Trying to summarise the vast amount of scholarship on the New Testament is an enterprise to be understaken with huge caution, and something probably only to be done with prayer. That said, what follows reflects what I perceive to be broad consensus. That is not the same as saying there is complete agreement – in what field of scholarship is that ever so?
The spectrum is vast: at one end are those who would tells us that the Gospels are written by Sts Mark, Matthew, Luke and John (in that order, except for those who have Matthew first), between about 60 AD. and the year 100 AD; at the other end are those who would say that none of that is true and that they are collections of writings given Apostolic names for a variety of reasons, and that we can”t say anything much about dating other than that they are at best, late first century and possibly early to mid second century AD.; in between there are those who, to take one of my favourites, would argue that “John” is written by John, but not that John, but by another chap of the same name; reminds me of Homer and the Illiad. So what can be said in short compass without either wearying the reader or simplyfying to the point of misrepresentation?
At the end of this I append a list books which have helped guide me and from which I derive what I write here.* I am an historian, not a Scripture scholar, and my Latin and Greek are not what they were. But enough, let us press on.
For many centuries, and indeed until recent times, it was the fashion to say that Mark’s Gospel was “primitive”, a collection of sayings recorded in rather rustic Greek which acted as a source for Sts Matthew and Luke. More recent scholarship has taken a less dismissive view and has tended to recognise that far from being a somewhat defective “biography” it is a different genre, one which has no real precedent.
Papias, one of the earliest Christian writers who died around 130 AD. called Mark Peter’s interpreter”, telling is that he:
wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them.
Irenaeus, who lived in the next generation, recorded the same tradition, and Justin Martyr, who wrote in the 140s AD., called Mark’s Gospel the “memoir” of St Peter. Mark himself has long been identified with what is now the Coptic Church, and some have said he was that “John Mark” who fled naked from the garden at Gethsemene, and who later appears in the Acts of the Apostles and elsewhere [Acts 12:23-13:13, 15:36-39; Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11; and 1 Peter 5:13.} as a companion of St Paul. Others have said differently, although with Tertullian and Origen all identifying Mark with Peter, the tradition is strong, although of course they could all be relying on Papias, but as they do not quote him elsewhere, that seems a little unlikely. What we do know is that from the very earliest times Mark’s account was accepted as a record of St Peter’s testimony and preaching.
It isPapias to whom we owe the identification of the writer of the Gospel attributed to St Matthew. The problem here is that the text is ambiguous:
Matthew compiled (or ‘arranged,’ or ‘composed’) the logia (‘oracles,’ ‘sayings’ or perhaps ‘gospel’) in the Hebrew (or, ‘Aramaic’) language (or, ‘style’?), and everyone interpreted (or, ‘translated’) them as best they could.
He identifies this “Matthew” with the tax collector the other Synoptics call “Levi,” although later commentators doubt this, reasoning that if the author had been an Apostle he would hardly have relied as heavily as he did on Mark’s Gospel. On the other hand, if he was the “Levi” mentioned, and knew that Mark was Peter’s “interpreter”, he might have had good reason to use him as a source. Papias’ comment is not helpful either, because if, as he seems to say, the original of Matthew was in Aramaic, then it does not explain why the text we have reads more like a Greek original. Of course, it may be that Matthew’s original in Aramaic was adapted and used as the basis for the Gospel we have, making that original the famous Q source which scholars think is a lost “sayings” text which Luke and Matthew used as well as Mark. Whatever the truth of the matter, it remains the case that as far back as we can trace tradition, “Matthew’s” Gospel was treated as Canon.
The same is true of St Luke’s two books. It is purely accidental that “Acts” does not follow on from Luke’s Gospel as they are clearly by the same author. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and others all list Luke as the person mentioned throughout Paul’s letters (Colossians 4:7–17, Philemon 24, and 2 Timothy 4:11), from which we learn that he was a doctor. The interest he takes in how Gentiles respond to the Good News adds weight to the view that he was a Gentile, perhaps one of the “God fearers” who attended Synagogue. He tells us at the beginning of his Gospel that he has done a lot of research, and it seems clear that among his sources were either Mary of Nazareth or else others from the wider family of Jesus, as events such as the Annunciation can only have come from such a close source. As for when it was written, most scholars date it to after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD., but it may date from as early as the following decade.
