ministry. He saw Paul gain recognition by saying that he had a vision, so James made the same claim which apparently trumped Peter's commission from Jesus Himself.

So Mark is out because he wasn't actually an eyewitness and therefore is not reliable? And Peter is out because he was too ignorant to communicate what he witnessed of Jesus, and too weak to prevent the imposter James from taking his responsibility as church leader thereby forfeiting any historical credibility? And Jesus two brothers are lying snakes in the grass which underlies any credibility on their part? (Boy, ya can't trust anybody nowadays)So it's only Matthew (why do you trust a crooked tax collecter?)John, and the OT?? Is that right? Why do you take their testimony as factual?

[wayfinder]

Why not look at this from a different perspective. Paul and Luke were never eye/ear/witnessess to the Son of God in the flesh and to His testimony. The writer of Hebrews, most likely Apollos, was not a follower of Paul, but taught a subject that was not too threatening to Paul's teaching.

James gospel was written to counteract the effect that Paul's gospel was having on the gentiles. James was teaching a very Messianic/Judaic Christianity. The is thought among some Dead Sea Scroll schollars that the righteous teacher may have been James, (see "James the Brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman).

I have had strong reaction from most reguarding what I accept and reject in the "Holy Bible", with the idea that rejecting anything is rejecting God's own words, but in fact that is the very thing I am not doing. I accept only the verified words of God, not someone claiming that their words are the words of God. The "Old Testement", otherwise known as the Law and Prophets, have been verified by God's own Son as the words of God. The words of God's own Son have been verified by the eye/ear/witnesses to His words, the same cannot be said for the testimony of Paul, Luke, or the unknown writer of Hebrews. The two letters that bear the name of Peter cannot be verified and do not appear in any reference until the late second, early third centuries.

God gave us the Law and Prophets and He gave us His Son to testify to the truth, I need no others testimony.

[Guest]

I wouldn't be too sure about Matthew. He didn't come on the scene until about half way through Jesus' ministry. Also I've seen MM say that Matthew was wrong about certain things. You should probably ask MM what he is wrong about. I forgot.

[Guest]

So John is in eh? Well here he is shooting down your theory that you don't need faith.

1Jn 5:4 ......and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

And here Jesus is forgiving sin because of faith.

Mat 9:2 .....and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

Oh, and the Old Testament says you're wrong about that too by the way.

Hab 2:4 ....the just shall live by his faith.

[olger]

If MM puts his mind to it, I'll bet he can find a way to pronounce all of them:

[doug yowell]

Why not look at this from a different perspective. Paul and Luke were never eye/ear/witnessess to the Son of God in the flesh and to His testimony. The writer of Hebrews, most likely Apollos, was not a follower of Paul, but taught a subject that was not too threatening to Paul's teaching.

James gospel was written to counteract the effect that Paul's gospel was having on the gentiles. James was teaching a very Messianic/Judaic Christianity. The is thought among some Dead Sea Scroll schollars that the righteous teacher may have been James, (see "James the Brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman).

I have had strong reaction from most reguarding what I accept and reject in the "Holy Bible", with the idea that rejecting anything is rejecting God's own words, but in fact that is the very thing I am not doing. I accept only the verified words of God, not someone claiming that their words are the words of God. The "Old Testement", otherwise known as the Law and Prophets, have been verified by God's own Son as the words of God. The words of God's own Son have been verified by the eye/ear/witnesses to His words, the same cannot be said for the testimony of Paul, Luke, or the unknown writer of Hebrews. The two letters that bear the name of Peter cannot be verified and do not appear in any reference until the late second, early third centuries.

God gave us the Law and Prophets and He gave us His Son to testify to the truth, I need no others testimony.

What if I don't want to look at it that way? And what if I don't accept all your claims about Luke, Paul,Mark,Peter,ect...because they are YOUR testimony about them and cannot be verified by God's Word (Matthew, John, OT)?Since your version of "God's Word" says nothing about the truthfulness of your accusations regarding those men, upon what biblical evidence are you basing them? As you know, Robert Eisenman was not an eyewitness of Jesus or the events following,therefore his "testimony" is unreliable.If the OT or John or Matthew call Luke,and the rest "imposters" I'll pay more attention.And if the true Christian religion is based solely on the testimony of those who saw and heard Jesus (excluding,of course,His evil,unbelieving brothers and others whose testimony was never written down)it would have died long before the councils of Rome were able to subvert it.After all,second generation believers were not reliable eyewitnesses.

[Musicman1228]

When Richard answers for me or anyone else he usually gets it wrong. Why bring up Moses? Only to cast aspersions and try to change what I have said to benefit his position. I have always said that the OT is the word of God because Jesus use the OT as His source. Matthew may not have joined the Disciples officially to after the others but he was still an eye and ear witness to what Jesus spoke. Mark did not know or meet Jesus, but he did know and write for Peter, and Peter did know Jesus in a very special way. In fact Jesus was so sure of Peter that He commissioned him to be the head of the assembly in Jerusalem.

