Robert's Gospel According to the Apostle Paul

[Right Divider]

He wrote that he "had perfect understanding of all things from the very first." So he either witnessed everything he wrote about, or he did not. I think it possible that he did not.

You have created a FALSE idea that it needs to be 100% or nothing. It's entirely possible that Luke witnessed SOME of the things that he wrote and obtained second-hand accounts for others.

I don't know. I'm just saying maybe it was, and if it was, then does Paul's Gospel equal Luke's Gospel. Does it fit the text.

You made many false claims that you cannot backup with facts. You should stop that.

Why are you fighting the idea so hard?

Simple.... it's wrong.

Why is this idea so threatening?

It's not threatening.... it's just wrong.

Do you think that Luke did witness all the events he wrote about?

I never said any such thing. But your silly idea that he had to witness ALL or NOTHING is just as incorrect as many of your other silly ideas.

Was he there in Bethlehem, for example? I don't think that he was, do you?

We don't know, so no need to speculate.

Right, if he didn't 'need Paul,' then he clearly was able to do it some other way.

Now you're getting somewhere.

Any thoughts as to how?

Either he was an eye-witness or had others that were. No need for it to be Paul.

Does it hurt to at least consider an explanation?

No, but AGAIN, this does not help support your previous conjecture.

 

[Robert Pate]

There are many religions older than Judaism.

You are a crazy man that just keeps getting crazier.

Judaism was the religion of the Jews, all other religions are not relevant. It was a religion of law. The law that was given to Moses was their religion and still is today. All religions have evolved from either Judaism or Catholicism. The Christian religion has been influenced by Judaism and Catholicism, this is why the organized church is so screwed up and is why the historical Gospel of Jesus Christ is not preached in the organized church today.

 

[Right Divider]

Judaism was the religion of the Jews, all other religions are not relevant. It was a religion of law.

There you go AGAIN.... changing the rules AFTER THE FACT.

The law that was given to Moses was their religion and still is today. All religions have evolved from either Judaism or Catholicism.

WRONG again.... you're like a broken record.

The Christian religion has been influenced by Judaism and Catholicism, this is why the organized church is so screwed up and is why the historical Gospel of Jesus Christ is not preached in the organized church today.

Robert the Magnificent.

 

[Truster]

Judaism was the religion of the Jews, all other religions are not relevant. It was a religion of law. The law that was given to Moses was their religion and still is today. All religions have evolved from either Judaism or Catholicism. The Christian religion has been influenced by Judaism and Catholicism, this is why the organized church is so screwed up and is why the historical Gospel of Jesus Christ is not preached in the organized church today.

Pate is suggesting that Noah and all the pre-deluvian fathers had no religion because the law had not been given. Abraham had no law to walk by and yet he is known as the father of the trustworthy. No religion without law means that nobody prior to Moses had religion. Go and soak your head Pate.

 

[Robert Pate]

Pate is suggesting that Noah and all the pre-deluvian fathers had no religion because the law had not been given. Abraham had no law to walk by and yet he is known as the father of the trustworthy. No religion without law means that nobody prior to Moses had religion. Go and soak your head Pate.

There was no religion of the Jews until the law was given by Moses. The first five books of the Old Testament are about the Jewish law and religion. Before Moses gave the law the Old Testament saints were justified by faith in God's promise of a savior, Romans 4:3. The same way that we are justified today. They looked forward to seeing the savior, while we look back.

 

[Right Divider]

There was no religion of the Jews until the law was given by Moses. The first five books of the Old Testament are about the Jewish law and religion. Before Moses gave the law the Old Testament saints were justified by faith in God's promise of a savior, Romans 4:3. The same way that we are justified today. They looked forward to seeing the savior, while we look back.

Romans 4:3 says NOTHING about Abraham "looking forward to a savior".

You just make up one thing after another.

 

[Danoh]

Judaism was the religion of the Jews, all other religions are not relevant. It was a religion of law. The law that was given to Moses was their religion and still is today. All religions have evolved from either Judaism or Catholicism. The Christian religion has been influenced by Judaism and Catholicism, this is why the organized church is so screwed up and is why the historical Gospel of Jesus Christ is not preached in the organized church today.

