Your words just confirmed that tradition may or may not be the truth.
Where have I ever said otherwise?
There is no proof that the Gospel names through tradition are true.
Saying it doesn't make it so, and constantly repeating yourself won't make it any less false.
The fact that I completed an analysis that proves others who are much more likely to be the authors, wrote the Gospels should be welcomed by the church.
You have done no such analysis here.
You haven't proven anything here.
You expect me to summarize a 400 page book with 200 pages of analysis here?
No, I expect you to present the evidence on which you based your book on here.
The first step of understanding the analysis
What analysis?
is to accept that there is no evidence for the current gospel authors.
That would be called begging the question. It's a logical fallacy for a reason.
Don't base your entire position on a logical fallacy.
You claim there is and have provided information,
That information is evidence.
and claim there is evidence,
Not only do I claim there is evidence, I have provided it.
but every time I disprove it as evidence,
You've disproven nothing.
you return to your claim.
Because you've done nothing to rebut it.
How can anyone expect me to summary a complex analysis when we can't get past the starting point?
That's what I've been asking you.
You keep trying to make this about selling books. It's almost as though the books frighten you because they challenge tradition and you stand by it whether you can verify it as factual or not.
Or, it's against the rules to promote your own works here on TOL.
Which is more likely?
I could care less about promoting my books,
Then stop trying to.
but the Holy Spirit has made it clear that I am to discuss what I have been led to investigate and find.
No, the Holy Spirit has not done any such thing.
The Lord will do with the books what he wants.
Now you're claiming that the books you've written are God's?
I have seen and not only read the reviews and summaries, I've examined the documents and the claims. The earliest recorded statements are supposedly written from fragments of the writings from others that cannot be located. Even if the earliest were validated --which they cannot be because the documentation doesn't exist--they would be so far removed from history that they are meaningless.
Because you say so?
None of these claims can be used as evidence of the authors
Because you say so?
because they are well down the whisper table. If you are unaware of the whisper table,
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
I refer you to one of my unnamed books,
Next time you mention your books in any subsequent posts, you'll be banned.
or ask me to explain and I will address it here.
Why not just do that from the start?
It is written that nobody contested the Gospel authors until 400 AD, but that again is not evidence.
False.
People in the early church knew who and when the Gospels were written and to assume otherwise is very naive.
Yes, because of the sittybos that were attached to the scrolls, which had the names of the authors written on them.
So how did the names get lost when the early church knew who they were?
They didn't get lost.
Why do you assume they were?
Begging the question (logical fallacy).
the Holy Spirit directed me to Daniel and Revelation
Irrelevant.
God can do whatever he wants.
But apparently not use two Apostles and two other men who were not the Apostles to write
However, the reasonable question is why would God do that when he picked twelve and chose four special ones to witness everything he did and said?
Begging the question (logical fallacy).
Not only that, he told the disciples that they had a job to do and it was to document his words.
Cite, please.
If you can promise to let go of tradition,
Only if you can demonstrate, with evidence, that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are not the authors of the gospels.
So far, you've made zero progress to that effect.
this is not nearly as complex as the author and prophecy analysis and I will try to explain it here.
Just do it already, then.
If the documents were originals sealed and witnessed when they were opened they would be evidence.
Why do they have to be sealed?
What, do you think someone tampered with them and changed the names? On hundreds of copies spread across the entire Roman Empire, so that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM are in agreement?
Get real.
However, the original documents were never sealed - they were used to start the church just as Jesus commanded. How do I know this? Because scripture tells us this.
The Church of the Body of Christ started without the gospels, which weren't written until well after Paul's conversion.
Statements can be analyzed to determine if they are from eyewitnesses by the level of detail presented.
You seem so caught up on there being "eyewitness" accounts.
Why?
The Lord ensured that there would be four accounts of his life and with four accounts we have multiple descriptions of many events.
Not in dispute.
These multiple events can be analyzed to look for these eyewitness details and i did this.
Why the need for "eyewitness" accounts?
What I found was that the statement were from separate people and they were eyewitnesses.
Except that two of them were not eyewitnesses.
Why do you think Jesus only took four disciples with him to watch certain events?
I don't.
Because with four there would be four different eyewitness statements.
So why not twelve, then? Why only four apostles?
What I'm saying is that people are corrupt and will do evil things.
That's a given. But I was trying to eliminate that variable from the equation.
When analyzing your story, I have to look at all the data, and there is no reason to believe that what I suggested could not happen.
Of course, but I explicitly stated that the man they caught was the man that committed the crime.
Did it happen like what I suggested, or was the man guilty?
Why do you assume it happened some other way that I did not say it happened?
What I was trying to figure out by the scenario wasn't whether the man was guilty or not, but whether you understood what the Bible means when it says "witness."
You clearly do not.
I'd have to look at the case file and investigate. I'm just saying it's not cut and dry as you made it out to be.
I specifically stated that, for the purpose of the exercise, that it was exactly as laid out.
The point was to see if you could identify the evidence within the scenario.
You failed, miserably.
Evil people will do things and try to cover their tracks.
Duh.
You claimed that my visions are not from the Lord.
Because they're clearly not.
God is not the author of confusion.
What am I supposed to do with that statement when I have visions that are sometimes daily and they provide me direction and guidance in both scripture and my personal life.
You should seek professional help.
That's not normal. ESPECIALLY not for a Christian.
I had an NDE and I pledged to follow the Holy Spirit wherever I was led. I pray, receive direction, write, and pray more. This is not blasphemy as written in that Acts citation I provided.
Supra.
I am not on par with anyone in scripture and don't claim to be. I don't want any recognition
Then stop claiming special revelation from God.
- I simply want to deliver the message the Holy Spirit has asked me to deliver
The Holy Spirit hasn't given you any message.
Take it from someone who's not you.
in the hope that some will read or hear it and come to faith like I have.
The only message that you should be sharing for that effect is the one contained within scripture, the gospel of the grace of God.
So who was that verse in Acts referring to if it wasn't me, you, or others
It was for Israel. The final week of Daniel's prophecy had started. And then it was put on hold, because Israel rejected her Messiah, so God went to working with the Gentiles.
who the Holy Spirit wishes to move?
Begging the question (logical fallacy).
So I am to ignore my visions because somebody doesn't like that I am receiving them?
No, you should seek help. You shouldn't be seeing visions. That's called hallucination.
Do you smoke pot?
You've been told my reality and what you do with it is up to you.
What you've told me is not reality.