That takes us to the most majestic and mysterious and poetic of the Gospels, that of John. The scholarship here is even more contested than for the Synoptics, and it was the Gospel least widely received in the early Church because of its association with heretical movements, a reading which gathers some strength from the schisms in the Johannine community about which we learn in 2 John. There are those who think it the last of the Gospels, there are a smaller number who think it was the first. As it seems to have been finished by a later hand, or hands, there is no intrinsic reason why both hypotheses might not be true, of course. Papias tells us about two men called John, or at least he writes about the “Apostle” and the “Elder,” who may, of course, be the same man, as Apostles were Elders! Opinion is split, with some very eminent scholars opting for John “the Elder” and others opting for the Apostle, and some for someone else called John! But amidst these debate, no one contests that the Gospel was part of the Canon from early in the history of the Faith.
So, to sum up. What we do know is that the early Church Fathers received only Four Gospels as the Canon of faith, and by 200 AD. we know they were bound together as a Codex. Long before there were any Church Councils, the Church knew which texts were Canon and named the authors. But what, you might say, of other so-called Gospels? It is to that we shall turn next.
*Short Bibliography
JDG Dunn, Ûnity and Diversity in the New Testament (1977)
Austin Farrer, St Matthew and St Mark (1954)
Wayne Gudrum et al (eds.) Understanding Scripture (2012)
Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ (2000)
CE Hill, Who Chose the Gospels? (2010)
Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (1987)
Graham N Stanton. The Gospels and Jesus (1989)
All Along the Watchtower 
I haven’t done any of the necessary scholarship to comment intelligently here. What I would say is that Pope Benedict XVI’s three book series on ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ references a lot of the relevant arguments and provides a helpful summary for those of us who are more academically challenged.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Yes, agreed, Steve, they are most useful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love to listen to (which should, I guess, be corrected to ‘read’ as that is what we’re doing here but the ‘voice’ of the piece strikes me – a story teller warming to his topic) discussions such as this. All the scholarship of the given bibliography synthesized to a manageable unit anyone can follow.
Now I’m excited to read about those gospels deemed unfit as canon. We catch news about them every once in awhile and it will be exciting to find out the whys and the wherefores.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you, Audre. For as long as I can remember I always wanted to teach. Of course, in the end in my chosen profession I ended up doing anything but, but I am glad you like this series.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a fascinating series. As thoughtfully says, it’s well above my level but it is good to be stretched.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks Neo. Some of the more esoteric stuff stretches me, and when it gets into the Codices, a big “do not enter” sign comes up in my head.
LikeLiked by 2 people
How well I know that sign. Sometimes, I admit it, I trespass, and learn things but not always understand them.
LikeLiked by 3 people
As an aside, I concur with those who speak of the difficulties with this subject but I do want you to at least mention 1 thing which always amused me: Only the book of John calls John the “beloved”. Seems a strange thing for John to do unless he was Christ’s first spiritual Mystic.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scoop
Click to access jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses.pdf
I found `Jesus and the Eyewitnesses’ by Richard Baukham very good. I think this is a .pdf, but you’re better off getting hold of a proper paper copy.
I like everything about this book except the conclusion where he argues that the author of John’s gospel is a different John. He explains why his choice of a `john’ would fit the description of the beloved disciple.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is excellent, Jock, and my reference to Homer was a reference to him, here.
LikeLike
I’ve written quite a bit on the differences with the Gospels via master’s classes. I think an interesting point is that these differences would have been known when forming the canon. And yet, it didn’t bother early Christians up until historical criticism which then tries to address this as a new development.
The exploration of the question should be more focused on what are the theological reasons and truths that being expressed in these so called differences. In fact, using historicism, authors during this period and culture would record an event differently and not think they were representing in “historically” different, and that needs to be explored more. I think that proposition is one that can both edify C as a faithful believer and historian. In the same respect, it allows me to move past my historically trained mind into the living word of God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
….. actually, what went on here was quite simple. If the text was (believed to be) handed down from some big shot (e.g. the apostle Paul, one of the disciples) then the text was revered and they made every effort to pass it on as they received it and they didn’t dare edit it.
This is a much better explanation of how the texts were passed on than the one that seemed to be favoured by many biblical scholars of the last century, where they seemed to assume that the texts we received are the way they are because they have been edited and re-edited and then edited again.
