HOME | DD

Nayzak In reply to croWYon [2014-03-30 16:22:16 +0000 UTC]

Wa alaikum assalaam,

sure.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nayzak In reply to Itsukiart [2013-05-23 13:15:01 +0000 UTC]

"praying doesn't help against your enemy,"
as a matter of fact. it helps. it brings man closer to the God. and when man is closer to the God, he gets God's assistance.

"there is no after life after this life ends."
you want to tell me that you died and checked that out? nonsense!

if you point a gun towards me and shoot me, you'll only succeed in killing me if and only if the God willed it and it was my time to die. and if you killed me, I would become a martyr and go to heaven and you become a sinner and go to hell.
happy?

it is irrational to follow any religion, it doesn't get you anywhere in reality.
I appreciate you keep your sick opinions to yourself.
my page is not a space for you to preach kufr.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nayzak In reply to kns10430 [2012-04-17 11:03:02 +0000 UTC]

Peace be to you,
first, I'd like to thank you for asking me about my religion.
second, we don't do anything in any name other than Allah. when we do something, we mention Allah's name by saying "Bismillah" (In the name of Allah).
in Islam, we do not baptize. but we circumcise male children. Jesus -peace be upon him- taught circumcision, so we follow that teaching.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nayzak In reply to kanoshl [2012-04-15 13:21:39 +0000 UTC]

peace be to you, friend.
thanks and I do respect your choice of belief.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kanoshl In reply to Nayzak [2012-04-15 13:36:27 +0000 UTC]

eah..

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nayzak In reply to spicemaster [2012-04-03 01:12:59 +0000 UTC]

Well, the God stated that his mercy is bigger than his wrath. he created us imperfect. he doesn't expect perfect deeds from us. all he expects is that we try our best and he will do the rest.
now if someone sinned. it's a fact that they disobeyed the God. they deserves his punishment. but the God gave us the way to reduce or escape the punishment: it's to repent sincerely.
when someone repents sincerely, it means he recognized his errors, he regretted them, and he doesn't want to do them again. in this case, he will not be punished. and this is from God's mercy and love.
The God is not gonna follow you and have pleasure in torturing you after you already regretted your mistake and repented. that is cruel and unjust. and having to butcher somebody else in order to forgive you is the highest level of injustice. punishing the innocent is ungodly.
We believe the God is not that. he is merciful. and he forgives anyone who seeks his forgiveness.

a judge who pays you fine himself is still just, but also merciful.
I beg your pardon. did you mean that "you mean you are guilty. the judge pays, so he is just"? is this what you mean?

peace be to you

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

spicemaster In reply to Nayzak [2012-04-03 03:22:26 +0000 UTC]

I agree that God's mercy is greater then his wrath to use your words but from my view that is why Jesus came. I would have to know your definition of perfect but I believe Adam was created with free will, beachwear without having the freedom to choose love, then is not real love. Forced love is rape and God wants us to choose to love him willingly. So I do not say that God created mankind "imperfect".

Every human has sinned, broken the ten commandments. I believe in repentance, saying you're sorry and admitting your wrong doings, but a criminal in court who stole something who says he's sorry and shouldn't have done it, still has to pay the fine, do the time and accept punishment. And if he cannot afford it a good friend could pay the fine for him.

God does not pleasure in hell. People who willingly say no to God, no to Christ, send themselves there, because the do not want the truth, they want themselves. God wishes none to die but all to come to everlasting life. People who do not want God...God grants their wish...the absence of God is the absence of all that is good and that state of being is called hell.

Also I don't think God butchered someone else since I believe Jesus was God in human flesh, so the creator of all realities entered into history, became a man, and died as a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

this is to your last statement:

There were two friends who grew up together as young boys...eventually they ended up going to different colleges. One went to business school and became a business man, the other went to law school and became a judge. One day the businessman got arrested for embezzling allot of money... the business man ended up in the courtroom of his dear friend the judge... the newspapers went wild wondering what the judge would do... would he let him go because the are dear friends or would he convict him...

