The Gospel of Luke

[Buzzards]

Lk.1:3
It seemed good to me also,
having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first,
to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things,
wherein thou hast been instructed.

Theophilus,

G2321
Greek:
Θεόφιλος
Transliteration:
Theophilos
Pronunciation:
theh-of'-il-os
Definition:
From G2316 and G5384; friend of God;
Theophilus a Christian: - Theophilus.
 

A friend of the Bridegroom;
Theophilus is also a Title;
one that assists the Bridegroom and makes the arrangements for the wedding

Lk.1:1

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order
a declaration of those things
which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us,
which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,
and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also,
having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first,
to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things,
wherein thou hast been instructed.

What is it about this Book; "the Gospel of Luke" that is so important
to the most excellent Theophilus of the church
so that they might
know the certainty of those things,

John the Baptist declares

Jn 3:28

Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said,
I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.

29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom:
but the friend of the bridegroom,
which standeth and heareth him,
rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice:
this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

continuing on with the Book of Luke

Lk.1:5

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea,
a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia:
and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron,
and her name was Elisabeth.

6 And they were both righteous before God,
walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

7 And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren,
and they both were now well stricken in years.

Gen.18:1
And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre:
and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

2 And he (Abraham ) lift up his eyes and looked,
and, lo, three men stood by him:
and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door,
and bowed himself toward the ground,
.....

9 And they said unto him,

Where is Sarah thy wife?

And he said,

Behold, in the tent.

10 And he (The Lord) said,

I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life;
and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son.

And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.
11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age;
and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
Lk.1:7

And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren,
and they both were now well stricken in years

and

Gen.18:11
Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age;
and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.

What is it about these two events we need to know and understand ?????

and this

Lk.1:5

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea,
a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia:
and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron,
and her name was Elisabeth.

[Buzzards]

1st off;
both these Ladies were way beyond the age of Child bearing;
bringing forth a new life / The Promised Son and he that was to prepare the way for the coming of Christ
But both of them were well known, and the Birth could not be "Gain-Sayied"
so anyone that denied it, was doing so out of just pure; whatever ????

Abraham and Sarah had gotten tired of waiting for the Heir
and tried to do it on their own; and that didn't work out so well

There is a lot of info in this story of the birth of Christ
Lk.2:1

And it came to pass in those days,
that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus,
that all the world should be taxed.
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

And Joseph also went up from Galilee,
out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea,
unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem;
(because he was of the house and lineage of David)

To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
And so it was, that, while they were there,
the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

And she brought forth her firstborn son,
and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger;
because there was no room for them in the inn.

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field,
keeping watch over their flock by night.
And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them,
and the glory of the Lord shone round about them:
and they were sore afraid.

And the angel said unto them,

Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy,
which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour,
which is Christ the Lord.

And this shall be a sign unto you;
Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes,
lying in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel
a multitude of the heavenly host praising God,
and saying,
 

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace,
good will toward men.

15 And it came to pass,
as the angels were gone away from them into heaven,
the shepherds said one to another,
Let us now go even unto Bethlehem,
and see this thing which is come to pass,
which the Lord hath made known unto us.

And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph,
and the babe lying in a manger.

without going into too much detail

Where and to who did the Angels appear ??

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field,
keeping watch over their flock by night.
And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them,
and the glory of the Lord shone round about them:
and they were sore afraid.

And the angel said unto them .........................

The greatest message ever given to the World;
and it was given to who ??? and where were they at

shepherds abiding in the field,

what were these Shepherds doing ??

keeping watch over their flock by night.

Notice the message did not go to the Priesthood Downtown Jerusalem;
nor did it go to the Pharisees nor Sadducees, nor to the Roman Rulers
nor did it go to some bunch of Herodians either

in fact the Leadership didn't have a Clue till some
out of town wise men showed up in Jerusalem asking questions


I am convinced, It will be that way in the end also

the message won't go to the Pope
nor to the Doctors of the Church nor the PHD's
nor Professors of theology in the schools and Universities of Theology
those that are to lifted up in their own pride

Job 41

leviathan ==
He beholdeth all high things:
he is a king over all the children of pride.

it will go to the "ole backwoods ********* shepherds"
ya know; those that are actually out in the fields
doing the work,
those are the ones that will give the last day message
and todays Leadership won't have clue either

[Musicman1228]

Was Luke an actual eyewitness disciple of Jesus while He was here on earth?

[Buzzards]

Lk.1:39

And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste,

into a city of Juda;
And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.

