On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:01:16 +0000, The Doctor wrote:

> In article , Dave Cross 
>  wrote:
>>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:01:34 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>>
>>> In article , Dave Cross
>>>  wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:16:19 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article , Dave Cross
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:02:31 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <LUt9k.83146$8H5.9778@newsfe10.ams2>, Stephen Wilson
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"The Doctor"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:g45ic1$dhi$3@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So no, it's not only communists who say religious people are
>>>>>>>>>>brainwashed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus are those who lives in lies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So why don't you stop living one then?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Christianity is Truth, not Paulianity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How would you know? You've demonstrated that you know nothing about
>>>>>>christianity. All you know is "paulianity".
>>>>> 
>>>>> Christianity is based on the teachings of Christs, not hijack of
>>>>> agenda.
>>>>
>>>>Christianity is based on the teaching of Jesus as interpreted by Paul.
>>>>To claim otherwise is to demonstrate shocking ignorance of the
>>>>history.
>>>>
>>>>Really Yads, if you don't want to read a book about it, at least ask
>>>>someone else. Ask your priest. I'm sure he (or she) will confirm what
>>>>we've been telling you.
>>> 
>>> Luke wrote Acts, not Paul.
>>
>>Well, someone claiming to be Luke wrote Acts. But it was written from a
>>Pauline perspective. Which is why the Pauline church chose it to be part
>>of the canon.
> 
> What about Luke wrting to Theophilis?

What about it?

Luke was writing a version of the story which was influenced by Paul's 
interpretation of what Jesus said and did. Why is this so hard for you to 
understand?

Dave...

In article <4Eoak.144778$8k.54640@newsfe18.ams2>,
mathis is innocent  <""> wrote:
>Dave Cross wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:01:16 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>In article , Dave Cross 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:01:34 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article , Dave Cross
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:16:19 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article , Dave Cross
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:02:31 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article <LUt9k.83146$8H5.9778@newsfe10.ams2>, Stephen Wilson
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"The Doctor"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:g45ic1$dhi$3@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>So no, it's not only communists who say religious people are
>>>>>>>>>>>>brainwashed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Thus are those who lives in lies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So why don't you stop living one then?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Christianity is Truth, not Paulianity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How would you know? You've demonstrated that you know nothing about
>>>>>>>>christianity. All you know is "paulianity".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Christianity is based on the teachings of Christs, not hijack of
>>>>>>>agenda.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Christianity is based on the teaching of Jesus as interpreted by Paul.
>>>>>>To claim otherwise is to demonstrate shocking ignorance of the
>>>>>>history.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Really Yads, if you don't want to read a book about it, at least ask
>>>>>>someone else. Ask your priest. I'm sure he (or she) will confirm what
>>>>>>we've been telling you.
>>>>>
>>>>>Luke wrote Acts, not Paul.
>>>>
>>>>Well, someone claiming to be Luke wrote Acts. But it was written from a
>>>>Pauline perspective. Which is why the Pauline church chose it to be part
>>>>of the canon.
>>>
>>>What about Luke wrting to Theophilis?
>> 
>> 
>> What about it?
>> 
>> Luke was writing a version of the story which was influenced by Paul's 
>> interpretation of what Jesus said and did. 
>
>Correct.
>
>>Why is this so hard for you to 
>> understand?
>> 
>
>He is YADS after all.
>
>
>> Dave...

Excuse me, but Luke wrote this before meeting Paul.
-- 
Member - Liberal International	
This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca	Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!  
USA petition for dissolution of your nation!

The Doctor wrote:
> In article <4Eoak.144778$8k.54640@newsfe18.ams2>,
> mathis is innocent  <""> wrote:
> 
>>Dave Cross wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:01:16 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article , Dave Cross 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:01:34 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article , Dave Cross
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:16:19 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article , Dave Cross
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:02:31 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article <LUt9k.83146$8H5.9778@newsfe10.ams2>, Stephen Wilson
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"The Doctor"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:g45ic1$dhi$3@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>So no, it's not only communists who say religious people are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>brainwashed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Thus are those who lives in lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>So why don't you stop living one then?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Christianity is Truth, not Paulianity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>How would you know? You've demonstrated that you know nothing about
>>>>>>>>>christianity. All you know is "paulianity".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Christianity is based on the teachings of Christs, not hijack of
>>>>>>>>agenda.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Christianity is based on the teaching of Jesus as interpreted by Paul.
>>>>>>>To claim otherwise is to demonstrate shocking ignorance of the
>>>>>>>history.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Really Yads, if you don't want to read a book about it, at least ask
>>>>>>>someone else. Ask your priest. I'm sure he (or she) will confirm what
>>>>>>>we've been telling you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Luke wrote Acts, not Paul.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, someone claiming to be Luke wrote Acts. But it was written from a
>>>>>Pauline perspective. Which is why the Pauline church chose it to be part
>>>>>of the canon.
>>>>
>>>>What about Luke wrting to Theophilis?
>>>
>>>
>>>What about it?
>>>
>>>Luke was writing a version of the story which was influenced by Paul's 
>>>interpretation of what Jesus said and did. 
>>
>>Correct.
>>
>>
>>>Why is this so hard for you to 
>>>understand?
>>>
>>
>>He is YADS after all.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Dave...
> 
> 
> Excuse me, but Luke wrote this before meeting Paul.