The judge ended up, based on the evidence convicting his good friend, because he was guilty, he have him the harshest fine he could... the judge then took off his robe, stepped down from his podium, walked over and hugged his friend, and while crying said to his friend, that he had sold his house, emptied his bank account and cashed his retirement founds and he will be giving all that he has to help his friend pay the amount.

he was just.... and merciful

...peace to you my friend

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nayzak In reply to spicemaster [2012-04-03 03:50:21 +0000 UTC]

Also I don't think God butchered someone else since I believe Jesus was God in human flesh
Alright, So according to you, the God didn't butcher someone else. instead, the god butchered himself. I am sorry, my friend, but this is even more absurd.
Anyway, the God almighty already answered these allegations in his final testament:
"They do blaspheme who say: "The God is the Messiah the son of Mary." But said The Messiah: "O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord." Indeed, he who associates others with Allah - Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers."
translation of 5:72

the story of the businessman and the judge is a nice story. but I think it's far different from the reality of the God. the God is not one of us. he doesn't need to pay in order to save us. when he wills something, he just says to it "be" and it is. that's the great power of the God.

so the creator of all realities entered into history, became a man, and died as a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.
Well, your god dies and suffers from his creation.
but my God is immortal, he never dies, never suffers and his creation can never harm him.
your god can't forgive without blood sacrifice.
but my God forgives sins without any blood.
...
you can worship your god. and I worship mine. in the end, I'd say "For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."
translation of 109:6

peace be to you

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

spicemaster In reply to Nayzak [2012-04-03 04:27:54 +0000 UTC]

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. -John 15:13
Yes the Pharisees picked up stones to kill Jesus, for he said, before Abraham was, I AM." - John 8:58

God is not one of us, but he took human form to show us the way how much he loved us, that he understands.

Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins, (then said he to the paralytic) Arise, take up your bed, and go unto your house. Mathew 9:5, Luke 5:24, AND Mark 2:10

My God cannot die. He defeated death and rose again and was and is still God.

Because God is good he cannot let evil win, and has to pass judgement or it would cost him his holiness. He cant give sin a pass or he is not holy. Trusting your own goodness is selfish and God says good works are as filthy rags before him. Trusting in Jesus washes your sins away and God says he no longer sees your sins, he sees Christ's perfectness.

Let me say I'm not arguing, but it is good to see all perspectives and think on it and then talk about what you think to each other in a peaceful way.

Peace.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nayzak In reply to spicemaster [2012-04-03 05:03:09 +0000 UTC]

John 15:13 applies for man not for God.
and John 8:58 doesn't prove that Jesus is God. Satan and Angel Gabriel were before Abraham, does this make them gods?

God is not one of us, but he took human form to show us the way how much he loved us, that he understands.
claiming that the Almighty God takes human form and have human deficiencies is a great blasphemy. the God doesn't become one of his own creation. he doesn't need to become a man in order to show us his love in a cruel and brutal way. that's ungodly.

My God cannot die. He defeated death and rose again and was and is still God.
you are contradicting yourself.
a- My God cannot die.
b- He defeated death and rose again.
someone can't rose again if he didn't die.
besides, the statement -a- contradicts your own religious teachings.

Trusting in Jesus washes your sins away
Jesus washes nobody's sins. he was a servant of Allah just like you and me. he was a better servant than you and me. but he couldn't even save himself. how can he save others. all he had was from what the God gave him. he could do nothing out of his own self. but you are being emotional, believing that somebody already paid for your sins gives you a feeling of security which prevents you from considering the opposite reality.