 

Mary and Joseph were in the one-year waiting period when Mary was found to be with child. They had never had sexual intercourse and Mary herself had been faithful (vv. 20, 23). While little is said about Joseph, one can imagine how his heart must have broken. He genuinely loved Mary, and yet the word came that she was pregnant. His love for her was demonstrated by his actions. He chose not to create a public scandal by exposing her condition to the judges at the city gate. Such an act could have resulted in Mary’s death by stoning (Deut. 22:23–24). Instead he decided to divorce her quietly.
Then in a dream (cf. Matt. 2:13, 19, 22), an angel told Joseph that Mary’s condition was not caused by a man, but through the Holy Spirit (1:20; cf. v. 18). The Child Mary carried in her womb was a unique Child, for He would be a Son whom Joseph should name Jesus for He would save His people from their sins. These words must have brought to Joseph’s mind the promises of God to provide salvation through the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31–37). The unnamed angel also told Joseph that this was in keeping with God’s eternal plan, for the Prophet Isaiah had declared 700 years before that the virgin will be with Child (Matt. 1:23; Isa. 7:14). While Old Testament scholars dispute whether the Hebrew ‘almâh should be rendered “young woman” or “virgin,” God clearly intended it here to mean virgin (as implied by the Gr. word parthenos). Mary’s miraculous conception fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy, and her Son would truly be Immanuel … God with us. In light of this declaration Joseph was not to be afraid to take Mary into his home (Matt. 1:20). There would be misunderstanding in the community and much gossip at the well, but Joseph knew the true story of Mary’s pregnancy and God’s will for his life.


2. HIS BIRTH (1:24–25)

1:24–25. As soon as Joseph awakened from this dream, he obeyed. He violated all custom by immediately taking Mary into his home rather than waiting till the one-year time period of betrothal had passed. Joseph was probably thinking of what would be best for Mary in her condition. He brought her home and began to care and provide for her. But there was no sexual relationship between them until after the birth of this Child, Jesus. Matthew simply noted the birth of the Child and the fact that He was named Jesus, whereas Luke, the physician (Col. 4:14), recorded several details surrounding the birth (Luke 2:1–7)


Barbieri, L. A., Jr. (1985). Matthew. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 2, p. 20). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

We are told by many of the RCC'ers that Mary went to see Elizabeth and Zechariah jumpin for Joy and spreadin the good news;
that would be as far from the truth as one can go; But I think Mary was well aware of the Birth of Issac, and when told of Elizebeth, she put 2 and 2 togather and came up with 4

Lk.1:39

And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste,

Run little Gal, Run, flee to the Mountains of Judea

into a city of Juda;
And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.

 

He (Joseph) chose not to create a public scandal by exposing her condition to the judges at the city gate.
Such an act could have resulted in Mary’s death by stoning (Deut. 22:23–24). Instead he decided to divorce her quietly.

Who is gonna believe this story  ???

Mary knew she could be, and would most likely be stoned;
this little gal was ""runnin for her Life"" and she went to the one place she knew she would be safe
 

5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea,
a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia:
and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

as long as Mary was at his house, and under his roof;
they could not Stone her; Adultery or not;
there; at the home of Zacharias, Mary and the unborn child were safe

Mary was runnin for her very life

then Joseph stepped up and said
I'll take her as wife anyway

Why; Joseph; you ole Dog you, couldn't wait could you

There would be misunderstanding in the community and much gossip at the well,
but Joseph knew the true story

Now as a married wife to the man everyone assumed was the father of the child;
Mary was safe, they could not stone her

[Buzzards]

So; why is Mary flight important

Lk.1:39

 

And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste,

Run little Gal, Run, flee to the Mountains of Judea

into a city of Juda;
And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.

Matt.24:14

 

And this gospel of the kingdom
shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations;
and then shall the end come.

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place,
(whoso readeth, let him understand)

Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Run little Gal, Run, flee to the Mountains of Judea

Let him which is on the housetop
not come down to take any thing out of his house:

Neither let him which is in the field
return back to take his clothes.

And woe unto them that are with child,
and to them that give **** in those days!

But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter,
neither on the sabbath day:.............

Run little Gal, Run, flee to the Mountains of Judea

they catch you; they stone you
Run Girl Run

 

[Musicman1228]

Buzzards, was Luke a disciple of Jesus while He was here on earth?

[phkrause]

If you mean the original 12, the answer should be NO. That would also apply to Mark. Both worked with Paul!

[Musicman1228]

And after a time Mark left Paul because Paul was teaching things that were different than that which his friend Peter was teaching. Mark (it is said) wrote his gospel based on the testimony of Peter. Peter was an actual disciple of Jesus. Luke was a disciple of Paul, was a convert of Paul, got his information about Jesus from Paul, and got his historical data from people that were also not eyewitnesses, and NEVER knew or met Jesus. Luke WAS NOT an eyewitness disciple. His gospel is written from Paul's perspective not from that of an eyewitness. Just FYI.