With the Old Testament, it very much looks as if the text was handed down with zero alteration if it was considered that it originated from a source of extreme holiness.
So I think your `not bothered’ by differences is not the issue here. They may well have been bothered by the differences, but their prime concern was to pass on what they had received irrespective of the differences.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You’re right that early Christians who did have a synoptic gospel and the gospel of John were probably more motivated by the Gospel message than when the Passover actually occurred during the Passion. However, it can’t be ignored there is significant theological reason why John chooses a different time. And, text copying the thousands of manuscripts seem to be mostly punctuation and spelling error not necessarily a change in content, so that has largely been debunked.
LikeLike
Phillip – as always, it isn’t completely clear to me that you read what I wrote, or else we are talking about different things.
When you talk about `early Christians’, are you talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul? Or are you talking about the people who passed on what they wrote?
Because – to clarify – I didn’t say anywhere that they were motivated by the Gospel message (you seem to be suggesting that I did say this) – I said that they were motivated by passing down accurately what those who were close to source (particularly the eyewitnesses – of whom Paul was arguably one) had actually written.
They may or may not have been bothered by the differences. They probably were, because they were Holy people who took their faith seriously, but if you say they weren’t then I’m not going to argue the point. The issue of overwhelming importance for them was that they didn’t dare alter the text that had been entrusted to them.
It was probably JAT Robinson’s `The Priority of John’ where I read the theory that any grammatical inconsistencies with the gospel were not a result of over-editing and failing to make the joins properly (which seemed to be the approach taken for much of the 20th century), but rather a result of not editing at all, because those to whom the text had been entrusted didn’t dare to touch a text written by a disciple of our Lord.
Apologies – I’m slow this evening – but in neither of the replies that you wrote do I see what you are responding to in my own comment – so I don’t really understand what you wrote – or what proposition I’m supposed to have made with which you don’t agree.
LikeLike
I defer by the terms authors and early Christians—those generations after the apostles.
It’s odd to me that that would differentiate between the motivation pass on the tradition and the gospel. I would think that to obviously twofold, as why would someone desire to accurately pass on something without such an importance. Perhaps, when i did read, I read too much into what you wrote or rhetorically you seem to like to take I guess the moral high ground by always accusing me of things—and then apologizing after I explain myself.
What a tiresome process.
LikeLike
Phillip – well, I’m not trying to take any moral high ground here – just trying to make sense of what was passed on to us in the form that it has been passed on and why.
I didn’t take any offence or anything – I simply didn’t see how your reply was connected with my response.
You do raise interesting issues – the difference between John and the Synoptics about Easter is an important one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In my opinion, John is aware of the synoptic tradition—he changed it. Why?
The early Christians that are aware of both traditions, exclude some other books from the canon but include John with the synoptic tradition, why? And some simply point to their apostolic origins of the text. And this just one of many other examples.
Now, we may conclude different answers, but this is heart is the matter. I’m saying that historicity of early AD century Palestinians and Greeks view history within a framework of a theological word—and that’s quite different than how modernity views history.
LikeLike
Phillip – you are (of course) correct that today’s world-view is much less theological than 1st century AD Greece and Palestine.
But you have to unpack this a little – to give some idea of how this impacts on the selection of – and the editing of – the NT texts that were handed down to us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suppose it depends on what you mean by editing. When a person complies a body of work of different authors this is editing. So, the collecting of canon of the New Testament is a form of editing.
And then there is specially the copying and editing is those scribes.
I am addressing the former.
LikeLike
Phillip – Ah ha – OK – that makes sense. Because there is confusion on this point, especially as a result of much of the 20th century scholarship on this issue.
Many of the commentaries seem to take-it-as-read that there was a huge process of editing – not in the sense that you mean – but rather in the sense that the `editor’ did not only make the decision of whether or not a work was suitable and whether or not to put the work (unaltered) into the collection, but the editorial board also did much work on correcting the grammar, re-working the text, perhaps taking several text and trying to synthesise them, basically doing this that and the other.
Raymond Brown (for example) thinks that John’s gospel is the product of something called a `Johanine community’ where they took John’s gospel and mucked about with it for about two hundred years – and it is this mangled version that we see today.
