What does it mean when you say you believe in Jesus?

[DeaconDean]

Faith comes by HEARING and Hearing by the Word of God. Faith without works is dead. So... we have to hear God and act on what we hear.

Even the thief heard and acted... his action was internal, in the heart, but he acted.

Two things friend, first off, in one sense your right, and in one sense your wrong.

Scriptures do not say the thief "heard" anything.

"And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." -Lk. 23:39-43 (KJV)

Now I admit, that it is unlikely that a Jew, in this time frame, could not have heard of Jesus. But the scriptures don't say that. SO your technically going beyond what scriptures say.

Another problem is:

"Faith without works is dead. So... we have to hear God and act on what we hear."

Another problem here is the importance your placing on the individual.

Come judgment day, there will be perhaps billions who will point to what they did/acted upon. Only to be told: "I know you not".

Lets take Abraham too. He was called by God to leave the place he was at, and go to another place.

Before Abraham took the first step, the scriptures said he believed God. And since you use James as your proof text, the passage James uses in reference to Abraham, was 50 years after the birth if Isaac!

"A fact that most seen to overlook at are the differences between what Paul is quoting from, and what James quotes, rather, bases their statements on. Paul uses Gen. 15:6 as his basis in Romans 4, and James uses Gen. 22:1-19 for his basis. Abraham was seventy-five years old when he believed God in Genesis 15. However, Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born. (cf. Gen. 22:6) Tradition has it that Isaac was around twenty-five when Abraham took him to the mountain for the sacrifice. If the Catholics and Arminians are correct, then it logically means that Abraham had to wait fifty years in order to actually be justified! No! We merely point out that the offering of his son, gave evidence to Abraham’s faith in God."

A Study on Baptist Position on Justification, Deacon Dean.

Also, lets compare what James said about the Law, and what Paul said.

"Martin Luther wrote in his preface to James and Jude: “James does nothing more than drive a man to the Law and its works.” And this is apparent in some faiths teachings. However, Luther also admits that James wanted to guard against those who relied on faith exclusively but wasn’t quite up to the task.

During the first century, it is commonly held that James was the bishop of the church in Jerusalem. And Paul was a missionary. History dictates that during the early church, two viewpoints developed early on. Paul is well known for his battles with “legalists.” They were the type who said faith in God was correct, but what was also required was a submission to the “Law.”

Luther also was quick to point out that James called the “Law” a “perfect law of liberty.” (cf. Jas. 1:25) Paul viewed it as a Law that brings slavery, (Gal. 5:3) wrath, (Rom. 4:15) sin, (Rom. 7:7) and death (Rom. 7:10).

When men are turned away from their own self-efforts, the next step is to run in the complete opposite direction. If they cannot trust in their own self-righteousness, if they cannot be justified by their own works, then it is just a minor shift to reject works of any kind, and there is no such thing as ungodly living or ungodly practice. This is the door which leads down the path to antinomianism. They turn the grace of God into lasciviousness. (Jude 1:4) And this is very apparent in what it was spreading during the early church."

Ibid

So I'm sorry, I cannot see it your way.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Ken Rank]

Two things friend, first off, in one sense your right, and in one sense your wrong.

Scriptures do not say the thief "heard" anything.

"And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." -Lk. 23:39-43 (KJV)

Now I admit, that it is unlikely that a Jew, in this time frame, could not have heard of Jesus. But the scriptures don't say that. SO your technically going beyond what scriptures say.

Another problem is:

"Faith without works is dead. So... we have to hear God and act on what we hear."

Another problem here is the importance your placing on the individual.

Come judgment day, there will be perhaps billions who will point to what they did/acted upon. Only to be told: "I know you not".

Lets take Abraham too. He was called by God to leave the place he was at, and go to another place.

Before Abraham took the first step, the scriptures said he believed God. And since you use James as your proof text, the passage James uses in reference to Abraham, was 50 years after the birth if Isaac!

"A fact that most seen to overlook at are the differences between what Paul is quoting from, and what James quotes, rather, bases their statements on. Paul uses Gen. 15:6 as his basis in Romans 4, and James uses Gen. 22:1-19 for his basis. Abraham was seventy-five years old when he believed God in Genesis 15. However, Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born. (cf. Gen. 22:6) Tradition has it that Isaac was around twenty-five when Abraham took him to the mountain for the sacrifice. If the Catholics and Arminians are correct, then it logically means that Abraham had to wait fifty years in order to actually be justified! No! We merely point out that the offering of his son, gave evidence to Abraham’s faith in God."