[Buzzards]

Musicman1228

Buzzards, was Luke a disciple of Jesus while He was here on earth?

Not that I know of, but as far as we have record of; neither was Paul, but they might have been a member of the Multitude he spake to ocassionally

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Context is KEY in order to discern the interpretation of things. 

yes; but context is not just 1 or 2 passages;
context is all the Scriptures, Beginning at Moses

Genesis 8:1
And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove;
which returned not again unto him any more.

Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

How long, or ""When""  was it to be before  The Dove would  return to Man  ?????

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water:
and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him,
(And The Dove Returns)
and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove,
and lighting upon him:
And lo a voice from heaven, saying,
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

 as he said to the Pharisee, named Nicodemus

Jesus answered and said unto him,

Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

If you were a Master of Israel, and been at the Baptism of Christ,
they ""Should"""  have saw the Dove and  knew he was The Christ
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


 I guess I should have established ""Who"  Paul was,
and why the Gospel of Luke is so important

when Luke, the companion of Paul,  and a ""Witness" to Paul's  Ministry wrote these words

Lk.1:1
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand
to set forth in order a declaration of those things
which are most surely believed among us,

Even as they delivered them unto us,
which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,
and ministers of the word;

It seemed good to me also,
having had perfect understanding
(of the Ministry given to Paul)
of all things from the very first,
to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
That thou mightest know the certainty of those things,
wherein thou hast been instructed.

he spake not of the original 12;
these writings / letters were what he referred to in vs. 1-2
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand
to set forth in order a declaration of those things
which are most surely believed among us,

Even as they delivered them unto us,
which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,
and ministers of the word;

Neither Paul, nor Luke were witnesses to the life of Christ,
nor did Paul carry a 2nd hand "Hand-me-Down" gospel
ie: Church Tradition, passed on "Orally"

Gal.1:1
Paul, an apostle,
(not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Rome will tell us;
Luke's  Gospel is an example of Tradition passed down;  Word of Mouth
and that just isn't so::

Paul's Gospel; -- Luke had 1st hand knowledge of, and could say
ie:
It seemed good to me also,
having had perfect understanding
(of the Ministry given to Paul)
of all things from the very first,

[Musicman1228]

Buzz,

Neither Paul nor Luke had ever met Jesus while He was here on earth. There is no evidence that either Paul or Luke got any information that led to the putting together of the 'gospel of God' from any of those "So called Pillars" of the Jerusalem council that had been with Jesus while He was here on earth. Paul only says that he received his visions from a being that he heard, but didn't actually see, having been blinded on the road to Damascus. Luke says that he spoke with 'eyewitnesses', but never names them. Luke was not a convert of a disciple of Jesus, nor was he baptized by one. Neither one of these 'apostles' subscribed to the commission Jesus gave to His own disciples in Matt. 28: 18-20. Neither taught what Jesus taught His disciples as the Gospel of the Kingdom, Paul having been given a 'different' gospel that changed the entire dynamic of salvation from Sanctification by the words of Jesus in order to enter the Kingdom and be saved, to a gospel where the Law gives way to grace, where because the Law no longer applies there is no violation of the law, hence there is no condemnation under the Law. That Law is the 10 Commandments. And because of that both Paul and Luke give the perspective that their gospel is the gospel of lawlessness. Jesus spoke directly to this issue:

Mat 24:11  "Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.

Mat 24:12  "Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold.

The gospel of Luke has numerous direct contradictions with the Gospels of John and Matthew. For example;

Luk 23:40  But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?

Luk 23:41  "And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."

Luk 23:42  And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"

Luk 23:43  And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

Here Luke has one criminal berating Jesus, but the other makes a long speech about 'condemnation and salvation', This fits perfectly with his mentors (Paul) teaching about Christ saving everyone. But here is what Matthew and Mark wrote:

Mat 27:38  At that time two robbers *were crucified with Him, one on the right and one on the left".

Mar 15:27  And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left.

Mar 15:32  "Let this Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, so that we may see and believe!" Those who were crucified with Him were also insulting Him.

Note that these two texts confirm one another. So when Mark writes that both robbers were insulting Him we can be sure that both Matthew and Peter (Mark writes for Peter) saw and heard what really happened. Luke's account is pure fiction, because neither Luke nor Paul was at the crucifixion.

Another:

Mat 7:13  "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.

Mat 7:14  "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Now Luke:

Luk 13:24  "Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

In Matthew Jesus gives a COMMAND to "Enter through the narrow GATE". Then He finishes the parable by saying, "And FEW there are that find it."