If you want to see a horrendous commentary on John (which admittedly I didn’t spend too much time on because life is too short to spend it on stuff that is monumentally bad) which takes the view that this is how the gospels came down to us, look no further than Rudolf Bultmann – at some point he seems to think that 6 different authors were responsible for a single sentence in John’s gospel.
I don’t really believe in book-burning, but if I did, Bultmann’s commentary would be the first up the chimney – and this might happen if I run out of newspapers during the winter.
So when you talk about `editing’ you have to say what you mean – because many of the 20th century scholars seemed to take a different view to you.
So we seem to take broadly similar views – although I still haven’t quite understood why `early AD century Palestinians and Greeks view history within a framework of a theological world’ impacts on this.
LikeLike
I am aware of the “community” argument, but have you looked into Brown’s et al evidence? It’s more or less conjecture taking as evidence.
So, you’re correct, the view is different, but I think they simply don’t have much evidence to ground them.
LikeLike
Phillip – actually, to my shame, I did waste some time on Brown and his `community’ argument.
I basically think it is a circular argument, whereby he makes certain pre-suppositions to reach his conclusions, which he then uses to justify his approach.
I get the impression that Chalcedon isn’t so impressed with this style either, so I’d imagine that he won’t waste too much time with it in the series (which seems to be about stuff that he enjoys).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I often use Brown in my academic work for a dialectic. I think a lot of his work is based on simply “textual” analysis that is just as valid as any other type of good analysis. I think the community argument is definitely an example of nothing more than a theory based on little to no evidence. A group of scholars get together and decide “this can’t be from one author…”
In the case of the Gospels it’s pretty poor. In the case for say the book of Isaiah there’s 3 style changes, so that makes for a better case.
LikeLike
Phillip – …. well, there seem to be a lot of people who would agree with you about a deutero and tertio Isaiah, but I’m not at all convinced about this.
Firstly, the really good stuff about the man of sorrows was then no longer written by the real Isaiah, but instead by some sort of side-kick. Also, there does seem to me to be a unity about the prophecies.
Isaiah had a long ministry. Is it not possible that someone changes their writing style as they mature?
I do get the strong impression that the Hebrews were *extremely* conservative with Scripture. You’ve been studying this sort of thing, so you’ll know more about it than me, but the little I’ve read does indicate that they were absolutely manic about passing down things exactly as they had received them and being scrupulous about it – so if it says that this is by Isaiah, then I believe that it is by Isaiah.
Isaiah is (of course) a key book – of all the Old Testament books, it is the one where the role of the second person of the Trinity is expressed most vividly, so the fact that there were Christians at the time of Jesus is largely due to the prophet Isaiah (c/f Ethiopian eunuch, but also when Paul is proving things from Scripture it is usually Isaiah and he never seems to indicate that there may have been several Isaiahs).
LikeLike
In regards to Isaiah, I’m not going to die on that hill that there are two or tree authors, I think your view is valid that it’s the authored by the prophet.
LikeLike
Phillip – that is sensible of you. After all, the prophesies written in Isaiah are true, irrespective of who wrote them and their truth and usefulness for us doesn’t really depend on whether there was one Isaiah or several Isaiahs.
But it is a hill that I might be prepared to die on, since it does look like the thin end of a wedge. After all, the gospels tell us that Jesus read from the prophet Isaiah, not `from one of the prophets Isaiah’ and it is the Scripture that Jesus read from – so perhaps I’m being a bit of a `thin end of the wedge-ist’ here, but it might be a hill that I would be prepared to die on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The actual exterior archaeological evidence for Isaiah wants me to hope for an one Isaiah authorship. But again, the style change after chapter 39 is abrupt, but like you said, I still think the prophecies are true no matter.
LikeLike
I’m taking a class on prophetic literature this fall semester for my Master’s, so we’ll see what I think about Isaiah after some more study on the topic.
LikeLike
I am rather with you here, Jock, though there are others who think Brown has something to be said for him.
LikeLike
A theological historical understanding minimizes concern with what is thought as historical inaccuracies. For example, the two genealogies of Jesus are conveying not necessarily what is his lineage but his role as Davidic Kingship in Matthew and his role as the New Adam in Luke. So, they expression of the author is true, but who Joseph’s father is doesn’t really matter because it wasn’t the concern of the author. So, if say, I was editing, I’d look at these two genealogies and say we’ll they conflict, we’ll have to decide which is the most accurate. Well, in the theological historic worldview, they’re both accurate.