A Study on Baptist Position on Justification, Deacon Dean.

Also, lets compare what James said about the Law, and what Paul said.

"Martin Luther wrote in his preface to James and Jude: “James does nothing more than drive a man to the Law and its works.” And this is apparent in some faiths teachings. However, Luther also admits that James wanted to guard against those who relied on faith exclusively but wasn’t quite up to the task.

During the first century, it is commonly held that James was the bishop of the church in Jerusalem. And Paul was a missionary. History dictates that during the early church, two viewpoints developed early on. Paul is well known for his battles with “legalists.” They were the type who said faith in God was correct, but what was also required was a submission to the “Law.”

Luther also was quick to point out that James called the “Law” a “perfect law of liberty.” (cf. Jas. 1:25) Paul viewed it as a Law that brings slavery, (Gal. 5:3) wrath, (Rom. 4:15) sin, (Rom. 7:7) and death (Rom. 7:10).

When men are turned away from their own self-efforts, the next step is to run in the complete opposite direction. If they cannot trust in their own self-righteousness, if they cannot be justified by their own works, then it is just a minor shift to reject works of any kind, and there is no such thing as ungodly living or ungodly practice. This is the door which leads down the path to antinomianism. They turn the grace of God into lasciviousness. (Jude 1:4) And this is very apparent in what it was spreading during the early church."

Ibid

So I'm sorry, I cannot see it your way.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Yeshua spoke the words of the Father, the Word of God... and so the thief HEARD the Word of God through God's anointed. As for "acted" upon, faith without works.... works has a variety of definitions and seeing God desires a heart condition that is in sync with His, I don't have any issue with the idea that the thief did enough, even if only in his heart, to be called a brother by us.

Regarding "placing too much emphasis on the individual?" I am not even sure how you can arrive at that Dean. You brought up the thief, I was just commenting on him. I am often accused of NOT talking about individual salvation enough, and that I spend too much time talking about the nation of God's people, the extended community and the promised return/salvation of all who are His that are still in the nations, as we are.

 

[DeaconDean]

Yeshua spoke the words of the Father, the Word of God... and so the thief HEARD the Word of God through God's anointed. As for "acted" upon, faith without works.... works has a variety of definitions and seeing God desires a heart condition that is in sync with His, I don't have any issue with the idea that the thief did enough, even if only in his heart, to be called a brother by us.

Regarding "placing too much emphasis on the individual?" I am not even sure how you can arrive at that Dean. You brought up the thief, I was just commenting on him. I am often accused of NOT talking about individual salvation enough, and that I spend too much time talking about the nation of God's people, the extended community and the promised return/salvation of all who are His that are still in the nations, as we are.

Okay, I'll put it another way.

Please provide for me, scripture that says the thief on the cross heard any preaching.

What "works" that you speak so highly of, can the thief point back to?

All I ever said was the thief had nothing to show as "works".

But, as in most cases, there are exceptions "to the rule".

Now I know he was on his death bed, and could do nothing more than admit he was a sinner and that he believed in who He was.

The thief on the cross.

So here again, produce scripture that says the thief heard preaching. Since your so keen on "Faith cometh from hearing. And hearing by the word of God".

God Bless

Till all are one,.

 

[Ken Rank]

Okay, I'll put it another way.

Please provide for me, scripture that says the thief on the cross heard any preaching.

What "works" that you speak so highly of, can the thief point back to?

All I ever said was the thief had nothing to show as "works".



So here again, produce scripture that says the thief heard preaching. Since your so keen on "Faith cometh from hearing. And hearing by the word of God".

God Bless

Till all are one,.

Well, Yeshua spoke to him and the words Yeshua spoke are the Words of God... are you denying that Yeshua spoke to him? Are you denying that whatever came out of Yeshua's mouth were not the Words of God? As far as you seeing no works... don't look through YOUR eyes nor your cultural interpretation of works.

That's as far as I am taking this. There is no reason to continue.

 

[DeaconDean]

Well, Yeshua spoke to him and the words Yeshua spoke are the Words of God... are you denying that Yeshua spoke to him? Are you denying that whatever came out of Yeshua's mouth were not the Words of God? As far as you seeing no works... don't look through YOUR eyes nor your cultural interpretation of works.

That's as far as I am taking this. There is no reason to continue.

Look friend, I provided the scriptures when Jesus was on the cross with the thief. The only time Jesus spoke to the thief was when He said:

"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." -Lk. 23:43 (KJV)

Now, are you calling me and the scripture a liar?

