Moderators John317 Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Posted August 7, 2011 I would think that as a writer who is concerned with telling the truth to his readers, you would want to take about 3 minutes to look up Acts 2: 3 to see if what you wrote in your book is true. You base an important belief on your understanding of Acts 2: 3. You said that it shows it wasn't the Holy Spirit but the devil who inspired Peter on the day of Pentecost. Do you have a Greek Bible, or a Greek-English Interlinear? Have you checked out the online Greek text of Acts 2: 3 yet? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Posted August 7, 2011 OK John, show me who Ananias was, and who authorized him to act as a prophet. Jesus Christ did, by giving Ananias a vision about Paul and sending him to baptize Paul. Here it is, in the Bible, Acts 9: 10-19: Quote: Acts 9:10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I [am here], Lord. 9:11 And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for [one] called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, 9:12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting [his] hand on him, that he might receive his sight. 9:13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: 9:14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 9:16 For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. 9:19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. The book of Acts was accepted among the early Christian churches during the time of Paul and the rest of the disciples. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Posted August 7, 2011 ...When Paul speaks about himself there is only ONE witness, which to me immediately calls into question anything he says. On the basis of about 2 years of exchanging posts with you, and particularly in view of your refusal to look at the Greek of Acts 2: 3, I have good reason to question anything you say about the New Testament. Paul was Christ's apostle and wrote a good part of the New Testament. Nothing more needs to be said in his defense. How can you-- a person who is not ashamed to tell people lies in your book, and without making sure your claims are true-- have the audacity to claim Paul was lying? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
wayfinder Posted August 7, 2011 Posted August 7, 2011 You assume that when Luke is giving nameless credit to nameless "eyewitnesses" that verifies the voracity of the information contained in the letter of Luke, it does not. Luke's letter containes a plethora of information that does not appear in any of the other identified eyewitness gospels. You contend that luke was just giving more accounts which the others left out. The question then arises, if the extra accounts, parables, and teachings of Jesus appear only in Luke, and not in the eyewitness accounts, from whom did Luke get them. When we start supposing and assuming that he must have received them from valid eyewitnesses, because we firmly believe that Luke is 100% correct, we leave ourselves wideopen to deception. Another thing, persecution and martyrdom are not evidence of the truth. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Posted August 7, 2011 Wayfinder, could you respond to posts #466383 and #465179? Do you agree with Musicman about Acts 2: 3? He said that he got most of his information from you. Did you teach that Acts 2: 3 actually reads "a tongue" instead of "tongues"? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Posted August 7, 2011 The book of Acts is well established as a reliable history of the events that are recorded there. There's no reason to doubt its varacity. What does it say that you can prove is untrue? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Posted August 7, 2011 ...Luke's letter containes a plethora of information that does not appear in any of the other identified eyewitness gospels. You mean Luke's Gospel? Much of it does appear in the other Gospels, however. But why would you expect to find in other Gospels everything he wrote? It makes perfectly good sense that Luke's Gospel would be somewhat different from the others, since he wrote it on the basis of interviews and research. That's no reason to reject it. Are you saying that you know better than the early church whether it contains the truth about those events in Christ's life? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Lysimachus Posted August 7, 2011 Author Posted August 7, 2011 It's a good thing you're here John317 to take on these arguments, as you are far more qualified than I am. I for the life of me had never heard of Christians who dismiss Paul as inspired until I arrived here. I have no experience dealing with new heresy. Satan is really on the loose. He knows that if he can lead Adventists away from the truth, to convolute it, and mix it up with poison, it will throw confusion in the ranks and prevent God's people from effectively taking on the False Prophet. Here the Catholic and Dispensational world is tightening their belts while we are arguing amongst ourselves. He doesn't want us united. If Musicman could only see that Satan is using him as an agent to prevent God's people from exposing the false prophet, and from bringing this work to a close. Oh how he would croak if he could see just how happy and delighted Satan his that he is being used as his tool and agent to create division and confusion in God's ranks. But one day he will see it. Hopefully not when its too late though. Quote ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
