Eyewitness Testimony

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
There is no proof that the Gospel names through tradition are true.
You keep claiming that the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but so far, you've given no proof to support your claim.
You've been told my reality and what you do with it is up to you.
You've told us that one or more demons (whom you, blaspheming God, insanely call "the Holy Spirit") have collaborated with you in writing a book, which your demon(s) directed you to title with a glaring spelling error:
[Moderator edit, book title removed] is a must-read for anyone searching for the full and complete meaning of Daniel prophecy.
Your book is garbage.
You’re a real charmer 7djengo7 with a very general conclusion. I don’t discount anything without evaluating it.
Nobody does, Professor. Discounting something IS evaluating it.
You expect me to summarize a 400 page book with 200 pages of analysis here?
LOL @ "200 pages of analysis"!

No rationally-thinking person is ever going to mistake your semiliterate ravings for analysis. Get real.
The fact that I completed an analysis that proves others who are much more likely to be the authors, wrote the Gospels should be welcomed by the church.
You've done no analysis, whatsoever. You're deluded.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Your words just confirmed that tradition may or may not be the truth.

Where have I ever said otherwise?

There is no proof that the Gospel names through tradition are true.

Saying it doesn't make it so, and constantly repeating yourself won't make it any less false.

The fact that I completed an analysis that proves others who are much more likely to be the authors, wrote the Gospels should be welcomed by the church.

You have done no such analysis here.

You haven't proven anything here.

You expect me to summarize a 400 page book with 200 pages of analysis here?

No, I expect you to present the evidence on which you based your book on here.

The first step of understanding the analysis

What analysis?

is to accept that there is no evidence for the current gospel authors.

That would be called begging the question. It's a logical fallacy for a reason.

Don't base your entire position on a logical fallacy.

You claim there is and have provided information,

That information is evidence.

and claim there is evidence,

Not only do I claim there is evidence, I have provided it.

but every time I disprove it as evidence,

You've disproven nothing.

you return to your claim.

Because you've done nothing to rebut it.

How can anyone expect me to summary a complex analysis when we can't get past the starting point?

That's what I've been asking you.

You keep trying to make this about selling books. It's almost as though the books frighten you because they challenge tradition and you stand by it whether you can verify it as factual or not.

Or, it's against the rules to promote your own works here on TOL.

Which is more likely?

I could care less about promoting my books,

Then stop trying to.

but the Holy Spirit has made it clear that I am to discuss what I have been led to investigate and find.

No, the Holy Spirit has not done any such thing.

The Lord will do with the books what he wants.

Now you're claiming that the books you've written are God's?

I have seen and not only read the reviews and summaries, I've examined the documents and the claims. The earliest recorded statements are supposedly written from fragments of the writings from others that cannot be located. Even if the earliest were validated --which they cannot be because the documentation doesn't exist--they would be so far removed from history that they are meaningless.

Because you say so?

None of these claims can be used as evidence of the authors

Because you say so?

because they are well down the whisper table. If you are unaware of the whisper table,

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

I refer you to one of my unnamed books,

Next time you mention your books in any subsequent posts, you'll be banned.

or ask me to explain and I will address it here.

Why not just do that from the start?

It is written that nobody contested the Gospel authors until 400 AD, but that again is not evidence.

False.

People in the early church knew who and when the Gospels were written and to assume otherwise is very naive.

Yes, because of the sittybos that were attached to the scrolls, which had the names of the authors written on them.

So how did the names get lost when the early church knew who they were?

They didn't get lost.

Why do you assume they were?

It wasn't by accident

Begging the question (logical fallacy).

the Holy Spirit directed me to Daniel and Revelation

Irrelevant.

God can do whatever he wants.

But apparently not use two Apostles and two other men who were not the Apostles to write

However, the reasonable question is why would God do that when he picked twelve and chose four special ones to witness everything he did and said?

Begging the question (logical fallacy).

Not only that, he told the disciples that they had a job to do and it was to document his words.

Cite, please.

If you can promise to let go of tradition,

Only if you can demonstrate, with evidence, that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are not the authors of the gospels.

So far, you've made zero progress to that effect.

this is not nearly as complex as the author and prophecy analysis and I will try to explain it here.

Just do it already, then.

