Christianity and the End Times

Your arguments might be a little more persuasive if they were text-based rather than based on slinging around insults. Exactly where is Paul's interpretation unworkable rather than just "liberal"?And I know that you won't take this advice, but regardless of how convinced you are about the evil of Catholicism, rants about how "vicar" means "anti-Christ" when everyone knows it does not, are not helpful to your case. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Please do. It is actually very easy given all of the free Bible test available online. That would be superstitious numerology and of course complete hokum. I know this will come across as harsh, but I find crap like this an embarrassment. It makes it appear that Christians are a bunch of idiots who are just as likely to believe fairy tales as the Bible.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't know much about this topic, so please forgive me if my question is foolish.Don't most fundies insist that Isaiah is about double fulfillment? Isn't there going to be a great fit to a conventional prophecy (which might not even be prophetic, but instead historical) and then some future meaning in their eyes?

Really, Faith?What language do traditionalist believe that Jesus spoke most of the time?

Your accusation about Paul not following tradition on this particular point would seem to be both baseless and ridiculous.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This is ridiculous. Luke was not a first hand witness. Everything he writes comes from the account or accounts of someone else That is not the least bit controversial.

Have you ever written a paper Faith? I find your question quite astounding.Apparently, none of the sources included the complete story that Luke wanted to tell, and did not describe Jesus from the perspective that Luke undertook to document. His Gospel serves that purpose regardless of what his actual sources were.Luke almost certainly drew on many sources. I don't think there is any controversy about that whatsoever.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Faith, this statement does not contradict what I said in the least. Original research means consulting sources and accounts. At least some of those sources appear to be in common with the other Gospel authors.Again, this is not controversial.

Your statement is baseless and idiotic. If there were written sources, they were written by believers and accordingly, they could not have been unknown to all believers.

Your supposition is not correct. There are four Gospels and much overlap in the material and Luke's Gospel was not the first one written. The idea that Luke would only write about what was unknown is demonstrably beyond ridiculous.Secondly, the fact that there were other writings does not mean that those writings were widely spread or well known. Your argument is not logical.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

1. That is not the point. The question is whether there is material in there from other sources.
2. Yes, the Gospel does contain original material. Primarily that is Luke's viewpoint.
3. Luke was not a witness, therefore none of the details of any event is original to Luke. It all came from somewhere or somebody else.

You have not given good reasons. You've given silly reasons that are easily rebutted. Tell us what the traditional belief is about Luke's sources. Nobody cares what you believe without looking.

Nothing in there appears to provide any arguments Luke did not draw on writings. I'll note that quoting authors that throw around "leftist" the same way you do as if that were some kind of argument really are not proving anything except that they are content with ad hominem." He certainly HAD read many eyewitness accounts. "So writings, then.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What is being done here is simply labeling a view leftist as if that is all that is needed to discredit it. That is the essence of what an ad hominem argument is. It is not an insult, but an attempt to discredit by applying a label in place of addressing a position on the merits.And in fact, there is absolutely no attempt to even demonstrate that the criticised viewpoint is "left". It is a viewpoint that differs from that of the author who spits out the label before dismissing it entirely. No points for that.

I thought it was impossible for a man to affect his own prospects for salvation. At least that's what Calvinist doctrine holds.