I don't like people preaching other religions in my page. but I will give you a chance:
if you can prove to me that what you follow is better than what I follow, then I will be ready to consider it and listen to your evidence.
but if all you want to do is express disagreement in religious beliefs, then this doesn't help much. it doesn't benefit anyone. as it's obvious and known that we have contradicting teachings in our religions.

so, as I said, I will be willing to hear your proof. but I let you know that quoting the Bible doesn't count as proof for someone who doesn't believe the Bible to be God's word. so if you have logical and rational proofs, please do provide them. if you are thinking that using the Bible will prove your point, you need to prove to me the Bible is a credible book first.
what do you think?
do you think you have enough knowledge to prove your claims?

Let me say I'm not arguing
I am not arguing either. we are discussing our disagreements in a peaceful way.

Peace be to you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

spicemaster In reply to Nayzak [2012-04-03 16:18:11 +0000 UTC]

Jesus said before Abraham was "I AM" I AM is Yahweh, the Jews knew what he was saying, that’s why they picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy. This is the name God gave Moses at the burning bush. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If you are about to be hit by a car, and I run and push you out of the way and I get hit, I am not cruel, I am a hero... God is the ultimate hero... even in movies today the hero is made a hero, by sacrificing himself for others.

He couldn't save himself??? He didn't come to save himself, he came to save us. That’s the point.I thought you believe he didn't die or not on the cross anyways though.

(I must admit, I do not know where the Koran differs from the old and new testaments, which is what I am going by. The Dead Sea scrolls verify these have not been altered from the original witnesses who documented these events)

I cannot prove anything, I evidence and I ask what’s most reasonable to believe in light of the evidence. This evidence would be historical in nature. It’s based on the trustworthiness of eye witness testimony.

Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, and Paul writing that over 500 people saw Jesus raised from the dead at different times and places. This historical record is that he was arrested, had a mockery of a trial. Nailed to a wooden cross beam. A soldier jams a spear into his side and blood and water comes out, a medical sign of death. They put his body in a tomb and roll a stone in front to make sure there is no tampering.

His followers are not great believers; they are deniers, betrayers, deserters. They were doubters. Three days after he dies he first appears to 2 women…the sexism of the first century makes it interesting that if this was a lie, you’re not going to want women to be the first witnesses of his resurrection. At the time a woman’s testimony wasn’t even allowed in court.

Now what’s really interesting is that his followers killed, not for a belief, but for refusal to say they did not see what they saw. Even upon torture they would not say they didn’t see what they saw, Jesus risen.

The literary style of the gospels are historical narrative. At this time, in this place Jesus did this and said that, amongst eye witnesses. Archeology shows us that all the places are verifiable.

The New Testament we have today is based off of over 5,200 Greek manuscripts dated from the second and tenth century AD, from Rome Italy down around the Mediterranean to Alexandria Egypt.

There’s no document in antiquity that can even approach the New Testament gospels in manuscript evidence.

Greco-Roman Pagan sources: Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius

Jewish sources: Josephus, Mara bar Sarapion, The Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls.

Christian sources: Pauline Epistles, Gospels, Sources behind the gospels, The Acts of the Apostles, Ancient Christian creeds, New Testament Apocrypha, Gnostic texts, Early Church fathers.

History is determined by eye witnesses writing it down
This all lends credibility to all claims Jesus made and the people who saw him do them. We have more historical evidence for Jesus than any other ancient historical person by far.

Jesus says beware false prophets, by their fruit you shall know them. A good tree bears good fruit a bad tree bears bad fruit. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And marvel not; for Satan himself can transform into an angel of light.
...Thats why I don't trust angels, I trust Jesus.

I know I can't prove anything to you, even those that saw it in front of them still didn't beleive.

I respect you as a believer in God and thank you for helping me improve my communication with Muslims and understanding their beliefs. Bod bless you and your efforts.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nayzak In reply to spicemaster [2012-04-04 01:46:23 +0000 UTC]

Jesus said before Abraham was "I AM" I AM is Yahweh, the Jews knew what he was saying, that’s why they picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy. This is the name God gave Moses at the burning bush. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
this doesn't prove Jesus is god.
first you are using a book which you still didn't prove to be credible. I am told in my religion the Bible is corrupted. I read many parts of the Bible and I don't find it as the word of God. in it are words of God. but most of it are words of man.
in order to use Biblical quotes and for me to take them as evidence, you need to prove to me first that I am wrong and the Bible is the word of the God.
second, saying "before Abraham, I am" doesn't prove someone is god. I already told you, Satan and Angel Gabriel were before Abraham. yet they are not God.