If the documents were originals sealed and witnessed when they were opened they would be evidence.

Why do they have to be sealed?

What, do you think someone tampered with them and changed the names? On hundreds of copies spread across the entire Roman Empire, so that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM are in agreement?

Get real.

However, the original documents were never sealed - they were used to start the church just as Jesus commanded. How do I know this? Because scripture tells us this.

The Church of the Body of Christ started without the gospels, which weren't written until well after Paul's conversion.

Statements can be analyzed to determine if they are from eyewitnesses by the level of detail presented.

You seem so caught up on there being "eyewitness" accounts.

Why?

The Lord ensured that there would be four accounts of his life and with four accounts we have multiple descriptions of many events.

Not in dispute.

These multiple events can be analyzed to look for these eyewitness details and i did this.

Why the need for "eyewitness" accounts?

What I found was that the statement were from separate people and they were eyewitnesses.

Except that two of them were not eyewitnesses.

Why do you think Jesus only took four disciples with him to watch certain events?

I don't.

Because with four there would be four different eyewitness statements.

So why not twelve, then? Why only four apostles?

What I'm saying is that people are corrupt and will do evil things.

That's a given. But I was trying to eliminate that variable from the equation.

When analyzing your story, I have to look at all the data, and there is no reason to believe that what I suggested could not happen.

Of course, but I explicitly stated that the man they caught was the man that committed the crime.

Did it happen like what I suggested, or was the man guilty?

Why do you assume it happened some other way that I did not say it happened?

What I was trying to figure out by the scenario wasn't whether the man was guilty or not, but whether you understood what the Bible means when it says "witness."

You clearly do not.

I'd have to look at the case file and investigate. I'm just saying it's not cut and dry as you made it out to be.

I specifically stated that, for the purpose of the exercise, that it was exactly as laid out.

The point was to see if you could identify the evidence within the scenario.

You failed, miserably.

Evil people will do things and try to cover their tracks.

Duh.

You claimed that my visions are not from the Lord.

Because they're clearly not.

God is not the author of confusion.

What am I supposed to do with that statement when I have visions that are sometimes daily and they provide me direction and guidance in both scripture and my personal life.

You should seek professional help.

That's not normal. ESPECIALLY not for a Christian.

I had an NDE and I pledged to follow the Holy Spirit wherever I was led. I pray, receive direction, write, and pray more. This is not blasphemy as written in that Acts citation I provided.

Supra.

I am not on par with anyone in scripture and don't claim to be. I don't want any recognition

Then stop claiming special revelation from God.

- I simply want to deliver the message the Holy Spirit has asked me to deliver

The Holy Spirit hasn't given you any message.

Take it from someone who's not you.

in the hope that some will read or hear it and come to faith like I have.

The only message that you should be sharing for that effect is the one contained within scripture, the gospel of the grace of God.

So who was that verse in Acts referring to if it wasn't me, you, or others

It was for Israel. The final week of Daniel's prophecy had started. And then it was put on hold, because Israel rejected her Messiah, so God went to working with the Gentiles.

who the Holy Spirit wishes to move?

Begging the question (logical fallacy).

So I am to ignore my visions because somebody doesn't like that I am receiving them?

No, you should seek help. You shouldn't be seeing visions. That's called hallucination.

Do you smoke pot?

You've been told my reality and what you do with it is up to you.

What you've told me is not reality.
 

Jaz

BANNED
Banned
Gary, if you're still out there, it's a clown show in here so that's why people leave, and it's my turn to bail. This Lord said that you are either with him or against him following evil. The beast runs rampant in the church and these people certainly follow the beast.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Gary, if you're still out there, it's a clown show in here so that's why people leave, and it's my turn to bail.
You are the clown in this show.
This Lord said that you are either with him or against him following evil. The beast runs rampant in the church and these people certainly follow the beast.
Nothing like lying as you leave.
 
Last edited:

Gary K

New member
Banned
The following word is used 33 times in Psalms to describe God.


Psa_138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and give thanks unto thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.



Interesting isn't it that David the supposed legalist saw God as very loving and kind and yet the very people who claim to be Gentile Christians say God is mean. Odd how that works. Jesus said by their fruits ye shall know them.



Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them.