Luke says that we must 'strive' to enter through the narrow DOOR (not gate), and then Luke has Jesus saying nothing about the wide way that leads to destruction, leaving out completely that "There are many that enter through it." These two interpretations are NOT the same in any way, nor is the meaning the same.

So which do you choose? The one that FEELS better, because it leave open the idea that all you have to do to be saved is 'strive' to enter the door? Or the one that shows that is is DIFFICULT to find the way to the Kingdom of Heaven, that it is not easy, nor convenient, nor safe. There is a large RISK in one version, and almost no risk in the other.

If you need more I can give them to you. Better yet, go through the eyewitness accounts and compare them to Luke's account across the board, and you will find that Luke got his information from a source that was entirely different that the source for Matthew, Mark and John.

 

 

[Samie]

11 hours ago, Musicman1228 said:

. . . Paul having been given a 'different' gospel that changed the entire dynamic of salvation from Sanctification by the words of Jesus in order to enter the Kingdom and be saved, to a gospel where the Law gives way to grace, where because the Law no longer applies there is no violation of the law, hence there is no condemnation under the Law.

Paul wrote of the need to overcome evil with good (Rom 12:21). Christ said that overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life but instead will be seated with Him in His throne (Rev 3:5, 21). I don't think the gospel Paul preached is against the gospel Christ preached.

 

Sorry to say this and remind you of what Peter wrote, but I have the impression you are simply misunderstanding what Paul has written.

KJV 2 Peter 3:14-16   14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.  15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;  16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

As my brother's keeper, I felt obliged to remind you of the above not only because of what you were saying about Paul but also of your teaching that the Holy Spirit is a SHE.  I am amazed why despite your claim to be teaching only what Jesus taught yet you seem to teach against Jesus' referring to the HS as a HE.

[Musicman1228]

Samie said, " I don't think the gospel Paul preached is against the gospel Christ preached."

Of course you don't think this, otherwise we would not be having this discussion. Yet I can and have proven that the gospel Paul preached is, BY HIS OWN WORDS, a DIFFERENT gospel that those that were going against Paul's gospel in the Jerusalem Council; the eyewitness disciples. 

Gal 1:6  I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

Paul believed that 'his' gospel was the ONLY gospel that was true. Yet the Jerusalem Council sent missionaries to the churches that Paul started, including in Galatia, telling these churches that what Paul was teaching was NOT what Jesus had taught while here on earth. This is the truth, and can can be confirmed not only in the Bible but in outside sources.

As I said before, Paul was so sure about 'his' gospel that he cursed angels from Heaven because of it:

Gal 1:8  But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

Gal 1:9  As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

These are Pauls own words, so don't blame me for them, I am just showing you what HE said. Now the next thing for you to do is to tell me that I am taking what he said 'out of context', and that Paul 'really didn't mean it, he must have meant something else. And that is the foundation of self-delusion; to insist that you are right even when shown that you are wrong. So IF I am wrong please show me using the words of Jesus ONLY (not from Paul or Luke, et al) exactly where I am wrong.

As to your quote from 2Peter; I am sorry to inform you that NO ONE knows who wrote 2Peter, but we do know that it could NOT have been Peter, because at the time 2Peter was written the Apostle Peter was already dead. Go figure.

Samie also said, "I am amazed why despite your claim to be teaching only what Jesus taught yet you seem to teach against Jesus' referring to the HS as a HE."

Please answer this; WHO is the Woman mentioned in Gen. 3:15? Who is the Woman in Rev. 12:17? When you come to the correct conclusion as to who this (same) Woman is, you will have your answer. 

[Samie]

1 hour ago, Musicman1228 said:

Gal 1:6  I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

Paul believed that 'his' gospel was the ONLY gospel that was true. Yet the Jerusalem Council sent missionaries to the churches that Paul started, including in Galatia, telling these churches that what Paul was teaching was NOT what Jesus had taught while here on earth. This is the truth, and can can be confirmed not only in the Bible but in outside sources.

Which verse or verses in the Bible confirm that Paul did not teach what Jesus taught? You have yet to show one.

I have already shown you that Jesus taught the need for overcoming evil with good as did Paul. You did not even dare try addressing it.

 

1 hour ago, Musicman1228 said:

As I said before, Paul was so sure about 'his' gospel that he cursed angels from Heaven because of it:

Gal 1:8  But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

Gal 1:9  As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

These are Pauls own words, so don't blame me for them, I am just showing you what HE said. Now the next thing for you to do is to tell me that I am taking what he said 'out of context', and that Paul 'really didn't mean it, he must have meant something else.