You said: "Even the thief heard and acted"

All I'm trying to do is to get you to provide scripture to back your point. (But in reality, you can't because there are none!)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Ken Rank]

Look friend, I provided the scriptures when Jesus was on the cross with the thief. The only time Jesus spoke to the thief was when He said:

"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." -Lk. 23:43 (KJV)

Now, are you calling me and the scripture a liar?

You said: "Even the thief heard and acted"

All I'm trying to do is to get you to provide scripture to back your point. (But in reality, you can't because there are none!)

God Bless

Till all are one.

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."

Why would I call scripture a liar? The verse you share, that I pasted above, confirms my point Dean. Yeshua and he spoke, we probably don't have all the conversation but we DO HAVE a word of compassion from Messiah, namely... that he felt that the guy on the cross next to him was worthy to see paradise. Now, you can play whatever religiously biased game you want but in the end we have an exchange of words between the WORD OF GOD HIMSELF and this man, and the Word of God saying that same man apparently did enough to see paradise. So... he WILL see paradise. End of story! We are saved by grace through faith... faith comes by hearing the word of God and faith without works is dead. Apparently, all that took place or this man CAN'T see paradise... but he will which proves my point.

I won't reply in this thread again.. you can have the last word.

 

[DeaconDean]

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."

Why would I call scripture a liar? The verse you share, that I pasted above, confirms my point Dean. Yeshua and he spoke, we probably don't have all the conversation but we DO HAVE a word of compassion from Messiah, namely... that he felt that the guy on the cross next to him was worthy to see paradise. Now, you can play whatever religiously biased game you want but in the end we have an exchange of words between the WORD OF GOD HIMSELF and this man, and the Word of God saying that same man apparently did enough to see paradise. So... he WILL see paradise. End of story! We are saved by grace through faith... faith comes by hearing the word of God and faith without works is dead. Apparently, all that took place or this man CAN'T see paradise... but he will which proves my point.

I won't reply in this thread again.. you can have the last word.

All I am trying to do is make you prove to me that the thief heard preaching.

You quoted a verse saying:

"Faith cometh from hearing, and hearing from the word of God."

And you repeat it again in this response.

Jesus' words came after the thief's confession and request.

And yet, you cannot (or worse yet, will not) see that.

Your going to tell me that "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." is preaching?

Cain heard God Himself, yet he wasn't saved.

But even more than that, there is one more important fact in the thief's confession that you have ignored.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Yes, I believe in Jesus, but I also maintain that there is much more to it.

Am I wrong in saying that not only do you have to believe in Him, but you also must believe what the scripture says about Him?

It, least wise from my POV, does no good to say you believe in Jesus unless you also believe that He was/is the God-man, the Word made flesh, born of a virgin, lived sinless,died on a cross for yours and my sins, my perfect sacrifice, risen by the power of God, sit/stands now by the right hand of God, awaiting to return for His church.

I was told I was wrong.

What say ye?

To me, where this topic gets a bit complicated is the relationship between beliefs in propositions and our doctrine of Monergistic Regeneration and the Solas. We believe God can and does save whomever He chooses. We believe salvation is the work of God alone, that man can add nothing to his salvation, it is the work of Christ alone that saves.

With this said, and propositions and mental ascension in mind, we should consider "exceptions to the general rule". Classes of people such as:

infants whom die in infancy, especially infants of believers,
mentally handicapped people,
elder people who acquire mental diseases as they age, and
believers who die especially at an early age.

Because mental ascension to propositions deals with mental capacity, those classes of people may not have a developed Christology (if any at all), and I think we do agree that God can and does save people from those classes of people, and He saves whomever He so chooses. However as already mentioned, I view these as exceptions to the general rule that God graciously teaches His people by the Spirit, bringing and leading His people into a knowledge and ascension to the truths in Scripture concerning the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[DeaconDean]

My problem was/is, the persons view.

It was incorrect.

The thief on the cross made his confession before Jesus ever said one word to him.

But, as I said, there is one point the Non-Denom member didn't take into consideration.

The thief on the cross used the word "Lord".

The Apostle Paul taught:

"no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." -1 Cor. 12:3 (KJV)

There was no preaching to the thief to back the posters pint when he said "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God".

According to scripture, not one single word was said to the thief, not one instance in the scriptures where it is recorded that the thief was preached to.