He also said the following:



Joh 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
Joh 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh it away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he cleanseth it, that it may bear more fruit.
Joh 15:3 Already ye are clean because of the word which I have spoken unto you.
Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; so neither can ye, except ye abide in me.
Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for apart from me ye can do nothing.
Joh 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.





Joh 17:1 These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the Son may glorify thee:
Joh 17:2 even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that whatsoever thou hast given him, to them he should give eternal life.
Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.





Joh 17:20 Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word;
Joh 17:21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.
Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one;
Joh 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me.



So where does Jesus leave room to being mean to fellow Christians?
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Christians say God is mean.
Who, according to you, says God is mean? Name names. If you're not talking about anyone, then what is the "point" of your post?
So where does Jesus leave room to being mean to fellow Christians?
Whom are you addressing? Who has advocated being mean to fellow Christians?

Notice how you have neither quoted nor tagged anybody in your post. Why is that?

Let me guess: It is "mean" of me to ask you these questions.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
The following word is used 33 times in Psalms to describe God.


Psa_138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and give thanks unto thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
You consider your constant, self-righteous, hypocritical melodrama performances in these threads to be lovingkindness? You clearly couldn't care less about truth. You prefer to try to drown it out and distract attention from it by your melodrama. You clearly hate Bible-despising, Christ-hating heretics such as @Hoping and @Jaz since you always prefer to try to derail refutations of their falsehoods by imposing yourself into threads to do nothing but make ridiculous moaning noise, trying to shift attention onto yourself and your unsolicited tales of how badly people have (you claim) treated you in past decades.
 
Last edited:

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Gary, if you're still out there, it's a clown show in here so that's why people leave, and it's my turn to bail. This Lord said that you are either with him or against him following evil. The beast runs rampant in the church and these people certainly follow the beast.
@Gary K, is it not mean of the heretic, @Jaz, to call those of us "a clown show" who refuted his Holy-Spirit-blaspheming falsehoods, and to say that we "certainly follow the beast"? Maybe @Jaz is whom you were anonymously addressing and chiding in your most recent, sanctimonious post about "being mean"?
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Who, according to you, says God is mean? Name names. If you're not talking about anyone, then what is the "point" of your post?

Whom are you addressing? Who has advocated being mean to fellow Christians?

Notice how you have neither quoted nor tagged anybody in your post. Why is that?

Let me guess: It is "mean" of me to ask you these questions.
You don't see or acknowledge the meanness displayed here towards Christians who disagree with the beliefs of those on this site? And you deny that you teach that God is mean by saying Jesus literally meant that the Caananite woman was a dog? Do you not call those who believe differently than you do liars, fools, God haters, etc...?

I didn't think I needed to address my post to anyone specific as I was addressing what is a common belief here.

Nope. I don't think it was mean of you to ask.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
You don't see or acknowledge the meanness displayed here towards Christians who disagree with the beliefs of those on this site?
Why do you call Christ-hating heretics, "Christians"? Your refusal to refute their falsehoods is meanness, and shows you hate their guts.
I didn't think I needed to address my post to anyone specific
I didn't think you needed to write your post at all. Indeed, it is a needless post. It is noise.
And you deny that you teach that God is mean by saying Jesus literally meant that the Caananite woman was a dog?
No one here has said Jesus literally meant that the Canaanite woman was a dog.
I was addressing what is a common belief here.
To what "belief" are you referring?
Do you not call those who believe differently than you do liars, fools, God haters, etc...?
  • I call liars "liars". Please explain why you call it "meanness" to call liars "liars".
  • I call fools "fools". Please explain why you call it "meanness" to call fools "fools".
  • I call God-haters "God-haters". Please explain why you call it "meanness" to call God-haters "God-haters".
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
I'm disappointed in you. You owe me some honesty.
Here, you're stating that the liar, @Arthur Brain, is a liar. Why is it somehow "meanness" for others to do that, but it's no problem when you do it?
You don't see or acknowledge the meanness displayed here... Do you not call those who believe differently than you do liars, fools, God haters, etc...?
Are you silly enough to imagine that you're only calling someone a liar if you are saying the word, "liar"?