Paul and his protege Luke are exactly the same as Mark, except Mark became a disciple of Jesus Christ through the words of Peter. This maintains the 'chain of evidence' necessary to maintain information continuity.

Most Christians use the Bible as their standard for truth, thinking that this position is sanctioned directly by God Himself. There is no proof that God ever did this. I believe that we do need a verifiable standard for truth, and Jesus Christ gave us that standard-His words. For me this does not mean another fallible human beings version of what Jesus said, this means His own words as recorded by His eye and ear witnesses that were actually with Him during His earthly ministry.

I understand how difficult this high standard would be for many Christians because the gospel taught by the non-eyewitnesses is so much easier to deal with. That is the difference between a gold standard and a lesser standard of measurement. And since most Christians don't believe that there really is a necessary standard they would rather go with no standard at all. This is one reason why most Christians fully believe that the 10 Commandments are no longer a necessary standard, and that the Sabbath commandment is so much wasted effort.

And the dragon was angry with the Woman and went to make war on the rest of her offspring, those that keep the Commandments of God, and hold to the testimony (words) of Jesus Christ. Rev. 12:17.

[Guest]

I understand how difficult this high standard would be for many Christians because the gospel taught by the non-eyewitnesses is so much easier to deal with.

What makes it so difficult is the fact that most of your claims are not Biblical. Like Doug pointed out above,:

"If the true Christian religion is based solely on the testimony of those who saw and heard Jesus (excluding,of course,His evil,unbelieving brothers and others whose testimony was never written down)it would have died long before the councils of Rome were able to subvert it".

That and, YOUR testimony about Paul, Luke, and etc. cannot be verified by God's Word.

Tell the truth MM. You guys went and saw "The Da Vinci Code" and thought it was a documentary, right? Because your beliefs line up with that movie, a little too good for coincidence.

[Musicman1228]

From my perspective there is no such thing as a true religion, Christian or otherwise. Religion is a man made device and was never established by God. God did establish a Kingdom, but that Kingdom is not based upon religion it is base upon truth. Christianity as a religion DOES contain truth, but not all of the truth. Seventh-day Adventism DOES contain truth, but not all truth. Religion limits God because the practitioners of that religion often say "we have all the truth and no new truth will displace what we already know as truth." This is a logical fallacy. If the 'truth' you believe to be true is not, and you receive new truth that is but say it cannot be true because it cannot be displaced by what you already have, then the result is that you have made it impossible for God to teach you what HE needs you to know. This is information that you will be held accountable in the judgement, for not knowing and not believing.

[Guest]

Jas 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.

Jas 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

[teresaq]

Jas 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious,

and bridleth not his tongue,

but deceiveth his own heart,

this man's religion is vain.

sounds like some of us here. but apparently not noticed by the owners. :(

[doug yowell]

Mark did not know or meet Jesus, but he did know and write for Peter, and Peter did know Jesus in a very special way.

Paul and his protege Luke are exactly the same as Mark, except Mark became a disciple of Jesus Christ through the words of Peter. This maintains the 'chain of evidence' necessary to maintain information continuity.

Most Christians use the Bible as their standard for truth, thinking that this position is sanctioned directly by God Himself. There is no proof that God ever did this. I believe that we do need a verifiable standard for truth, and Jesus Christ gave us that standard-His words. For me this does not mean another fallible human beings version of what Jesus said, this means His own words as recorded by His eye and ear witnesses that were actually with Him during His earthly ministry.

Now this is a real head scratcher for me,MM.Mark did not know Jesus but he did write for Peter( where is the Biblical evidence for this claim?)and that's OK because Peter actually knew Jesus.Luke did not know Jesus but wrote for others who actually knew Jesus(Luke 1:1-4), maintaining the "chain of evidence" but that's not OK because...??? But you're good with trusting Mark even though he is another fallable human being (was he?)who was just as capable of his own version of Peter's version as the next guy. And since I (and Richard,I think?? Well,maybe olger too)have never actually heard God's voice,we're sorta resigned to having to believe in the written Word. And we think that when Jesus quoted Moses in Deut.8:3 He (God) was sanctioning man's need to use the Bible as their standard of truth."And the Scripture cannot be broken".

[Musicman1228]

Doug,

Do some research on your own and you will find that what I have said is true. There are a lot of good books out there on the early Christian church and the problems between the founders of the assembly in Jerusalem. No one, least of all me, has asked you to believe anything I say just because I say it. I will leave that to others on this forum.