If you are about to be hit by a car, and I run and push you out of the way and I get hit, I am not cruel, I am a hero...
yes, but you are not God. the God doesn't need to die in order to save somebody. believing the God must die in order to save you and results in contradictions (immortal being can die, for example)

He couldn't save himself??? He didn't come to save himself, he came to save us.
a man who came to offer himself as sacrifice wouldn't pray to the God to 'take that cup from him'. and wouldn't cry "Elah Elah, why have you forsaken me." these are the words of someone who was forced against his will and didn't want that to happen to him.

This evidence would be historical in nature. It’s based on the trustworthiness of eye witness testimony
in other words, an evidence that you can't check and I can't check. and we have to assume it's true and believe it.

Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, and Paul writing that over 500 people saw Jesus raised from the dead at different times and places.
so all your faith is based on the truthfulness of these guys.

His followers are not great believers; they are deniers, betrayers, deserters. They were doubters.
this discredits them as eyewitnesses. I wouldn't believe a testimony of a betrayer and doubter.

Now what’s really interesting is that his followers killed, not for a belief, but for refusal to say they did not see what they saw. Even upon torture they would not say they didn’t see what they saw, Jesus risen.
again, something that you didn't check and I can't check.

can't you offer me ONE single evidence that I, as a layperson, can check and grasp and see its truth?

Archeology shows us that all the places are verifiable.
do I understand that the God made the evidence of the truthfulness of his book mysterious that only scholars and archeologists can see and no layperson can check it? therefore, a layperson's faith should be solely based on the truthfulness of these scholars and archeologists.

The New Testament we have today is based off of over 5,200 Greek manuscripts
I also heard that these 5200 manuscripts are not all full manuscripts. some are just a parchment or little pieces. and I also heard there are not even 2 that are similar among all these manuscripts. ALL are different.

Greco-Roman Pagan sources
did you read these Greco-Roman Pagan sources?
and do you mean they witness that Jesus was God? come-on. they may testify of the existence of Jesus. but to testify that he was a God by Pagans. this, I need to see by myself.

...Thats why I don't trust angels, I trust Jesus.
the way I see it, you are trusting those who wrote about Jesus. the truthfulness of this faith is based on the credibility of the writers of the Bible.

I know I can't prove anything to you
that's fine.
let's summarize. if I understood well, you gave me a few arguments that you believe can probably be used as evidence for the truthfulness of the Bible. I am afraid I still can't see things clearly. probably because of some questions that I have in mind to which I still didn't get answers. I don't find the answers in your comment here, so my doubts and suspicions are still there.

I suggest this:
instead of you writing a long comment explaining things from your side. I'd like to ask questions about your faith. the answers of which will be very beneficial for me. and like this, we can move forward.
if you agree, I will ask you the questions one by one.

Peace be to you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

spicemaster In reply to Nayzak [2012-04-04 03:08:40 +0000 UTC]

Sure, though it seams you missed my point and misunderstood everything I wrote and are dismissing the historical evidence I listed. Perhaps you don't understand how we gather historical evidence in the first place and know anything about any history. I have no idea what evidence would have impressed you or satisfied you and I don't know what evidence you hold the Koran more credible then the bible.

But this is your page so you may ask questions to me. If it is easier you can email me if you don't want me filling up your artwork pages, I really don't mean to be rude.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nayzak In reply to spicemaster [2012-04-04 03:20:18 +0000 UTC]

I have no idea what evidence would have impressed you or satisfied you and I don't know what evidence you hold the Koran more credible then the bible.
the evidence that satisfies me is something that's stronger than what the Qur'an gives.
I mean, I am ready to follow your faith, if your faith is better than mine. but only if you can prove it. there are many faiths and religions around. and everyone claims to be the true one. I need proof in order to decide. a strong proof.
I did study the Qur'an and I found evidence of its credibility and divine source. an evidence that I can check, you can check and everyone can check. so when someone comes and gives me an evidence that I can't check, and they probably didn't check, I consider it 'weak'.