Actually, Abraham and his family were idol worshippers before God called him out from among them, in Gen. 12.

And what do you think was going on at the Tower of Babel before that, in Gen. 11 - Baa'l worship.

While, Catholicism is actually a combination of Baa'l worship and a rippoff of Judaism.

And there is Buddhism, which also goes way back but is in no way, shape, or form connected to the many ancient religions of the Middle East, other than in its also being pagan idol worship.

Looks like you just guessed at all that.

All, just one more opportunity to Romans 5:6-8, you.

 

[Danoh]

There was no religion of the Jews until the law was given by Moses. The first five books of the Old Testament are about the Jewish law and religion. Before Moses gave the law the Old Testament saints were justified by faith in God's promise of a savior, Romans 4:3. The same way that we are justified today. They looked forward to seeing the savior, while we look back.

Actually, they were worshipping the God of their fathers way before the Law.

An example:

Exodus 4:31 And the people believed: and when they heard that the LORD had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped.

That was way before their Exodus, let alone, before the Law at Sinai, sixteen chapters or so, later.

__________

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

What was it he believed?

Genesis 15:2 And Abram said, LORD God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? 15:3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. 15:4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number THEM: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Romans 5:6-8.

 

[Truster]

There was no religion of the Jews until the law was given by Moses. The first five books of the Old Testament are about the Jewish law and religion. Before Moses gave the law the Old Testament saints were justified by faith in God's promise of a savior, Romans 4:3. The same way that we are justified today. They looked forward to seeing the savior, while we look back.

Cain had a form of religion that was not acceptable. Abel had a form of religion that was acceptable.

 

[Robert Pate]

Romans 4:3 says NOTHING about Abraham "looking forward to a savior".

You just make up one thing after another.

There is a thread that runs through the Old Testament of the promise of a savior. All of the patriarchs believed in God's promise of a savior and were justified by faith.

 

[Robert Pate]

Cain had a form of religion that was not acceptable. Abel had a form of religion that was acceptable.

Cain's offering was the results of his works. Abel's offering pointed to the sacrifice of Christ.

Once again we see the difference between works and grace.

 

[Idolater]

It's entirely possible that Luke witnessed SOME of the things that he wrote and obtained second-hand accounts for others.

OK, fair enough. Who do you think he got the 'intel' from then, if your idea here is true? I read all about how he was with Paul. And I don't think I read anything about him even meeting another Apostle.

You made many false claims that you cannot backup with facts. You should stop that.

Does it fit the text for Paul's "my Gospel" to be the Gospel according to Luke? And why should I even ask? Because it's simpler than Dispensationalism's idea.

Simple.... it's wrong.


It's not threatening.... it's just wrong.

Maybe, but that's the most evidence you're offering to support your view.

...your silly idea that he had to witness ALL or NOTHING is just as incorrect as many of your other silly ideas.

It's definitely possible that he witnessed none of it. You haven't ruled that out at all. You're just angry for me suggesting it.

We don't know, so no need to speculate.

Oh, you don't know? You're sure sure of yourself, about something you don't know.

Now you're getting somewhere.


Either he was an eye-witness or had others that were. No need for it to be Paul.

Right, no need. But which Apostles did Luke know, for certain?

No, but AGAIN, this does not help support your previous conjecture.

No, that was just to establish a bit of breathing room for discussion, because you were coming on so hard against the idea.

 

[Right Divider]

OK, fair enough. Who do you think he got the 'intel' from then, if your idea here is true? I read all about how he was with Paul. And I don't think I read anything about him even meeting another Apostle.

You're just a mess with your inability to think straight or use sound logic.

There is no reason that he needs to get his information from another apostle. How do you think that he got all of the information from Acts 1-8? It could have been from anyone, apostles or not.

Does it fit the text for Paul's "my Gospel" to be the Gospel according to Luke? And why should I even ask? Because it's simpler than Dispensationalism's idea.