Moderators John317 Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Posted August 7, 2011 When we start supposing and assuming that he must have received them from valid eyewitnesses, because we firmly believe that Luke is 100% correct, we leave ourselves wideopen to deception. Please show proof that John was 100% correct and that you can believe everything he said Jesus taught and did. What is your proof that "John" was a valid eyewitness of everything he wrote about? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Posted August 7, 2011 Yes, it's astonishing that these people actually believe this trash and yet claim to be SDAs. But the thing is that they have already proven that they aren't true scholars or even good students of the Bible. The example of what they say about Acts 2: 3 is evidence enough. But there is much, much more. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Musicman1228 Posted August 7, 2011 Posted August 7, 2011 The book of Acts is well established as a reliable history of the events that are recorded there. There's no reason to doubt its varacity. What does it say that you can prove is untrue? First, John, it doesn't matter in the least to me whether it is 'tongue' or 'tongues'. What matters is that there is no reasonable expectation that Jesus would need to give His disciples the Holy Spirit TWICE, and this is what Paul and Luke are suggesting with their story that the Holy Spirit was given a 2nd time at Pentecost. You have an eyewitness in John who states clearly that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the disciples just after His resurrection; Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” (22) And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. (23) If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.” John 20:21-23. So please, John, in your infallible opinion, why would Jesus feel the need to give the Holy Spirit to His disciples at Pentecost when He had already given it to them in the upper room? It is only my opinion (based on eyewitness testimony) that Paul and Luke made up the story of the 'spirit' being given at Pentecost in order to confirm the gospel according to Paul. Luke is the only gospel writer that says that Jesus told the disciples to 'wait in the city' for the Holy Spirit. The other gospel writers who were eyewitnesses have Jesus telling the women to go to the disciples and 'tell them to meet me in Galilee', which is not having them stay in the city. So John, which is it because it cannot be both. Who are you going to believe, the eyewitness John or the non-eyewitness Luke? Your answer will speak volumes as to where your loyalties to Jesus lays. Quote
Lysimachus Posted August 7, 2011 Author Posted August 7, 2011 Luke's letter containes a plethora of information that does not appear in any of the other identified eyewitness gospels. And guess what? That is actually a GOOD thing. Notice that that "plethora" of information does not "contradict" anything else in the gospel accounts. It only adds NEW things. Otherwise, it would be nothing but REPETITION. Yes, REPETITION. Through inspiration, God gave Luke more details that the Apostles simply didn't write down. For example: There are many things that have happened in my life that I have not recorded, that I wish I had had time to record down, but have not. However, some other witnesses that end up living beyond my day will remember things that I told them--things that I myself did not write down. And thankfully, that's where it helps to fill in for details. That's just how it is. Quote ~Lysimachus (Marcos S.) Author of article, Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation (see attachment for article) Currently writing a book, Vindicating the Historical School of Prophetic Interpretation Founder of the largest and fastest SDA Apologetics Group on Facebook, Seventh-Day Adventism - Defending the Pillars of the Faith Writer and apologetics contributor at Adventist Defense League Vindicating the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation.pdf
Moderators John317 Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Posted August 7, 2011 First, John, it doesn't matter in the least to me whether it is 'tongue' or 'tongues'. Then why did you say in your book that it does matter? And why aren't you willing to look and see whether your claims about Acts 2: 3 are true? You claim in your book that "a tongue" shows that it was Satan who tricked Peter and the other disciples into believing that the Holy Spirit fell on them, when in reality it was the Devil. Why did you make this outlandish, false claim? Do your radio listeners know that you wrote lies in your book about this? Who is the "father of lies"? Who were you speaking for when you wrote those things? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Posted August 7, 2011 You have an eyewitness in John who states clearly that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the disciples just after His resurrection; What is your proof that Jesus did this? How can you show that those were actually eyewitnesses who said these things? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Posted August 7, 2011 ... it doesn't matter in the least to me whether it is 'tongue' or 'tongues'. Again, if this is true, why did you write about 2 pages in your book explaining why it was so important and what it proved? Does this mean that you've changed your mind and will tell your readers or radio listeners that you made a mistake? Originally Posted By: Musicman1228 What matters is that there is no reasonable expectation that Jesus would need to give His disciples the Holy Spirit TWICE, and this is what Paul and Luke are suggesting with their story that the Holy Spirit was given a 2nd time at Pentecost. You have an eyewitness in John who states clearly that Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to the disciples just after His resurrection; Would you like to try the same kind of reasoning as you read the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation? How about using the same sort of reasoning on the Old Testament books? Your "reasonable expectation" doesn't hold water, MM. The book of Acts doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit was not given to the disciples just as the Gospel of John says. The power of the Holy Spirit does not typically come to people in full strength at the beginning of one's walk with Christ. There's no reason to believe He does. Joel 2 shows this, doesn't it? See Joel 2: 28, 29. Do these verses in Joel show that people did not have the Holy Spirit before? If not, then why assume that Acts 2 is telling us that the Holy Spirit was not given to the disciples earlier? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Posted August 7, 2011 So please, John, in your infallible opinion, why would Jesus feel the need to give the Holy Spirit to His disciples at Pentecost when He had already given it to them in the upper room? Because the Holy Spirit did not come on the disciples initially in His full power. Remember that in the upper room, before Christ's death, the disciples weren't even completely converted. Quote: It is only my opinion (based on eyewitness testimony) that Paul and Luke made up the story of the 'spirit' being given at Pentecost in order to confirm the gospel according to Paul. True, only your opinion. And it is what the Devil would like people to believe, isn't it-- that 2/3 of the NT are made up lies? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Posted August 7, 2011 MM, please send me PM if want to you talk about something private or if you want to talk about posts that I deleted. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Posted August 7, 2011 ... Who are you going to believe, the eyewitness John or the non-eyewitness Luke? Your answer will speak volumes as to where your loyalties to Jesus lays. I believe both John and Luke. Not sure why it can't be both. Could you explain why? I believe my loyalty to Jesus means I should believe the entire Bible, including Mark, Luke's Gospel, the book of Acts, the letters of Paul, Hebrews, James, First and Second Peter, and Jude. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Posted August 7, 2011 Did you remove two of my posts in which I separately asked you and Lysimachus to come on my Friday show for a friendly discussion? I saved them and can repost them if needed, but I just can't seem to find them. I wouldn't be able to do that, MM. Why would I want to help lend legitimacy to your radio program by coming on it? I suspect that is why you can't get any competent scholars and Bible teachers or SDA ministers to come on your program. It would only be helping you spread your false teachings. It would be better just to leave well enough alone. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Musicman1228 Posted August 7, 2011 Posted August 7, 2011 Originally Posted By: Musicman1228 ... Who are you going to believe, the eyewitness John or the non-eyewitness Luke? Your answer will speak volumes as to where your loyalties to Jesus lays. I believe both John and Luke. Not sure why it can't be both. Could you explain why? I believe my loyalty to Jesus means I should believe the entire Bible, including Mark, Luke's Gospel, the book of Acts, the letters of Paul, Hebrews, James, First and Second Peter, and Jude. It is clear to me that the two passages in question are in conflict with each other. If you accept both then you have to make excuses for why Jesus needed to give the Holy Spirit two times. I question your loyalty to Jesus Christ because you place others on an equal or greater footing than Jesus Himself. You are apparently willing to overlook significant evidence that shows these conflicts, and I don't honestly know why. Is it because the alternative it too difficult to bear? Is not truth often difficult to bear? After all, it it is too easy to believe then can it be truth? There is enough uncertainty about accuracy of information in the writings of Paul and the other texts you cite to make it prudent to place the testimony of the eyewitnesses above them, even if you decide not to eliminate them all-together. Yet you have decided to make it your mission to show me the error of my ways, for what purpose I do not know. Is it to save me from eternal damnation, or is it just because I don't give in to your position? Quote
