Deception.

[Byfaithalone1]

If this is true then why didn't Jesus quote from Paul or the book of Hebrews? Why didn't Paul quote from 2 Peter or Revelation?

Were these letters or epistles written before or after Jesus' ascension? If after Jesus' ascension, why would Matthew, Mark, Luke or John quote something that had not even been written yet?

BFA

 

[Soon144k]

Were these letters or epistles written before or after Jesus' ascension? If after Jesus' ascension, why would Matthew, Mark, Luke or John quote something that had not even been written yet?

BFA

The epistles of Paul and John were clearly written AFTER Jesus went back to Heaven the 2nd time (after the 40 days), as was everything included in the New Testament. None of the eyewitness disciples (this excludes Luke who was not an eyewitness) quoted anything from Paul, and it is clear from John's epistles that He remembered the teachings of His Master from the year that he was with Jesus while Jesus was here on earth.

It is easy to see why Luke could be seen as quoting from the writings of Paul in his gospel because Luke got most of his information about the life of Jesus Christ from either Paul or Josephus, and wrote his gospel while in Rome while Paul was under house arrest. Luke essentially wrote his gospel at the same time that Paul was writing some of his epistles. This is why Luke's gospel so closely matches Paul's gospel as defined in his letters. There are any number of things in Luke's gospel that are not in Matthew, Mark (for Peter) and John; this because Paul needed someone to confirm his version of events, and as a physician Luke had good credibility.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The epistles of Paul and John were clearly written AFTER Jesus went back to Heaven the 2nd time (after the 40 days), as was everything included in the New Testament.

OK. So help me understand this. Your question to us was "why didn't Jesus quote from Paul." And yet, by your own admission, Paul did not begin writing until after Jesus ascended. Further, by your own admission, at least one of the gospels lines up with the writings of Paul.

BFA

 

[Soon144k]

OK. So help me understand this. Your question to us was "why didn't Jesus quote from Paul." And yet, by your own admission, Paul did not begin writing until after Jesus ascended. Further, by your own admission, at least one of the gospels lines up with the writings of Paul.

BFA

BFA,
My original question was rhetorical in nature, and designed to point out the absurdity of the idea that Paul was speaking of anything other than the OT when he said "All Scripture" in 2 Tim 2:15. I is apparent you didn't get the connection, and for that I am sorry. Of course I know the Jesus didn't quote Paul, to believe otherwise would be foolish. To believe that Jesus would have quoted Paul under any condition is even more foolish, because Paul never was, is not, and will never have scriptural authority as does Jesus Christ.

There is discrepancy between Luke's account of the life of Jesus in his gospel and the the accounts as written in the other three gospels. My comments were designed to get you to try to reason out WHY that would be the case IF (again rhetorical) God is capable of providing a consistent understanding to just anyone. Luke WAS NOT an eyewitness disciple, therefore was NOT included in the admonition of Jesus that HIS disciples would remember everything that He said to them, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Luke WOULD NOT remember these things because Luke WAS NOT THERE. Again, I apologize for trying to be too subtle and clever in the way I described these issues. From now on if I use IRONY I will explain the reason for it's use.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

From now on if I use IRONY I will explain the reason for it's use.

I'm done.

BFA

 

[Soon144k]

And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” Luke 24:49.

I find it very telling that you will not find this particular statement in any of the gospels of the eyewitness disciples. This supposed quote from 'Jesus' is the perfect set up for coming of the 'holy spirit' via the tongue (singular) of fire on the Day of Pentecost (ref. Act 2). It also proves the Luke wrote down what ever Paul told him too.

As a matter of fact what you do see in John is Jesus giving the Holy Spirit to His own disciples in a way more fitting than the rushing wind, fire and earthquake that happened on the Day of Pentecost. Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to His disciples IN PEACE, not in power and might.

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. John 20:21-22.

This is reminiscent of Elijah on the hill side when he was hiding from Jezebel in the cave, where the coming of the Holy Spirit of the Lord was in the STILL, SMALL VOICE, not in the rushing wind, the earthquake or the fire. Do you now see the connection here? How can you not? Why would Jesus feel the need to give His disciples the Holy Spirit IN POWER on the Day of Pentecost when He had already personally given them the Holy Spirit IN PEACE, just as he gave it to Elijah. And Jesus did this BEFORE He went back the the Father.

The ramifications of this are staggering. If the disciples had already been given the Holy Spirit then what spirit was it that was given to them on the Day of Pentecost? And what agency gave it to them? Could it be a lying spirit that masqueraded as the Holy Spirit for the purpose of deceiving those that want a good show? Think about it.