I can tell you the evidence the Qur'an has. but I don't want to open multiple subjects at ones. so let's just focus on Christianity for now (since you opened this subject)


But this is your page so you may ask questions to me. If it is easier you can email me if you don't want me filling up your artwork pages
I don't mind. probably other people will also benefit from our discussion.


Q1- alright, first question (this one is simple):
do you believe the Bible to be:
a- entirely the word of the God (OT + NT).
b- the word of man (scholars, historians...).
?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

spicemaster In reply to Nayzak [2012-04-04 03:55:07 +0000 UTC]

The bible was recorded by witnesses, because there is power in testimony. (no I do not believe the bible floated down from heaven)From Adam writing down what God said to him to Abraham writing down what God said to him and the events that happened all the way to the witnesses recording the things Jesus taught, said, did and what happened. And the prophecies held in the book predicting future events about the Christ and the time we live in today, also sciences that we haven't learned till modern day.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nayzak In reply to spicemaster [2012-04-04 04:31:39 +0000 UTC]

So you mean, the Bible is God's word written by witnesses.

alright, I'd like to talk a little about the word 'witnesses'.
may I ask my next question:

Q2- do you know the writers of the Bible?
when I say know, I don't mean simply their names. I mean do you have enough knowledge to say 'this guy is truthful, he was known to always say the truth' or 'this guy was righteous, he was a man of God' or something like that.

note that when I say Bible, I mean both OT and NT. they are put under the same cover, so for me both are considered God's word by the Christians.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

spicemaster In reply to Nayzak [2012-04-04 13:40:54 +0000 UTC]

You need to know how we gather historical knowledge. Do you know, the Cesar of Rome? Do you know George Washington? Luke was a historian, Peter walked with Jesus, ect. The pagan sources didn't like Jesus but say this Jesus was crucified for working magic. (because they did not beleive in God) The Romans documented his death as it was a government sanctioned execution.

I have no clue how you verify the Koran if you condemn historical documents. (I do believe Muhammad lived and did these things by the way.)

Did you know Muhammad?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nayzak In reply to spicemaster [2012-04-06 03:42:46 +0000 UTC]

you need to know that not all historical knowledge is necessarily correct. history, in many cases, was written by the victor. the Roman pagan sources were just the media of that time. they are not more credible than the media of this time. they just mentioned what the Romans wanted the people to know. and the Roman wanted people to know that Jesus was killed. having the Romans mention his death doesn't necessarily mean it happened. besides, having some people believing in his resurrection doesn't mean it happened. I read about the history of early Christianity. and I know there were many different groups with contradicting opinions regarding the Christ: some believing he was the son of god and some believing he was a prophet...
anyway the question of our discussion is not about his death or resurrection. it's about the divinity you are claiming. and the authenticity of the information.


you mentioned Luke and Peter. alright. let me ask you questions regarding them:
Q3- did Luke meet Jesus and learn from him face to face? Was he, for example, one of the disciples?

and I noticed that when I ask Christians about Christianity, they MUST bring the prophet Mohammed -peace be upon him- to the picture. as if without Mohammed, they can not prove Christianity to be true. anyway, I appreciate we leave Mohammed -peace be upon him- and any Islamic figure out of the arguments until we finish what we are discussing now. later, if you have any questions about Mohammed -peace be upon him- or Islam, I will be glad to answer you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

spicemaster In reply to Nayzak [2012-04-06 04:10:32 +0000 UTC]

The Bible documents are well attested as being reliable and accurate. In fact, we have around 24,000 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament. So much so, that no major area of Christian doctrine is affected by possible variations among manuscripts (click here for more details).2
Regarding the Koran, Muhammad couldn't read or write, so he recited the Koran to people who then wrote it down. There is no evidence at all that the Koran was written down in its entirety in Muhammad's lifetime and compiled as a unit. So how could he have verified its truth?

