Christianity and the End Times

I don't know what traditionalists believe about that. But if you think Aramaic then you have th assume that's what all the disciples spoke too, and if they wrote in Greek what sense would that make? Perhaps they were all fluently bilingual, but then Jesus would also have been fluently bilingual.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They wrote the New Testament and they wrote it in the first century. Koine Greek was what everybody spoke, it was the "lingua franca." That is the reason the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek years earlier, because that was the common language of the day. They probably also spoke Aramaic because that was the language of Galilee, but they definitely wrote in Greek. This is the truth, you are believing revisionist lies.

How then did the disciples write the Greek New Testament? And why on earth would they speak any differently than Jesus did?

The first believers were Jews and it was preached in the synagogues all over the Helenistic world. Matthew is considered to have been written to the Jews because of how it uses Old Testament scripture and yet it was written in Greek like all the rest of the NT. Nobody writes Greek that well without being a native speaker. No, we know the disciples wrote the books ascribed to them. The revisionists have no evidence for their views, it's all speculative, and the believe that the apostles wrote the books under their names is the most ancient testimony. They needed no help. They knew Greek. And they knew Aramaic too. \The point is that they all grew up in the same basic circumstances, all in an area that spoke Aramaic natively and all in the lands under Greek influence to the point that their Bible had been translated into Greek years before.. The disciples knew Greek, therefore so did Jesus. And they all spoke Aramaic as well.

That's a bunch of revisionist BS.

Paul himself knows he's not following tradition, NN, he's following the modern "scholars" and he's proud of it. Tradition says the New testament was written by the people whose names are on the books. Tradition that goes back to the beginning.

That's all speculation, no evidence. Tradition that goes back to the beginning is far more trustworthy.

All that stuff like tht there ever was a "Q" or any other precursor doctuments to the current text of the Bible is nothing but the wild imaginings of so called "scholars." They have no evide3nce, it's all their own speculations. The Bible was written as we find it, by the people it is attributed to, or under their authority in the case of Moses, and who cares if parts of it were cop0ied from other parts, that does not change the basic facts. The "scholars" should never have been allowed to get their filthy profane hands on it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Traditional views should NOT every be challenged, except by other traditionalists on minor points. The antisupernatural scholars have no business saying anything at all about it.Come Soon, Lord Jesus, before this planet gets even crazier.

No, Luke does NOT say he got his material from others. What he says is that a lot has already been written and it's well known among people, but he thought he would ALSO write his own account, since he believed he had a specially good understanding of it, much of which he'd heard from eyewitnesses among other things. If he was saying he'd taken it from others then that would have been recognized all along but as far as I know nobody had such an idea about it until the scholars you admire.

What YOU've got is total ignorance.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Luke is saying he has knowledge worth ADDING to the other accounts, since he's saying the basics of the faith are already known to believers, who include himself and Theophilus to whom he is writing. He wouldn't be intending to write the same information he's just said is already well known to believers.. And his gospel includes information that is NOT IN the other accounts. It is his own work, based on his own research, which most people think includes interviews of Mary herself. There is nothing about Luke's account that suggests reliance on others at all. there is a massive ABSENCE of evidence for any "Q" source.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh it certainly is controversial. He did original research and contributed a lot of information that was not previously written about.

If Luke's information came from other written accounts, unknown to believers, why didn't6 he just put those accounts into circulation? Why didn't he just recommend them to Theophilus or have a copy made for him? No, he had his own information about these things that he thought it worth reporting. "Q" is a myth, made up by the "scholars" who obviously don't know how to read.

From the context in which I wrote it I obviously excluded his using written sources. They would have to have been unknown to believers because he refers to those that are well known and he had no need to repeat those, and if he consulted unknown sources he would have named them and recommended them, not written his own. There is no "Q" source, it's all imaginary.Luke had opportunity to be with the apostles and hear their stories. He traveled with Paul. He knew about the political situation of the day and may have done some reading on that but it also may not have been necessary. Since he includes information about John the Baptist's birth it does seem likely that he got to interview Mary and others connected with that. HE WAS THERE, among the people most involved, not during Jesus' life but soon after. THERE IS NO NEED FOR AN IMAGINARY DOCUMENT TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE WROTE./I trust the traiditional attributions