What's wrong in cursing angels if they turn out to be Satan's angels because they teach against what Jesus taught ?  Aren't you aware they are from heaven too?  You seem to be just making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

2 hours ago, Musicman1228 said:

And that is the foundation of self-delusion; to insist that you are right even when shown that you are wrong. So IF I am wrong please show me using the words of Jesus ONLY (not from Paul or Luke, et al) exactly where I am wrong.

I have shown you that Jesus referred to the HS as a HE. Yet you insist the HS is a SHE. Self-deluded or not?

 

2 hours ago, Musicman1228 said:

As to your quote from 2Peter; I am sorry to inform you that NO ONE knows who wrote 2Peter, but we do know that it could NOT have been Peter, because at the time 2Peter was written the Apostle Peter was already dead. Go figure.

Why pass me the burden of proving your contention? The onus is on you, brother.  Be a man and prove your case, will you?

[Samie]

2 hours ago, Musicman1228 said:

Samie also said, "I am amazed why despite your claim to be teaching only what Jesus taught yet you seem to teach against Jesus' referring to the HS as a HE."

Please answer this; WHO is the Woman mentioned in Gen. 3:15? Who is the Woman in Rev. 12:17? When you come to the correct conclusion as to who this (same) Woman is, you will have your answer. 

You are fond of REQUIRING others to answer for you. Why? Aren't you able to answer the questions yourself? 

Because if you can't even answer your own questions, why should others be wasting their time answering them for you when you are making it appear they are the ones wrong and you are the one right?

Now answer this: Was Jesus CORRECT when He addressed the Holy Spirit as a HE?

My answer is "Yes, Jesus was CORRECT when He addressed the Holy Spirit as a He.

Your turn.

[Musicman1228]

Samie, with your last reply you are obfuscating. This means that you don't really know the answer to my question, and are stalling. My students did this all the time when they did knot know the correct answer to a question. Lawyers, and teachers (me), NEVER ask questions for which we don't have THE answer. Your assertion that Jesus was correct in naming the Holy Spirit 'He' is what is commonly believed in a misogynistic Christianity. The males in this religion (and others, such as Islam) want the power for themselves, and are willing to do anything to keep it, including having translators that are also male, supply pronouns in their translations that are designed to keep that power firmly in their masculine hands. Are you afraid that if the Holy Spirit actually IS the feminine characteristic of God, that you will somehow loose your power over the women that are under your care?

If I answer this question for you, Samie, then you will not gain the benefit of discovering the RIGHT answer for yourself. So DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Figure it out for yourself. PROVE ME WRONG!. I am not the one that must prove this, as I am the one that made the original assertion. Prove that 2Peter was actually written by Peter. Prove that  what Paul says in his gospel is EXACTLY the same (identical in every way) with what Jesus taught in His Gospel of the Kingdom. 

Final thought: the angels that Paul said his followers should CURSE if they preach a gospel different than his, are angels that come from HEAVEN. Angels from HEAVEN cannot teach or preach a lie, because they are from the God of Creation. Lying angels only come from the father of lies, that is, Satan. In other words, Paul is saying that the Jesus and His message are from Satan; and that is blaspheme. Do you really think that an angel from Heaven would blaspheme the God that sent that angel with THAT message to earth? Come on, and THINK, don't just react emotionally to possibilities you have never before considered.

[Green Cochoa]

2 minutes ago, Musicman1228 said:

Samie, with your last reply you are obfuscating. This means that you don't really know the answer to my question, and are stalling. My students did this all the time when they did knot know the correct answer to a question. Lawyers, and teachers (me), NEVER ask questions for which we don't have THE answer.

Mrs. Musicman (after your saying Jesus' calling the Holy Spirit a "He" is misogynistic, I don't dare call you one either, do I?), Samie was clear in his post.  He asked you a question, and he even answered it from his perspective himself.  How, when he answered it already, can you reasonably say "you don't really know the answer to my question, and are stalling"?

3 minutes ago, Musicman1228 said:

Your assertion that Jesus was correct in naming the Holy Spirit 'He' is what is commonly believed in a misogynistic Christianity. The males in this religion (and others, such as Islam) want the power for themselves, and are willing to do anything to keep it, including having translators that are also male, supply pronouns in their translations that are designed to keep that power firmly in their masculine hands. Are you afraid that if the Holy Spirit actually IS the feminine characteristic of God, that you will somehow loose your power over the women that are under your care?

Your assertion that Jesus was incorrect tells any Christian nearly all they need to know about you.  I'm surprised Samie bothers to continue this discussion.  Your further linkage of the personality of GOD to the entirely unrelated issue of HUMAN gender roles is a comparison of apples and oranges.  While I can understand your gut-level involvement with the human end of it, do you really dare to bring God into it this way?  How confident you are!  You are so confident that you can assert to everyone that you know better than Jesus?!  