John Gill comments on Lk. 23:42 saying:

"And he said unto Jesus, Lord,

Acknowledging him to be the Messiah, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; the Lord of all, and especially of his church and people, and his own Lord. So the Syriac and Persic versions read, "my Lord": however, he said this by the Spirit of God, who enlightened his understanding, and wrought faith in him to believe in Christ; see ( 1 Corinthians 12:3 ) "remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom"; or rather in thy kingdom, as in ( Matthew 16:28 ) for this man had not only faith in the kingdom of Christ, as being of a spiritual nature, and not of this world, and not coming with outward pomp and observation; in which respect his faith exceeded that of the apostles themselves, who were looking for, and expecting a temporal kingdom; and he not only was without all doubt, or scruple, about Christ's entering into his kingdom and glory after death, but he had knowledge of, and faith in his second coming, when his glorious kingdom should appear, or his kingdom appear in glory; and when he desired he might be remembered by him, have favour shown him, and he share in the glories and happiness of it. This was great faith indeed to be exercised on Christ at such a time as this, when he was under the greatest reproach and ignominy; while he was insulted and derided by all sorts of people; and when he was forsaken by his own apostles, and was suffering a shameful punishment, and now dying."

Source

So how can the Non-Denom member say:

"Faith cometh from hearing, and hearing from the word of God."

When the only words spoken by Jesus was:

"Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."?

What work(s) can the thief point to?

If "faith cometh from hearing, and hearing from the word of God" where did the thief hear the words of God before his confession?

By the thief calling Jesus "Lord", according to scripture, according to Paul, we the Holy Spirit working in the thief, as John Gill said:"enlightened his understanding, and wrought faith in him to believe in Christ;".

Of course, a certain Non-Denom will tell me I'm wrong here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Ken Rank]

My problem was/is, the persons view.

It was incorrect.

The thief on the cross made his confession before Jesus ever said one word to him.

But, as I said, there is one point the Non-Denom member didn't take into consideration.

The thief on the cross used the word "Lord".

The Apostle Paul taught:

"no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." -1 Cor. 12:3 (KJV)

There was no preaching to the thief to back the posters pint when he said "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God".

According to scripture, not one single word was said to the thief, not one instance in the scriptures where it is recorded that the thief was preached to.

John Gill comments on Lk. 23:42 saying:

"And he said unto Jesus, Lord,

Acknowledging him to be the Messiah, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; the Lord of all, and especially of his church and people, and his own Lord. So the Syriac and Persic versions read, "my Lord": however, he said this by the Spirit of God, who enlightened his understanding, and wrought faith in him to believe in Christ; see ( 1 Corinthians 12:3 ) "remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom"; or rather in thy kingdom, as in ( Matthew 16:28 ) for this man had not only faith in the kingdom of Christ, as being of a spiritual nature, and not of this world, and not coming with outward pomp and observation; in which respect his faith exceeded that of the apostles themselves, who were looking for, and expecting a temporal kingdom; and he not only was without all doubt, or scruple, about Christ's entering into his kingdom and glory after death, but he had knowledge of, and faith in his second coming, when his glorious kingdom should appear, or his kingdom appear in glory; and when he desired he might be remembered by him, have favour shown him, and he share in the glories and happiness of it. This was great faith indeed to be exercised on Christ at such a time as this, when he was under the greatest reproach and ignominy; while he was insulted and derided by all sorts of people; and when he was forsaken by his own apostles, and was suffering a shameful punishment, and now dying."

Source

So how can the Non-Denom member say:

"Faith cometh from hearing, and hearing from the word of God."

When the only words spoken by Jesus was:

"Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."?

What work(s) can the thief point to?

If "faith cometh from hearing, and hearing from the word of God" where did the thief hear the words of God before his confession?

By the thief calling Jesus "Lord", according to scripture, according to Paul, we the Holy Spirit working in the thief, as John Gill said:"enlightened his understanding, and wrought faith in him to believe in Christ;".

Of course, a certain Non-Denom will tell me I'm wrong here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

The non-denom member? Are you not capable of using my name? In any event, I said I wouldn't write... I am going back on that for this post and then just blocking you because you seem bent on wasting each other's time. Jesus is the WORD OF GOD made flesh. You don't have to literally HEAR his words champ... you can WATCH HIM, observe him and his ACTIONS ALSO SPEAK. So... the thief can say "Lord" to him based on the fact that he HEARD by the actions the Word of God in the flesh made.

You can't be saved without faith and faith comes by hearing the word and is dead with works AND YET the thief will be in paradise. You have the issue here, I don't!