Moderators John317 Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Posted August 7, 2011 ...It is clear to me that the two passages in question are in conflict with each other. If you accept both then you have to make excuses for why Jesus needed to give the Holy Spirit two times. The book of Acts doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit was not given to the disciples just as the Gospel of John says. The power of the Holy Spirit does not typically come to people in full strength at the beginning of one's walk with Christ. There's no reason to believe He does. Joel 2 shows this, doesn't it? See Joel 2: 28, 29. Do these verses in Joel show that people did not have the Holy Spirit before? If not, then why assume that Acts 2 is telling us that the Holy Spirit was not given to the disciples earlier? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Posted August 7, 2011 ...It is clear to me that the two passages in question are in conflict with each other. This is not true. I totally disagree with you and can give you my reasons for it. Your thinking is totally at odds with virutally all other Christians, including the best Bible scholars alive. You think this way because you have rejected not only large portions of God's Word but also the Spirit of prophecy. So I am not at all surprised that you attribute the work of the devil to the Holy Spirit. Do you know how dangerous that is? How can God speak to you when you take His Spirit to be Satan and take Satan to be the Spirit? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted August 7, 2011 Moderators Posted August 7, 2011 ...I question your loyalty to Jesus Christ because you place others on an equal or greater footing than Jesus Himself. Christ's ambassadors are to be accepted as we would receive Christ Himself. But no, I don't accept anyone as being greater than Jesus Himself. Originally Posted By: Musicman1228 You are apparently willing to overlook significant evidence that shows these conflicts, and I don't honestly know why. You have already given plenty of evidence that you don't even understand what Paul teaches, let alone whether Paul's theology conflicts with the teachings of Jesus. Every time I ask you for examples of conflicts, you refer to something that you don't even comprehend. Or else you give something like Acts 2: 3, which merely shows your lack of understanding. Originally Posted By: Musicman1228 Is it because the alternative it too difficult to bear? Is not truth often difficult to bear? After all, it it is too easy to believe then can it be truth? No, it is because you don't show any evidence that is a valid argument for your viewpoint. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Musicman1228 Posted August 7, 2011 Posted August 7, 2011 John said, "Your thinking is totally at odds with virutally all other Christians, including the best Bible scholars alive." So what. Is this not exactly the same situation in which Jesus found Himself vis a vis the leadership of the Jews during His time on earth? You have not yet shown me that there is any detriment to determined thinking that is different from everyone else. The Pharisees and Saducees were the 'experts' in the Law and Jesus, who was completely uneducated by their standards, showed them who God was really with . . . and it wasn't them, which is why they wanted to kill Him. History seems to be in repetition, does it not? The Bondservants of Jesus (Matt. 24:42-51) will be in the very same position as was Jesus and His disciples. This is good company as far a I am concerned. Quote
wayfinder Posted August 7, 2011 Posted August 7, 2011 Originally Posted By: wayfinder Luke's letter containes a plethora of information that does not appear in any of the other identified eyewitness gospels. And guess what? That is actually a GOOD thing. Notice that that "plethora" of information does not "contradict" anything else in the gospel accounts. It only adds NEW things. Otherwise, it would be nothing but REPETITION. Yes, REPETITION. Through inspiration, God gave Luke more details that the Apostles simply didn't write down. For example: There are many things that have happened in my life that I have not recorded, that I wish I had had time to record down, but have not. However, some other witnesses that end up living beyond my day will remember things that I told them--things that I myself did not write down. And thankfully, that's where it helps to fill in for details. That's just how it is. So you now contend that God gave Luke information that the eyewitnesses forgot to, or chose not to include? John317 stated that Luke starts his letter my giving credit for the infomation he includes to eyewitness accounts. My question is, why are his accounts of events, included in the eyewitness accounts, different then their accounts of the same thing. And as far as repetition, Luke was not there when Christ testified to the truth, so anything different then repetition would be conjecture on Luke's part. There are contradictions of eyewitness accounts all through Luke's letter Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.