LikeLike
Phillip – yes – I’m with you there. In the example you chose there is really no contradiction – one takes the line of the kingship while the other takes direct descent.
Also – all the other more major differences which cannot really be reconciled without some myopic harmonisation fall into the framework that you outline here – even though they cannot logically all stand together they complement each other theologically.
(For example, John has the temple cleansing at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus – which actually makes much more sense – while the synoptics have it at the end. It makes no sense to have multiple temple cleansings here).
At the same time, I do think that one major factor that gave the editors a push in this direction was the authorship of the pieces they were dealing with. Luke was the companion of Paul, who was an eyewitness; John bar Zebedee was one of the disciples.
If you or I were in position of editor in this situation, I don’t think that we would dare to choose between Luke and John – they would both go in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would say though your proposition of being bothered lacks less positive evidence than my theory of not being bothered. You’re making your proposition based on a hunch that the goal was to pass on the gospel and they were may have been bothered, whereas, my theory is based on the evidence that authors used other texts to complete their own text then changed events in their particular story for a theological reason(John’s Passover) and early Christians that would have known both texts still put them in the canon—as it wasn’t too much of concern as to not include them together in the evidence.
LikeLike
i get some kind of sick pleasure watching you bible scholars strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. silly rabbits, of course the new testament was penned befor 70AD. dont you historians realize the sacking of jerusalem and the dispersing of the people into slavery would have been mentioned by someone? no, thats because it hadnt happened yet.
good brother john, who penned one of the gospels, was sent into exile at patmos, but not until the mother of jesus had gone on to her reward. she had to be 50 or better at the crucifixion.females didnt live much past that. men either. so good brother john was freed from the duty of caring for mary and god sent him to patmos to pen the book of rev, which you bible scholars dont believe one word of. the sack of jerusalem happened after good brother john went to his reward. think of it. at the crucifixion, if good brother john was 30, he would have to have been 64 or there abouts when the sac happened.if he was 40 the sac would have been when he was 74, which im sure he didnt live to that age. anyway, the holy ghost is the author and finisher of the entire bible, no matter how hard you scholars try to give men the credit. you love the things of men and hate the things of god.
LikeLike
Bosco – actually, this has been discussed here before (several years ago) and if you look it up, you’ll find that Chalcedon takes exactly the view that you take here – that the gospels were written before AD 70, because otherwise they would have mentioned the sacking of Jerusalem (this is one of the key reasons that JAT Robinson gives for his dating of John’s gospel).
Much of the remainder of what you write here is pure conjecture on your part, but you’ll find that Chalcedon agrees with your first statement – and this must be a first!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, what is odd is that none of the things you claim here is evidenced in the Bible, so you have just shown us that you don’t really go by what is in the Bible alone. You have also shown that you have zero knowledge of anything anyone has written on the matters with which you pronounce so confidently. Where does it say the NT was penned before the fall of Jerusalem?
LikeLike
according to good brother jock, you say it was pre 70AD also. if it was written befor the sac, how can the sac be mentioned. how many times have i told you to drain the chevas regal after you do your commenting.
conjecture? mary passed on and then good brother john was free to get arrested and exiled to patmos. what is so hard to believe about that? you think she lived to be 100? all of this is the doings of the holy ghost. and it is marvelous in our eyes. good brother john was on patmos, thats not conjecture. mary, the mother of our lord wasnt with him. thats not conjecture.
you are right, i havent read what busy body unsaved people have written about the bible.if its anything like the gobblety gook evidenced on these pages, …i dont wanna read them. anyway, i know the author personally. i dont need no expert opinions. but thanks anyway.
LikeLike
Where in Scripture does it say St John who wrote Revelation is the Apostle? Where in St John’ Gospel does it say that? The problem, Bosco, is you don’t get to the first stage of wisdom, which is realising how little you know.
LikeLike
ive always said good brother chalcedon, you are a master of the obvious. you are 100% correct. im so stupid, i dont even realize how much i dont know. i came to realize that long ago. the lord is my shepherd, i shall not want. he leadeth me to green pastures. the lord is my shield and buckler. i have no fear of the terror by night or the arrow that flieth by day. the lord strong and mighty does battle for me. be still and behold the salvation of the lord. i am as grass that is here today and gone tomorrow. i dont have to know anything but christ and him crucified. i do not come with big flowing words. let he who think himself wise , shall be a fool.