Shortly after Muhammad's death, the Muslim Uthman ordered all sets of the Koran manuscripts to be destroyed except the codex of Zaid. Why? Is it because Zaid's copy was better? If so, how do we know? Did differences in the copies arise so quickly that discrepancies were evident and Uthman recognized the need for a standardized copy lest Islam suffer division? It raises doubt on the Koran's supposed incorruptibility.

Muslims claim that Allah said the Koran would be preserved. But, the mere claim is not enough. It is using the Koran to substantiate the Koran which is circular reasoning.

Q#3
Luke was a Greco-Syrian physician who lived in the Greek city of Antioch in Ancient Syria.
In Luke (1:1–4) Luke freely admits that he was not an eyewitness to the events of the Gospel.

Not bringing Mohammed into the discussion is unfair, you have talked about Jesus, whom I believe to be God, you just believe Mohammed to be a prophet. It reminds me of Mormons who believe Joseph Smith produced an incorrupted bible and the book of Mormon...they think he's a prophet too.

No disrespect, these are the facts as I see them. I say all this with respect to you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nayzak In reply to spicemaster [2012-04-06 05:21:55 +0000 UTC]

you wrote 6 short paragraphs. 4 of them are irrelevant to the question I asked and our subject.
first:
Regarding the Koran... It raises doubt on the Koran's supposed incorruptibility.
from what I see, there is no Christian who seems to know how to prove the Bible to be true without trying to prove Islam to be wrong. you are not the first person who did this. every single Christian I discussed this topic with followed the same approach. the error in this way of thinking is that managing to prove Islam is wrong doesn't prove Christianity is true. you still need to provide evidence for your claims.
I can prove Islam to be true without mentioning Christianity or any Christian figure. that's because Islam stands alone. it doesn't need to use any other religion in order to prove its truth. while you... well, from your comments, I don't feel you can do that with your religion...

Muslims claim that Allah said the Koran would be preserved. But, the mere claim is not enough. It is using the Koran to substantiate the Koran which is circular reasoning.
Is this supposed to be your evidence to prove the Bible? come on.
you seem to be confused. you don't know how to select your arguments.
I give you a piece of advice: when you want to use an argument, you need to make sure it helps you reach your claim within the subject of the discussion. otherwise, using that argument will just make you look like a person who throws anything that comes to their mind, whether it's useful or not, true or not, checked or not.
don't do that. because you are going to give the impression that you don't know how to prove your claims.

Not bringing Mohammed into the discussion is unfair
you see it unfair because you can't prove your Bible to be the word of God without falsifying Islam. your approach is "make the others look wrong, and you'll look correct"
this is wrong on many levels.


I do not like that when I ask questions regarding your religion, you return them with questions and statements regarding another religion. that's a waste of time. Islam doesn't need Christianity in order to prove its truth. does Christianity need Islam to prove its truth???? just ask yourself.
if you don't like me asking you questions, and you want to close this discussion and switch it to Islam, I will be more than glad to answer your questions. but right now, since we are in a discussion about Christianity and the Bible, I appreciate you stop throwing irrelevant arguments regarding another religion and keep your answers in the subject of the discussion. I am a mono-processor person. I am just asking you one single question at a time, and expect one single answer. I hope you play fair.


now please tell me:
a - do I continue asking you about Christianity (I still have many)?
b - or you don't want my questions and you want to talk about Islam instead?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

spicemaster In reply to Nayzak [2012-04-06 13:46:37 +0000 UTC]

Okay, it's your page, I will anwer your questions.
but these questions honest questions or are they meant to trip me up?