[Guest]

No one, least of all me, has asked you to believe anything I say just because I say it. I will leave that to others on this forum.

No you won't. You ask people to believe that stuff all the time. With nothing at all to back it up, except your own testimony. You tell people everyday that Paul was nothing but a liar, along with EGW, and that they were both inspired by Satan. Based on nothing but your own say so. It sure isn't in the Bible. Not even in the text you haven't thrown out yet.

And now you're telling Doug that he can find it in some good book (opinion from babylon) about the early Christian church. Well I don't know too many serious Bible students that will take what some book says, and place it above scripture. No matter how good the book is.

You talk about "the open exchange of ideas", and how you "love a challenge". And then as soon as someone enters into debate with you, you tell them that they can only use certain books of the Bible to prove their case. What a challenge! But even with that disadvantage, most people don't have much of a problem showing that your argument is not Biblical.

[doug yowell]

Doug,

Do some research on your own and you will find that what I have said is true. There are a lot of good books out there on the early Christian church and the problems between the founders of the assembly in Jerusalem. No one, least of all me, has asked you to believe anything I say just because I say it. I will leave that to others on this forum.

Let me see if I get this straight.You are telling me that the only reliable source of truth about Jesus and His true disciples can only come from the words of eyewitnesses or earwitnesses to what He actually said? Anyone else cannot be counted as a credible witness? And in order to verify the truthfulness of your views you want me to read a lot of good books written by fallable humans who were not eyewitnesses or earwitnesses of either the life of Jesus or the early Christian church's founding? And those who write these books,who, themselves were not eyewitnesses, will prove that those who claimed to know the true teachings of Jesus do not know because they(like Paul, James,ect...)were not eyewitnesses? And they will extablish exactly who was a credible eyewitness (even though they themselves were born centuries later and were also not contemporaries of the events?) because they are credible witnesses even though they were not eyewitnesses??? MM, this is really confusing me!

[Guest]

I'd say that sums it up pretty well Doug.

[Musicman1228]

Oh My! I am truly sorry my explanations and reasoning are not clear. Understanding is often compromised when people speak different languages (I am not referring to English as a language).

I will now attempt to make what I am about on this forum as simple as possible for the sake of clarity.

Why does anyone believe what they believe? As Christians why do we believe what we believe? As SDA's why do we believe what we believe? What is the reason for discourse? Is it to merely confirm what one already believes to be true? If so, how does on KNOW that their beliefs are true? Discourse under these condition is purely a waste of time and effort.

My role and ministry is to challenge the current faith and belief system of the established religion (either Christianity or SDA). If a person is a 'defender of the faith' then there is really no point in making the challenge to their faith; they will only get mad at you for trying to 'shake' an unshakable faith. If you are a seeker of Truth then no challenge will 'shake' your faith because your faith is always changing, growing and deepening, having already accepted the challenge to 'test everything' about what, how and in whom you believe.

The most ardent responses to this that I get both here and on my radio shows are from people who take it as a personal affront that I would think to challenge their thinking on any of their already firmly established beliefs. "How dare you question what I believe, I get what I believe directly from the Holy Word of God, and it is never wrong."

Jesus came to testify to the Truth, therefore He questioned EVERYTHING about the religious system in which He operated. This is what made the Sanhedrin so mad that they wanted to kill Him. They did not want their authority to define truth (or defend those who established the beliefs) questioned by some upstart carpenter's son from Nazareth. This was made even worse when He stated that He came from His Father and knew His will.

Anytime anyone in anyway challenges the local religious authorities they always get in trouble, especially when they are correct in the doing.

So regardless of what I or my friends say about any topic on this forum, check how you emotionally respond to that challenge. If personal ego and emotion is involved there will almost always be an angry 'how dare you' emotional response. If, on the other hand, ego is not a part of the personal interest in learning truth then there will be an acceptance of the challenge and respect in the answering irrespective of whether there is disagreement or agreement on the topic (ex. John317). This latter is the kind of discourse I desire. It is this kind of discourse that will honor God, show respect for each other, and bring truth to the fore.

[doug yowell]

The most ardent responses to this that I get both here and on my radio shows are from people who take it personal

.So regardless of what I or my friends say about any topic on this forum, check how you emotionally respond to that challenge. If personal ego and emotion is involved there will almost always be an angry 'how dare you' emotional response. If, on the other hand, ego is not a part of the personal interest in learning truth then there will be an acceptance of the challenge and respect in the answering irrespective of whether there is disagreement or agreement on the topic (ex. John317). This latter is the kind of discourse I desire. It is this kind of discourse that will honor God, show respect for each other, and bring truth to the fore.

OK. ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I'm sitting on the floor with my legs crossed,mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm My eyes are closed,mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmI'm touching my index fingers to my thumbsmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I think I'm ready now mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm OK go!mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.