Take care. Non-denom member... ooouuuuttt.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

You can't be saved without faith and faith comes by hearing the word and is dead with works AND YET the thief will be in paradise.

This is the beauty of what is called "monergistic regeneration", and harmony with faith as a gift from God alone. The content of faith is imparted by the Spirit. I think a bridge might be able to be made between the point you're making and the point Deacon is making. What I have in mind is the modes God chooses to impart faith to His chosen people. What I mean is that God can use the "foolishness" of preaching (spoken word) to impart the content of faith, and at the same time He can impart the content of faith without a spoken word, for example..

Matt 16:15 “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

 

[DeaconDean]

The non-denom member? Are you not capable of using my name? In any event, I said I wouldn't write... I am going back on that for this post and then just blocking you because you seem bent on wasting each other's time. Jesus is the WORD OF GOD made flesh. You don't have to literally HEAR his words champ... you can WATCH HIM, observe him and his ACTIONS ALSO SPEAK. So... the thief can say "Lord" to him based on the fact that he HEARD by the actions the Word of God in the flesh made.

You can't be saved without faith and faith comes by hearing the word and is dead with works AND YET the thief will be in paradise. You have the issue here, I don't!

Take care. Non-denom member... ooouuuuttt.

Unless I'm mistaken friend, this is the Semper Reformada area.

And the rules are specific, you are not entitled to debate here, period.

Not once did I disagree with your point of Jesus being the Word, the Living Word.

Like I said, Jesus only said one sentence, and one sentence only.

Prior to that, we see the very early work of the Holy Spirit in the thief.

You evidently have not read or studied the word very well.

The thief on the cross expressed faith, before even one word was said by Jesus.

And you evidently cannot or will not see that.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[twin1954]

Something happened to the theif between the time He was crucified and when he asked the Lord to remember him. We see from Matt. account that in the beginning both thieves railed on Him.

Mat 27:44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

We see from Luke's account that the one theif apparently understood what was written on the plaque over the head of Jesus as well as well as what was being said.

The only conclusion we can reach is that the Spirit at some point opened the heart of the one theif.

Jesus pointed out in John 6 that no man can come to Him except the Father draw him and follows it with a quote from Isaiah saying "they shall all be taught of God.

Saving faith is like a man on the roof of a burning building, as long as he thinks he can find his own way down he will not jump into the arms of the One who will catch him. But when he has no other options he jumps and must trust in the ability of the One to catch him. Once he jumps he is committed and can not go back.

 

[DeaconDean]

Something happened to the theif between the time He was crucified and when he asked the Lord to remember him. We see from Matt. account that in the beginning both thieves railed on Him.

Mat 27:44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

We see from Luke's account that the one theif apparently understood what was written on the plaque over the head of Jesus as well as well as what was being said.

The only conclusion we can reach is that the Spirit at some point opened the heart of the one theif.

Jesus pointed out in John 6 that no man can come to Him except the Father draw him and follows it with a quote from Isaiah saying "they shall all be taught of God.

Saving faith is like a man on the roof of a burning building, as long as he thinks he can find his own way down he will not jump into the arms of the One who will catch him. But when he has no other options he jumps and must trust in the ability of the One to catch him. Once he jumps he is committed and can not go back.

You are absolutely right brother, I had forgotten about Matthew's narrative.

But, (you knew there would be one), unless I'm mistaken, scripture only shows at least one disciple present at the crucifixion. John, "Behold thy mother." Jn. 19:27. Rather, we assume it is John to whom the Lord is referring to here.

Is it possible that both Luke and Matthew got their information from two different sources?

"But who was the source of information for the other accounts? Most scholars think that Matthew and Luke got nearly all of their information about the crucifixion from Mark, though they sometimes made minor alterations. Thus, Mark's account is generally regarded as the original. And according to church tradition, Mark got most of his information about what happened directly from Peter.

But since Peter almost certainly didn't witness the crucifixion himself, who did he get his information from? Apparently not from the Beloved Disciple, since the accounts are so different. Instead, some people have suggested Simon of Cyrene, the man who was forced to carry the cross, although the gospels don't say whether he stayed to watch the crucifixion. Another possibility is that Peter talked to one or more of the women who watched from a distance. Matthew and Mark name several of them, in both cases specifying Mary Magdalene first.