3 minutes ago, Musicman1228 said:

If I answer this question for you, Samie, then you will not gain the benefit of discovering the RIGHT answer for yourself. So DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Figure it out for yourself. PROVE ME WRONG!. I am not the one that must prove this, as I am the one that made the original assertion. Prove that 2Peter was actually written by Peter. Prove that  what Paul says in his gospel is EXACTLY the same (identical in every way) with what Jesus taught in His Gospel of the Kingdom. 

Regarding 2 Peter, I'm sure you don't accept Mrs. White as a true prophetess of God, for if you did, you would not be asking these questions.  However, many others here do accept her, so for them, this is sufficient evidence upon which to base one's faith:

In the second letter addressed by Peter to those who had obtained "like precious faith" with himself, the apostle sets forth the divine plan for the development of Christian character. He writes:  {AA 529.1} . . .

 Looking down through the ages to the close of time, Peter was inspired to outline conditions that would exist in the world just prior to the second coming of Christ. "There shall come in the last days scoffers," he wrote, "walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." . . .  {AA 535.2}  [Compare to 2 Peter 3:1-2.]

3 minutes ago, Musicman1228 said:

Final thought: the angels that Paul said his followers should CURSE if they preach a gospel different than his, are angels that come from HEAVEN. Angels from HEAVEN cannot teach or preach a lie, because they are from the God of Creation. Lying angels only come from the father of lies, that is, Satan. In other words, Paul is saying that the Jesus and His message are from Satan; and that is blaspheme. Do you really think that an angel from Heaven would blaspheme the God that sent that angel with THAT message to earth? Come on, and THINK, don't just react emotionally to possibilities you have never before considered.

"In other words, Paul is saying that the Jesus and His message are from Satan; and that is blaspheme."

These are very strong words, Mrs. Musicman, and straight from the Father of Lies.  The Bible calls Paul's writings "scripture," and the Bible also says that "the scripture cannot be broken."  (Shall I let you do your own homework to find it?)

[Musicman1228]

5 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Mrs. Musicman (after your saying Jesus' calling the Holy Spirit a "He" is misogynistic, I don't dare call you one either, do I?), Samie was clear in his post.  He asked you a question, and he even answered it from his perspective himself.  How, when he answered it already, can you reasonably say "you don't really know the answer to my question, and are stalling"?

Your assertion that Jesus was incorrect tells any Christian nearly all they need to know about you.  I'm surprised Samie bothers to continue this discussion.  Your further linkage of the personality of GOD to the entirely unrelated issue of HUMAN gender roles is a comparison of apples and oranges.  While I can understand your gut-level involvement with the human end of it, do you really dare to bring God into it this way?  How confident you are!  You are so confident that you can assert to everyone that you know better than Jesus?!  

Regarding 2 Peter, I'm sure you don't accept Mrs. White as a true prophetess of God, for if you did, you would not be asking these questions.  However, many others here do accept her, so for them, this is sufficient evidence upon which to base one's faith:

In the second letter addressed by Peter to those who had obtained "like precious faith" with himself, the apostle sets forth the divine plan for the development of Christian character. He writes:  {AA 529.1} . . .

 Looking down through the ages to the close of time, Peter was inspired to outline conditions that would exist in the world just prior to the second coming of Christ. "There shall come in the last days scoffers," he wrote, "walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." . . .  {AA 535.2}  [Compare to 2 Peter 3:1-2.]

"In other words, Paul is saying that the Jesus and His message are from Satan; and that is blaspheme."

These are very strong words, Mrs. Musicman, and straight from the Father of Lies.  The Bible calls Paul's writings "scripture," and the Bible also says that "the scripture cannot be broken."  (Shall I let you do your own homework to find it?)

Thank you for your reply, Green. I am not female, as you asserted in the use of 'MRS' (although my twin sister is). I did not mean for you to get the impression that I was saying that Jesus was incorrect. If you took my comment that way then I am sorry. Jesus is NEVER incorrect, and that is the point I was trying to make. I was turning Samie's comment back on itself, and showing that It was not Jesus that used the pronoun 'he' in the translation of His statement, it was the male translators that use that pronoun, simply based on the fact that the church that sponsored those early translations (the RCC) was itself a very misogynistic entity. (The misogyny of the RCC is based totally on the misogyny of the 'apostle' Paul.) As to Samie having answered my question, he actually did not; all he said was that if Jesus said 'he' referring to the Holy Spirit, it must be a 'he'. Refer back to translation error that I have already described. 

2nd Peter could not possibly have been written by Peter the disciple, because when the book now titled 2Peter was written Peter the disciple was already dead. Nothing that was written in 2nd Peter was actually written by Peter. Know one knows who the author of 2nd Peter was. Look it up. I don't know about you, but if the author of a book in the Bible disagrees with anything that Jesus spoke to His own eyewitness disciples, the even if that book is included in the Bible I will not trust it to be the very word of God. EGW was obviously not aware that Peter could not have written 2Peter, which means that either she had never done the research to discover WHEN 2Peter was written, and when Peter died, or God had never told her in vision that this was the case. If the 'god' that gave EGW her visions did not know that Peter did not write 2nd Peter then that 'god' could NOT BE the God of Creation. The only way anyone can believe in the writings of either Paul or EGW is by faith, because when a comparison is made there is no evidence in the words of Jesus that He gave to His own eyewitness disciples that either of these two wrote at the behest of the God of Creation. But you must believe what and how that you will. I am not here to try to stop you from believing anything you want. I am only here to share with you WHAT and WHY I believe as I do. 

Do you know WHO it was that put the Bible together and for what reason? Yes, the Bible does include the words of Paul. But that does not mean that those words of Paul are Scripture. What was the Scripture that Jesus used to defeat the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin when He was here on earth? Jesus confirms what Scripture was in Matt. 5:17. This is the same Scripture that Paul supposedly used when he was in business, because at that time there was NO Bible; it had not been compiled yet. If you want a short but complete study into the history of where the Bible came from and when, you can find it at the following web site under the title "The Spirit of the Church": http://spiritoftruthministry.net.

Read it and get back to me with your comments.
 

[Green Cochoa]

Ellen White never once refers to the Holy Spirit as "she."  Not once.  Ellen White speaks of Peter writing the book of 2 Peter.  I accept her writings as divinely inspired, therefore I reject the notions of men who make invalid claims, such as that 2 Peter was written after his death.  It may have been published posthumously, I don't know, but Peter wrote it, that much I know.

If you simply read 1 Peter and 2 Peter carefully, you will see that they are written in the same voice.  Peter wrote scholastically.  Paul did not.  No other Bible author wrote in the same style as Peter used.  He was very methodical, tracing his thoughts from one point to the next, almost as if following a pre-made outline used to organize his thoughts.  Paul, contrariwise, wanders all over the place as he writes.  Peter also frequently quotes from other books of the Bible in support of his points, much as modern scholars do.  This pattern is clearly apparent in both of the books of 1 Peter and 2 Peter.  They have the same author.

[Musicman1228]

1 hour ago, Green Cochoa said:

Ellen White never once refers to the Holy Spirit as "she."  Not once.  Ellen White speaks of Peter writing the book of 2 Peter.  I accept her writings as divinely inspired, therefore I reject the notions of men who make invalid claims, such as that 2 Peter was written after his death.  It may have been published posthumously, I don't know, but Peter wrote it, that much I know.

If you simply read 1 Peter and 2 Peter carefully, you will see that they are written in the same voice.  Peter wrote scholastically.  Paul did not.  No other Bible author wrote in the same style as Peter used.  He was very methodical, tracing his thoughts from one point to the next, almost as if following a pre-made outline used to organize his thoughts.  Paul, contrariwise, wanders all over the place as he writes.  Peter also frequently quotes from other books of the Bible in support of his points, much as modern scholars do.  This pattern is clearly apparent in both of the books of 1 Peter and 2 Peter.  They have the same author.

I did not say that EGW referred to the Holy Spirit as she. Where do you get this stuff. Yes, EGW says that Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter, and nothing I say, no proof that I can (am capable) of giving will ever change your mind. Peter WAS NOT A SCHOLAR, and had no ability to write in Greek, which is why Mark wrote Peter's account of His time with Jesus for him. Peter was a smart man, he just did not have a formal education. And the idea that the same person wrote both Peters is not born out by the study of textual criticism. I'm sorry, but in this instance you are incorrect in your assertions. You are absolutely correct in saying that Paul "wanders all over the place", which in formal logic is called 'circular reasoning', and this type of reasoning is why Paul is so difficult to decipher. Note: that Jesus does NOT use any form of circular reasoning to make His points, because everything Jesus says is the truth. The same cannot be said for Paul, and is indicated by his liberal use of circular reasoning, which is confusing even for the most brilliant New Testament students. That is why I stick with Jesus, and not Paul. 