Also, no rationally-thinking person believes your line about being disappointed in @Arthur Brain's dishonesty. No one believes you were actually expecting that liar to not lie.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Why do you call Christ-hating heretics, "Christians"? Your refusal to refute their falsehoods is meanness, and shows you hate their guts.

I didn't think you needed to write your post at all. Indeed, it is a needless post. It is noise.

No one here has said Jesus literally meant that the Canaanite woman was a dog.

To what "belief" are you referring?

  • I call liars "liars". Please explain why you call it "meanness" to call liars "liars".
  • I call fools "fools". Please explain why you call it "meanness" to call fools "fools".
  • I call God-haters "God-haters". Please explain why you call it "meanness" to call God-haters "God-haters".
There is a vast difference between showing someone they are wrong from scripture and calling them liars haters and fools. Sherman demonstrated that with her example of Peagianism.

Jesus said the following.


Mat_16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.



Do you think it is denying self to call people nasty names?



Php 3:12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.
Php 3:13 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead,
Php 3:14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
Php 3:15 Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you.
Php 3:16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained.




3Jn_1:11 Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God.

 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Here, you're stating that the liar, @Arthur Brain, is a liar. Why is it somehow "meanness" for others to do that, but it's no problem when you do it?

Are you silly enough to imagine that you're only calling someone a liar if you are saying the word, "liar"?

Also, no rationally-thinking person believes your line about being disappointed in @Arthur Brain's dishonesty. No one believes you were actually expecting that liar to not lie.
Really? How would you know my motivations? Are you God that you can read my heart?

1Sa_16:7 But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.”

I have come to the conclusion that AB sincerely believes what he says. I no longer believe he is a liar. He's just another human being the devil has deceived for the devil is such a good liar he was able to deceive one third of the angels who lived in God's presence. He's capable of deceiving any human being as he deceived sinless angels and sinless human beings. That means he is capable of deceiving both you and I. And we're supposed to look down on him for being a human being?
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Really? How would you know my motivations? Are you God that you can read my heart?
Right back at you, hypocrite.
I have come to the conclusion that AB sincerely believes what he says.
Whoops! You already contradicted what you are saying, there, by your having already acknowledged @Arthur Brain's dishonesty:
I'm disappointed in you. You owe me some honesty.
And, even were it true that you believe @Arthur Brain believes what he says, it's false that you have concluded that he believes what he says.
And we're supposed to look down on him for being a human being?
No one said anyone is supposed to look down on anyone, so, once again you are lying about others by attacking dummies you've crafted out of the straw in your head.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
There is a vast difference between showing someone they are wrong from scripture and calling them liars haters and fools.
What (if anything) do you mean by that? Or is it merely yet another emotional outburst from you?
  • I call liars "liars". Please explain why you call it "meanness" to call liars "liars".
@Gary K: <NO ANSWER>
  • I call fools "fools". Please explain why you call it "meanness" to call fools "fools".
@Gary K: <NO ANSWER>
  • I call God-haters "God-haters". Please explain why you call it "meanness" to call God-haters "God-haters".
@Gary K: <NO ANSWER>
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Why do you call Christ-hating heretics, "Christians"? Your refusal to refute their falsehoods is meanness, and shows you hate their guts.

I didn't think you needed to write your post at all. Indeed, it is a needless post. It is noise.

No one here has said Jesus literally meant that the Canaanite woman was a dog.

To what "belief" are you referring?

  • I call liars "liars". Please explain why you call it "meanness" to call liars "liars".
  • I call fools "fools". Please explain why you call it "meanness" to call fools "fools".
  • I call God-haters "God-haters". Please explain why you call it "meanness" to call God-haters "God-haters".
There is a vast difference between showing someone they are wrong from scripture and calling them liars haters and fools. Sherman demonstrated that with her example of Peagianism.

Jesus said the following.


Mat_16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.



Do you think it is denying self to call people nasty names?



Php 3:12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.
Php 3:13 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead,
Php 3:14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
Php 3:15 Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you.
Php 3:16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained.




3Jn_1:11 Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God.



Do you imitate good by all your slanders? Or do you take up the side of Jesus' accusers?



Joh 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
Joh 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
Joh 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Joh 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
Joh 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
Joh 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
Joh 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.



Is this how the vast majority of MADist's behave on this site?
 
Top