I disagree with friends all the time, I hope after this we can be friends.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nayzak In reply to spicemaster [2012-04-06 16:37:45 +0000 UTC]

I don't aim to trip you up. I just want answers to some sincere questions that are in my mind for some time. if you feel I am tricking you, we can stop at any time.

alright, next question.
you said "In Luke (1:1–4) Luke freely admits that he was not an eyewitness to the events of the Gospel."
Q4- since Luke was not an eyewitness. this means he took his information from somebody else. did he mention from whom he took his information?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

spicemaster In reply to Nayzak [2012-04-06 16:50:27 +0000 UTC]

Luke is a Greek and the only Gentile Christian writer of the New Testament. The language of Luke reveals that he is an educated man. We learn in Colossians 4:14 that he is a physician. In this book Luke refers many times to sicknesses and diagnoses. Being a Greek and a doctor would explain his scientific and orderly approach to the book, giving great attention to detail in his accounts.

Luke was a faithful friend and travel companion of Paul. Some discredit Luke's Gospel because he was not one of the 12 disciples. However, Luke had access to historical records. He carefully researched and interviewed the disciples and others who were eyewitnesses to the life of Christ.

Date Written: Circa 60 A.D.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nayzak In reply to spicemaster [2012-04-06 17:40:09 +0000 UTC]

my question was "since Luke was not an eyewitness. this means he took his information from somebody else. did he mention from whom he took his information?
"
your answer is:
He carefully researched and interviewed the disciples and others who were eyewitnesses to the life of Christ.
Q5- so again, can you give me some names of these disciples and other eyewitnesses that Luke took his information from?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

spicemaster In reply to Nayzak [2012-04-06 18:11:16 +0000 UTC]

Luke was a historian
He knew Paul, I said this already.
Paul saw the risen Jesus appear to him.

I don't need Luke’s eye witness account because there is Mathew Mark and John. Luke just agrees with their accounts so it is included as a professional Greek historian. When you live in that time it is easy to interview and gather information about someone.

500 years later, you cannot trust the accuracy because they are all dead and you can form a different perspective. I would trust the people who were there.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nayzak In reply to spicemaster [2012-04-07 04:03:40 +0000 UTC]

you say: He knew Paul, I said this already.
Q6- Do you mean that Paul is the only eyewitness of Luke?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

spicemaster In reply to Nayzak [2012-04-07 17:21:58 +0000 UTC]

no Luke interviewed the apostles and people from the area that witnessed it and to people in political power. He was a Greek historian... do you know what a historian is? Do you know how they gather information?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nayzak In reply to spicemaster [2012-04-07 20:17:48 +0000 UTC]

I know what a historian is. and I am doing what a historian does: check the truth of the information. please bear with me a little. I am just trying to understand how was the information in the Bible gathered by the writers of the Bible.

no Luke interviewed the apostles and people from the area that witnessed it and to people in political power.

Q7- did Luke mention the names of the people he interviewed?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

spicemaster In reply to Nayzak [2012-04-07 22:16:03 +0000 UTC]

yes, through the entire book of Luke

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Nayzak In reply to spicemaster [2012-04-08 08:45:52 +0000 UTC]

Q8- could you give me a few names of these eyewitnesses?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

spicemaster In reply to Nayzak [2012-04-08 17:38:23 +0000 UTC]

Luke 1:1-4 says,

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

In addition, Peter (in his second epistle) wrote: "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

Similarly, the apostle John begins his first letter this way:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ (1 John 1:1-4 ).

Finally, Paul writes of seeing Jesus after his resurrection: "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?" (1 Corinthians 9:1)

These are just a few examples. Others could be offered as well. But these are sufficient (I think) to show that the earliest records we have of the life and ministry of Jesus claim to be solidly grounded in eyewitness testimony.

I would say to you, how do we know that George Washington was the first president of the United States? How do we know that Julius Caesar was emperor of Rome? How do we know that the newspaper is true in saying there was a fire last night?... because people were there and reported it and wrote it down.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1