That is some babbling nonsense.

Maybe, but that's the most evidence you're offering to support your view.

YOU made the claim and have YET to provide ANY actual proof.

It's definitely possible that he witnessed none of it. You haven't ruled that out at all. You're just angry for me suggesting it.

Sheer unfounded speculation is nowhere near actual evidence to support your speculative claims.

Oh, you don't know? You're sure sure of yourself, about something you don't know.

False accusations, I'm used to it from religious zealots such as yourself.

Right, no need. But which Apostles did Luke know, for certain?

Irrelevant as usual.

No, that was just to establish a bit of breathing room for discussion, because you were coming on so hard against the idea.

:juggle: Just keep juggling words and not supporting YOUR argument.

 

[Right Divider]

There is a thread that runs through the Old Testament of the promise of a savior. All of the patriarchs believed in God's promise of a savior and were justified by faith.

Thanks for admitting that Romans 4:3 says NOTHING about Abraham "looking forward to a savior" as you had claimed that it did.

 

[Idolater]

There is no reason that he needs to get his information from another apostle. How do you think that he got all of the information from Acts 1-8? It could have been from anyone, apostles or not.

'Anyone' could have told Luke things, Luke wrote them down, and you believe they're the words of God? How? I mean, how do you come to believe that what Luke wrote is Scripture, if you believe that 'anyone' told him what he wrote?

YOU made the claim and have YET to provide ANY actual proof.

The New Testament, including Paul's writings, prove there's a Church office called Bishop, and---you don't have a bishop.

I'm not sure that 'proof,' is your cup of tea.

False accusations, I'm used to it from religious zealots such as yourself.

In what way exactly, am I a 'religious zealot?'

 

[Robert Pate]

Thanks for admitting that Romans 4:3 says NOTHING about Abraham "looking forward to a savior" as you had claimed that it did.

Abraham believed God. Abraham believed God's promise of a savior and it was counted unto him for righteousness, Romans 4:3.

You have little to no spiritual comprehension of the Bible.

 

[Danoh]

Abraham believed God. Abraham believed God's promise of a savior and it was counted unto him for righteousness, Romans 4:3.

You have little to no spiritual comprehension of the Bible.

Problem is, that is not what Genesis 15 relates Abraham had believed God about.

Genesis 15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Nevertheless, Romans 5:6-8, in each - our stead.

 

[Idolater]

Abraham believed God. Abraham believed God's promise of a savior and it was counted unto him for righteousness, Romans 4:3.

You have little to no spiritual comprehension of the Bible.

Abraham heard, and believed the Gospel (Galatians 3:8 KJV), and Abraham believed that God raises the dead (Hebrews 11:19 KJV).

 

[Robert Pate]

Abraham heard, and believed the Gospel (Galatians 3:8 KJV), and Abraham believed that God raises the dead (Hebrews 11:19 KJV).

Of course. All of the Patriarchs knew about God's promise of a savior. The believed God and were justified by faith.

All of the promises that God made to Israel were fulfilled when he gave them Jesus Christ.

 

[Idolater]

Of course.

I'm glad we agree. It's so important to understand what the Scripture teaches us about the faith of Abraham. In Hebrews 11:19 KJV, where it is revealed to us that Abraham believed that God raises the dead, and that this was why he offered up his son Isaac, we see what the Sadducees didn't see, because they didn't believe that God raises the dead, because they did not believe that Abraham believed that God raises the dead either. We Christians are given the whole revelation, and we cherish it and live by it.

Abraham is portrayed sometimes by unbelievers as a sadist, to offer up his son Isaac as a human sacrifice, but Abraham's belief that God raises the dead is pivotal to understanding not only that episode in Genesis, but indeed the whole Christian faith, which is the same faith of Abraham, fully developed. God raises the dead. It is a crucial part of the 'Good News' of Christianity. All our loved ones, friends who we've lost, we believe fervently that they will live again, because we believe God raises the dead, just like Abraham.

John 8:56 KJV