Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

A subtle attack


Recommended Posts

  • Members
 

Greetings to all, and thanks to each of you for sharing in this discussion.

Sorry for the confusion, but the main point of this thread is the issue of being drawn away from the "awe", that we should have for God’s Word!

The fact is, because it is “God’s Word”, means that not a single word of it, can be a result of man’s intellect or investigation...... (2 Peter 1:20)
“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

------------------------
Peter, in trying to get this point across, tells us that any information from “any source”, can not be compared to the supernatural reliability of God’s Word:
Not even GOD’S VOICE, SPOKEN FROM HEAVEN! ...... (2 Peter 1:16-19)
V.16 ¶ For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
V.17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
V.18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
V.19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Even though Peter was an “eyewitness” of God’s voice from heaven, declaring who Jesus was; Peter tells us, that this eyewitness account, “holds less validity” than the words of the Bible!
------------------------
The fact that this is even an issue, on a IFB forum, demonstrates how our attitude about the Bible has been effected by today’s Satanic attacks.

 

Peter is talking about the mount of transfiguration.  Which is written in three Gospels of the Bible. So in this case it holds just as much validity because it is recorded in the Bible three times and by three different writers.

Matthew 17 :1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

Matthew 17 :2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

Matthew 17 :3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

Matthew 17 :4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

Matthew 17 :5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Matthew 17 :6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.

Matthew 17 :7 And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.

Matthew 17 :8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.

Matthew 17 :9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

 

Mark 9 :1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Mark 9 :2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

Mark 9 :3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.

Mark 9 :4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

Mark 9 :5 And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

Mark 9 :6 For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid.

Mark 9 :7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

Mark 9 :8 And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves.

Mark 9 :9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.

Luke 9 :28 And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.

Luke 9 :29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.

Luke 9 :30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:

Luke 9 :31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

Luke 9 :32 But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.

Luke 9 :33 And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said.

Luke 9 :34 While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud.

Luke 9 :35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

Luke 9 :36 And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.

Even Luke writes about it. 

Who started this thread to make it an issue anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
 

When I say present. I mean he wasn't walking around with Jesus Christ or was within the same area as Jesus Christ.  I believe he was present or alive during Jesus's earthly ministry.  I'm am just showing that he writes as if he was present with Theophilus and he wrote the rest of the narrative as if he was not present with the apostles as a witness. Now in the way he wrote in chapter 16, it shows he was present with Paul through some of Paul's gospel journeys.  I know Paul was converted when Jesus Christ  personally contacted him on the way to Damascus.  Could Paul have taught Luke about Jesus Christ's ministry and resurrection?  As I said Luke could have been a jew or he could have been a gentile. I am not making an argument on whether or not Luke was chosen by God.  He was chosen by God  to write both books or I wouldn't be quoting him from the Bible. I am not saying it is significant whether he is a jew or not.  If he is a jew will I look at his books with a frown? Absolutely not.  If he is a gentile will I look at his books with a frown? Absolutely not. There isn't enough evidence for anyone to say for certain he was a jew.  Look at the title of this post and read the body of what posted.  Did I make the argument? Or did I just simply make a point to show otherwise?

I see, thanks

 

 

Greetings to all, and thanks to each of you for sharing in this discussion.

Sorry for the confusion, but the main point of this thread is the issue of being drawn away from the "awe", that we should have for God’s Word!

The fact is, because it is “God’s Word”, means that not a single word of it, can be a result of man’s intellect or investigation...... (2 Peter 1:20)
“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

------------------------
Peter, in trying to get this point across, tells us that any information from “any source”, can not be compared to the supernatural reliability of God’s Word:
Not even GOD’S VOICE, SPOKEN FROM HEAVEN! ...... (2 Peter 1:16-19)
V.16 ¶ For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
V.17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
V.18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
V.19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Even though Peter was an “eyewitness” of God’s voice from heaven, declaring who Jesus was; Peter tells us, that this eyewitness account, “holds less validity” than the words of the Bible!
------------------------
The fact that this is even an issue, on a IFB forum, demonstrates how our attitude about the Bible has been effected by today’s Satanic attacks.

 

Thanks for clarifying Don, I understand the issue and points now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • Members
On ‎4‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 1:42 AM, Alan said:

Luke was a Jew with, for whatever reason, a Gentile name.

Donald was entirely correct. To claim that Luke was a Gentile is a subtle attempt to undermine the scriptures.

 

  Has clear, convincing proof been presented from the Scriptures that Luke could only be a natural-born Jew? 

The understanding that Luke was likely a Gentile may come from the New Testament itself.  The apostle Paul first listed certain believers and fellow workers (Col. 4:9-11) as those "who are [plural] of the circumcision" [Jews] (Col. 4:11) and then he listed afterwards some other fellow workers who evidently were not of the circumcision [not Jews] and included Luke in those (Col 4:14).

Would it be claimed that David should not have been an writer of part of the Old Testament because his great-grandmother Ruth was a Moabitess [a Gentile] and his great-great-grandmother Rahab was also a Gentile?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎2016‎年‎4‎月‎2‎日 at 1:42 PM, Alan said:

Luke was a Jew with, for whatever reason, a Gentile name.

John the Baptist was a Jew with a Gentile name.

John the Apostle was a Jew with a Gentile name.

Paul the Apostle was a Jew with a Gentile name.

The scriptures plainly state that all of the writers of the scriptures, "the oracles of God," were Jews. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." Romans 3:1 & 2

 

7 hours ago, Tyndale said:

 Has clear, convincing proof been presented from the Scriptures that Luke could only be a natural-born Jew?

Your reasoning concerning the lising of Gentile and non-Gentile names in  Colossians 4:9-11 is not convincing proof that Luke was a Gentile. If that be the case, than why stop at verse 11? what about the brethren at Laodicea and Nymphas and the church (brethren), in his house in verse 15? What about Archippus in verse 17? Your resasoning that Luke was a Jew due to the listing in Colossians 4:9-15 is not convincing proof.

You have read too much into Colossians 4:11

 

7 hours ago, Tyndale said:

and then he listed afterwards some other fellow workers who evidently were not of the circumcision [not Jews] and included Luke in those (Col 4:14).

"evidently," is not convincing proof. Luke, as Paul, were Jews ministering to Gentiles, in Gentile churches, in Gentile countries; therefore, the mixing of names, and supposably nationalities,  is not convincing proof that Luke was a Gentile.

Brethren,

There has been no clear and convincing proof that Luke was not a Jew. If Luke was not a Jew simply since he had a "quote, un-quote," Gentile name, than John the Baptist, John the Apostle and Paul the Apostle was a Gentile for the same reasoning.

By the way, that makes me also a Chinese as I have a Chinese name. All of the foreign missionaires here on Taiwan have Chinese names but that does not make us a Chinese. I have been included in lists of Chinese people on a few occasions, but that does not make me a Chinese either.

Alan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brethren,

Let us look at Colossians 4:11 and 14 more closely.

Verse 11. "And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcism. These only are my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me." Paul stated simply stated that they were of the 'circumcism.' Paul did not state, nor even imply, that he was separating the lists of names into Jew and Gentile. That separating of nationalities is a reasoning that has been suggested; not written. Furthremore, these individuals are listed as  "fellow-workers.'

Verse 14. "Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you." Paul was stating the Luke was his beloved physician. Paul stated two things about Luke that he wanted all of the brethren to take sepcial note of.

Luke was traveling with Paul as a physician; not necessarily as a 'fellow-worker.'  

Luke was traveling with Paul in a special capacity besides a physician; Luke was 'beloved.'

In conclusion, the Apostle Paul wanted to give special emphasis to Luke and his capacity as his own special 'beloved physician' instead of just as a 'fellow-worker.' The apostle Paul separated Luke from the rest of the list, not because he was Gentile, but because Luke was particulary special to him and he wanted all of the brethren (including us), to know this fact.

To me, the apostle Paul wanted to emphasize the special relationship that existed between him and Luke. Luke was more than just a 'fellow-worker,' he was, 'beloved.' 

Alan 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...