 

[Green Cochoa]

29 minutes ago, Musicman1228 said:

I did not say that EGW referred to the Holy Spirit as she. Where do you get this stuff. Yes, EGW says that Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter, and nothing I say, no proof that I can (am capable) of giving will ever change your mind. Peter WAS NOT A SCHOLAR, and had no ability to write in Greek, which is why Mark wrote Peter's account of His time with Jesus for him. Peter was a smart man, he just did not have a formal education. And the idea that the same person wrote both Peters is not born out by the study of textual criticism. I'm sorry, but in this instance you are incorrect in your assertions. You are absolutely correct in saying that Paul "wanders all over the place", which in formal logic is called 'circular reasoning', and this type of reasoning is why Paul is so difficult to decipher. Note: that Jesus does NOT use any form of circular reasoning to make His points, because everything Jesus says is the truth. The same cannot be said for Paul, and is indicated by his liberal use of circular reasoning, which is confusing even for the most brilliant New Testament students. That is why I stick with Jesus, and not Paul. 

 

Do you accept Ellen White?

[Musicman1228]

4 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Do you accept Ellen White?

I will give you my answer in this way; EGW called Paul the 'greatest apostle'. I know that Paul is the false apostle that is discovered by those that are seen in Rev.2:2, so EGW has committed herself to believing a false apostle.

Rev 2:2  'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;

There is a small group of people in the Kingdom of the Heavens that have decided to "test those that call themselves apostles". The test they use is found in 1John 4:1-3. The disciples of Jesus that He personally trained while He was here on earth 'in the flesh', became Apostles by His words, and did not call themselves apostles. Jesus named them and not themselves. They were 'sanctified' by His words ONLY, which means that the spirit in them is the True Holy Spirit. There is a spirit that masquerades as the Holy Spirit, but is not. That spirit teaches through words that are NOT the words of Jesus, but mimic those words but do not teach the exact same things as Jesus taught while on earth. The only 'apostle' in the Bible that fits the description of teaching a 'different' gospel other than the Gospel of the Kingdom is the apostle Paul. His words, his gospel sounds wonderful, and has been taught as the standard for salvation for 2000 years. Yet his words are NOT the words that Jesus spoke to his own disciples. Jesus guaranteed the words of His own disciples because they spent a year with the Master, and learned the power that is in only THOSE words to bring about sanctification. Therefore, since Paul IS a deception of Satan according to the words and teachings of Jesus, and since EGW has named Paul the 'greatest apostle', EGW by extension is also a false prophet. And just as Paul is seen in Rev. 2:2, so too is EGW seen in Rev. 2:18-25, and is the Jezebel in that prophecy. The prophecy fits her life PERFECTLY, and can only describe one female prophetess, that called herself a 'messenger of God', which is the same as a prophet. 

So in answer to your question, No, I do not accept EGW as a legitimate prophet of the living God. 

Deut. 13:1-5.

[Green Cochoa]

33 minutes ago, Musicman1228 said:

So in answer to your question, No, I do not accept EGW as a legitimate prophet of the living God. 

Thank you for being clear in your answer.  Ellen White's prophecies, however, are already becoming fulfilled in your example.  She said those who reject her testimonies will soon give up the Bible.  You've already axed Paul, then 2 Peter, and I wonder which other books have reached your blacklist.  Of the 66 books of the Bible, you are down to no more than 52 of them already.  May God open your eyes with that which remains, while you still accept some of it.

[Musicman1228]

11 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Thank you for being clear in your answer.  Ellen White's prophecies, however, are already becoming fulfilled in your example.  She said those who reject her testimonies will soon give up the Bible.  You've already axed Paul, then 2 Peter, and I wonder which other books have reached your blacklist.  Of the 66 books of the Bible, you are down to no more than 52 of them already.  May God open your eyes with that which remains, while you still accept some of it.

Where do you get the idea that the Bible is Holy, and that every word is the very word of God? Just interested in your perspective.

[Green Cochoa]

37 minutes ago, Musicman1228 said:

Where do you get the idea that the Bible is Holy, and that every word is the very word of God? Just interested in your perspective.

Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21, Psalms 12:6, etc., but I probably should not list any more, because you may soon be rejecting all of those in order to maintain your unscriptural views. Already you've rejected some of those.

[Samie]

 

3 hours ago, Musicman1228 said:

Note: that Jesus does NOT use any form of circular reasoning to make His points, because everything Jesus says is the truth.

Jesus said that the HS is a HE. That is truth.

You said the HS is a SHE. That's a lie. And because of this you resort to circular reasoning or make up excuses when asked.

Again: "Was Jesus CORRECT when He addressed the Holy Spirit as a HE?"

Hope you won't make up excuses this time, will you?

As to your question you want answered for you, In Gen 3:15, the woman directly referred to is Eve.  In Rev 12:17, the woman directly referred to is Mary.  Now, who judges whether I answered correctly or not, you?