It would be more correct to say that someone purporting to be 'Luke' 
wrote said sequence of words.

In article ,
Dave Cross   wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:22:29 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>
>> In article , Dave Cross 
>>  wrote:
>>>On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:01:16 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article , Dave Cross
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:01:34 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article , Dave Cross
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:16:19 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article , Dave Cross
>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:02:31 +0000, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In article <LUt9k.83146$8H5.9778@newsfe10.ams2>, Stephen Wilson
>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"The Doctor"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:g45ic1$dhi$3@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>So no, it's not only communists who say religious people are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>brainwashed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus are those who lives in lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>So why don't you stop living one then?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Christianity is Truth, not Paulianity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>How would you know? You've demonstrated that you know nothing
>>>>>>>>>about christianity. All you know is "paulianity".
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Christianity is based on the teachings of Christs, not hijack of
>>>>>>>> agenda.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Christianity is based on the teaching of Jesus as interpreted by
>>>>>>>Paul. To claim otherwise is to demonstrate shocking ignorance of the
>>>>>>>history.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Really Yads, if you don't want to read a book about it, at least ask
>>>>>>>someone else. Ask your priest. I'm sure he (or she) will confirm
>>>>>>>what we've been telling you.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Luke wrote Acts, not Paul.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, someone claiming to be Luke wrote Acts. But it was written from
>>>>>a Pauline perspective. Which is why the Pauline church chose it to be
>>>>>part of the canon.
>>>> 
>>>> What about Luke wrting to Theophilis?
>>>
>>>What about it?
>>>
>>>Luke was writing a version of the story which was influenced by Paul's
>>>interpretation of what Jesus said and did. Why is this so hard for you
>>>to understand?
>> 
>> Luke was with Christ and not influenced by PAul.
>
>I didn't say he was influenced by Paul. I said he wrote from the Pauline 
>perspective. Here's how it works...
>
>Jesus lives, preaches and dies. Many people think what he said and did 
>was important so they write down their interpretation of his life. A 
>number of different interpretations are created. A small church grows up 
>around these writings. People in the church argue about which of the 
>interpretations is the right one. One of these factions wins and promotes 
>gospels which back up their interpretation. Other gospels that don't 
>follow the part line are suppressed.
>
>So Luke wasn't necessarily influenced by Paul. He just wrote things that 
>Paul agreed with. And when the early Pauline church were deciding on 
>their canon, Luke's writings were included. Others weren't.
>
>Is that clearer?
>
>Dave...

NO! Are you telling me that Matthew, MArk , Luke and John
wrote from a 'Paul' perspective?
-- 
Member - Liberal International	
This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca	Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!  
USA petition for dissolution of your nation!

"mathis is innocent" <""bondfan\"@bondfannot real.com"> wrote in message 
news:%8vak.111779$P83.93187@newsfe20.ams2...

>>
>> Excuse me, but Luke wrote this before meeting Paul.
>
>
> It would be more correct to say that someone purporting to be 'Luke' wrote 
> said sequence of words.

I wouldn't even go that far. The "gospels" were written anonymously. I've no 
idea how they were named, or by whom. But then nobody has. The authorship of 
the gospels is based on tradition more than anything else. It is believed 
that the person who wrote "Luke" was the same person who wrote "Acts". It's 
generally accepted that "Luke" was written after Matthew and Mark. 
Apparently Luke was Paul's physician. And neither Paul nor Luke ever met 
Jesus.

"Dave Cross"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2008.07.02.05.16.12@dave.org.uk...
>>>
>>>So Luke wasn't necessarily influenced by Paul. He just wrote things that
>>>Paul agreed with. And when the early Pauline church were deciding on
>>>their canon, Luke's writings were included. Others weren't.
>>>
>>>Is that clearer?
>>
>> NO! Are you telling me that Matthew, MArk , Luke and John wrote from a
>> 'