Smellin Coffee said:
Paul contended with Barnabas and John Mark, neither of whom left the teachings of Christ. The churches of Asia Minor split from Paul and there is enough biblical information to consider the Ephesian church left because of his claim to apostleship.
You have no evidence. Provide it just don't "allude" to it. Maybe another thread will be appropriate.
Are you talking about the same church at Ephesus that Christ told to repent?
Rev 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
Yes, but Christ also said that if He were to testify of Himself only, His testimony would not be valid. God allowed eyewitnesses to His calling and not some ambiguous, magical speaking light that nobody could understand. There is no question about Jesus' calling because of 1. Eyewitness account and 2. Fulfillment of OT prophecy. Paul had neither (unless one considers he is the fulfillment of the Benjamite Wolf prophecy).
NO. Read it again.
Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or
else believe me for the very works' sake.
Do you also remember when John The Baptist send to enquire of Christ? Do you remember what Christ told him?
Luk 7:20 When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
Luk 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.
You really are grasping at straws.
Again, Jesus said that there would be those who cast out devils in His name that He never "knew". So if the demons were cast out without Jesus' assent, who cast them out?
NO. That is not what JESUS SAID. Here read it again.
Mat 7:22
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord,
have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Also, Jesus did not say that Satan could not cast out Satan. He was saying that by doing so, Satan's house cannot stand and is doomed.
Oh. I see. You think that demons actually work against one another???
Maybe you forgot about Mark's record???
Mar 3:23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?
Is that better for you?
Look at verse 27. Jesus was turning the inconsistency on the Pharisees. If Jesus was casting out demons in the power of Satan, their children (disciples) were also casting out demons in the power of Satan, so THEIR casting out demons at the approval of the Pharisees "judged" that they were guilty of what they accused Christ of.
What convoluted mess. NO. It was not "THEIR DISCIPLES". It was HIS DISCIPLES... THEIR CHILDREN casting them out in His name by His power because Christ had given them to power to do so. Remember
Christ had already sent them forth. The argument is why did you do you consider me to be casting out Satan by Satan and not questioning how THEIR OWN CHILDREN are performing the same task.
Gill wrote
Now since the Jews pretended to do these things, Christ asks them, by whom they cast out devils? Whether by the Spirit of God, or by Beelzebub? They would doubtless say by the former, and not the latter, which would show their great partiality; for admitting that the like actions were done by them, as by him, why not by the same power? Why should their ejection of devils be ascribed to God, and his to Beelzebub?
If she was "mocking" Paul, then why did it take Paul "many days" to cast out the demon? Why not address it right away? When Jesus was confronted with demons He either cast them out right away or demanded they keep silent (Mark 3:11-12). Paul let this go on "many days".
The reason is explained by what happened to Paul following this. He knew that he would attacked by those who profited from her "divination". God is always... right on time.
Besides. I can't believe you think that Paul actually cast out demons by the power of Satan. You really haven't thought this through at all.
Why would God then rescue him from Prison immediately following this?
Act 16:25 And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them.
Act 16:26 And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one's bands were loosed.
Because Christianity as we know it in our culture seems to be founded on the teachings of Paul and not Christ. Jesus gave us sufficient instruction and told the disciples to spread to the Gentiles HIS teachings. Paul came along with "mysteries" and "revelations" apart from what Christ left for His apostles to pass down.
Just come out and say it. Don't him-haw around it.
NO Christ did not give sufficient instructions to His disciples before He ascended to Heaven. In fact, read His own words about it..
Joh 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Paul was the fulfillment of Psa 109:8 Let his days be few; and
let another take his office.
The only time that I can see where Luke and Paul were together on the travel from Jerusalem to Rome and he possibly stayed a bit because Paul was imprisoned (II Timothy 4). Not much recorded contact between the two. It would seem that Luke also held respect for the Law, records Jesus' salvation message with the inclusion of works which seems contradictory to Paul's salvation by grace through faith alone. Luke records Paul's involvement with the desecration of the temple, the inconsistencies in his conversion testimonies and his lie in the court of law. Luke wrote it as he understood it, good or bad.
Paul called Luke what? and WHY?
Surely you believe the record regardless if you like Paul or not. Paul had great fondness for Luke.
Though I haven't read it yet, I've heard this source is a strong one that supports Luke was more doctrinally close to Matthew than Paul:
James R. Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (2009)
I would love to discuss this when you get to where you can adequately make the argument above. On the contrary, I believe Luke is just the opposite. Matthew has not doubt been tainted to some degree. There is plenty of evidence to prove it. Luke on the other hand is a much better open and shut case. There are many things omitted from Luke's record and they do not reflect well on Matthew and Mark.
No hurt feelings whatsoever.
Mark? He wasn't an eyewitness to the ministry of Christ nor was he commanded to teach what Christ taught. Matthew on the other hand was appointed by Christ Himself, taught by Christ Himself and I think he can be trusted.
You say this simply because of the name "Matthew". Obviously you haven't studied the canonical arguments for or against Matthews inclusion and its similarity the the Gospel of Hebrews.
Ireneaus wrote
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)
Eusebius wrote that Matthew had begun his ministry by preaching among the Hebrews.
Emphasis on "little bit"...
I was trying to give you a compliment while not be too agreeable with you.... ;D