If Mark got his information from Peter, and Peter got it from someone else, that would make Mark's account third-hand. But it actually reads like a first-hand account. In fact many scholars believe that Mark also had another source of information, a lost gospel known as the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative which was written fairly soon after the crucifixion by an unknown person who had a good knowledge of what happened. Evidence for Mark's possible use of such a lost document can be discerned in certain subtle details of his account.

Thus, the gospel stories of the crucifixion appear to be based on two primary sources of information: (1) The memories of the un-named Beloved Disciple, and (2) a now-lost early passion narrative used directly by Mark and second-hand by Matthew and Luke. Some additional details may have been provided by other sources such as Peter."

Who was at the Cross

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[twin1954]

You are absolutely right brother, I had forgotten about Matthew's narrative.

But, (you knew there would be one), unless I'm mistaken, scripture only shows at least one disciple present at the crucifixion. John, "Behold thy mother." Jn. 19:27. Rather, we assume it is John to whom the Lord is referring to here.

Is it possible that both Luke and Matthew got their information from two different sources?

"But who was the source of information for the other accounts? Most scholars think that Matthew and Luke got nearly all of their information about the crucifixion from Mark, though they sometimes made minor alterations. Thus, Mark's account is generally regarded as the original. And according to church tradition, Mark got most of his information about what happened directly from Peter.

But since Peter almost certainly didn't witness the crucifixion himself, who did he get his information from? Apparently not from the Beloved Disciple, since the accounts are so different. Instead, some people have suggested Simon of Cyrene, the man who was forced to carry the cross, although the gospels don't say whether he stayed to watch the crucifixion. Another possibility is that Peter talked to one or more of the women who watched from a distance. Matthew and Mark name several of them, in both cases specifying Mary Magdalene first.

If Mark got his information from Peter, and Peter got it from someone else, that would make Mark's account third-hand. But it actually reads like a first-hand account. In fact many scholars believe that Mark also had another source of information, a lost gospel known as the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative which was written fairly soon after the crucifixion by an unknown person who had a good knowledge of what happened. Evidence for Mark's possible use of such a lost document can be discerned in certain subtle details of his account.

Thus, the gospel stories of the crucifixion appear to be based on two primary sources of information: (1) The memories of the un-named Beloved Disciple, and (2) a now-lost early passion narrative used directly by Mark and second-hand by Matthew and Luke. Some additional details may have been provided by other sources such as Peter."

Who was at the Cross

God Bless

Till all are one.

Yet all were written by the inspiration of the Spirit for us today. That is why we take all four Gospels as true though they come from different sources. We compare them to find the whole truth

 

[klutedavid]

Yes, I believe in Jesus, but I also maintain that there is much more to it.

Am I wrong in saying that not only do you have to believe in Him, but you also must believe what the scripture says about Him?

It, least wise from my POV, does no good to say you believe in Jesus unless you also believe that He was/is the God-man, the Word made flesh, born of a virgin, lived sinless,died on a cross for yours and my sins, my perfect sacrifice, risen by the power of God, sit/stands now by the right hand of God, awaiting to return for His church.

I was told I was wrong.

What say ye?

God Bless

Till all are one.

You need also confess Jesus Christ in your speech.

Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

 

[twin1954]

You need also confess Jesus Christ in your speech.

Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

How, exactly, do you do that?

 

[klutedavid]

The non-denom member? Are you not capable of using my name? In any event, I said I wouldn't write... I am going back on that for this post and then just blocking you because you seem bent on wasting each other's time. Jesus is the WORD OF GOD made flesh. You don't have to literally HEAR his words champ... you can WATCH HIM, observe him and his ACTIONS ALSO SPEAK. So... the thief can say "Lord" to him based on the fact that he HEARD by the actions the Word of God in the flesh made.

You can't be saved without faith and faith comes by hearing the word and is dead with works AND YET the thief will be in paradise. You have the issue here, I don't!

Take care. Non-denom member... ooouuuuttt.

Hello Ken.

A person is saved by Grace through faith.

A person is not saved by faith and works, that undermines Grace.

The gift of faith should be a living faith, i.e., works should be evident.

The goal of the Christian instruction is love from a pure heart.

The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love and that is what generates these works.

I repeat, saved by Grace through faith.

To say, saved by faith and works, corrupts the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[klutedavid]

How, exactly, do you do that?

What you really believe will be mentioned often in your everyday speech.

People tend to talk about what occupies their thoughts.

 

[twin1954]

What you really believe will be mentioned often in your everyday speech.

People tend to talk about what occupies their thoughts.

That I can agree with. What I cannot agree with is wearing your faith on your sleeve.