LikeLike
So you say, Bosco, and because I am who I am, I am happy to believe you, even though you cannot extend the same courtesy to others who tell you they are believers.
That, Bosco, should make you think about what you say here and elsewhere.
As the sdaying goes, “if Christianity were a capital offence, would there be enough evidence to convict you?”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Chalcedon – well I don’t believe him.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I suspect few do, and for that he might, just once, consider looking at himself and his behaviour if he wants a reason.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Chalcedon – actually, you’ve inadvertently shown up the deficiencies of `the church’ or whoever was responsible for putting together Scripture.
There are one or two premises here – we suppose that they put together something that people were expected to be able to read, which was put together coherently and which was supposed to make some sort of sense.
The New Testament starts with the gospels, where they tell us that Jesus gathered 12 disciples, one of whom was a duff disciple and went out and hanged himself and the others – particularly Peter, James and John were the A-team. Acts tells us that James was put to death.
It is intended that the reader infers that `John’ in `the gospel according to John’ (a statement which is part of the gospel) is, in fact, John bar Zebedee. This is the natural reading of it. Similarly, `the church’ when compiling the New Testament really didn’t make a very good job of it at all if the `John’ of Revelation is not, in fact, John bar Zebedee.
What I see of scholarship is that (a) there is a natural reading of Scripture that any ignorant person would take. (b) incredibly brainy scholars come along and question this, coming up with all sorts of hare-brained theories (such as that John’s gospel was put together by a `Johanine community’ who mucked about with an original text by John for 200 years, that Revelation wasn’t really written by the John after all but was written by a different John) and then (c) another bunch of incredibly brainy scholars come along and tell us that this incredibly brainy scholarship is all wrong and that the natural reading is correct after all.
We then have the satisfaction of following the natural reading, but in a more educated and more enlightened way. Crucially, this additional education and enlightenment mostly falls into the category of `the empty philosophies of men’ and doesn’t really lead to an enhanced faith.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Isn’t it the other way about? The early Church recognised the genuine Gospels and rejected the others? That scholars are, now generally coming round to the view that the early Church was right shows us something about them and the early Church.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Chalcedon – yes, of course – we see the great wisdom of those who decided on the books of the New Testament.
I do not recall where I read it – but I do remember reading something about the Old Testament (so this is not `the church’ – look more to the Masoretes and their predecessors), where the idea was that if the text was considered to come from some extremely Holy person, then those responsible for handing down the text simply didn’t dare touch it.
This makes a lot of sense to me – and I believe that it was exactly the same with New Testament texts. So the over-riding question they were asking themselves was `who wrote this? How close to Jesus and the eyewitnesses?’
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is true of the OT, and of the NT too. The question here is not are the texts reliable, but why only those texts – and that is the subject of a piece I am just tidying up dealing, in effect, with the Bauer-Ehrman/Pagels theory.
LikeLiked by 1 person
, “I am happy to believe you, even though you cannot extend the same courtesy to others ”
thanks for believing me. that means alot.]
thats true, i wont tell someone they are saved when they arent. thats not doing them any favors.
what jesus said is true…you get a new spirit that was made in heaven and knows god.its like a computer program to play chess. without the program the computer cant play chess. the spirit you are born with is made on earth and doesnt know the lord. if you ask nicely he will put a program in you that knows him. you cant see it or feel it. you cant take a class or read a million books to get it. one has to ask for it.
as for me, i repeated this short rote prayer with this girl just to shut her up so i could get outta there. but i believed what i was saying from yrs of sunday school. but i was gonna be more careful befor i went to any more festivals. no more wacky jesus festivals for the kid. hell with that. about an hr later i was changed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
uh oh, i made one big mistake. the sac was mentioned, by my lord himself. not one stone will be on top of another.
LikeLike
jesus said, my sheep know my voice and another they will not follow. yes, i know that bothers people.my god is strong, he doesnt leave us in the dark. when people talk about the lord or spiritual things the saved can tell if that one knows the lord or not. the saved can hear the voice of the lord in other saved folks. they can also tell if they dont hear the lords voice.
the moral of the story is….get saved.
LikeLiked by 1 person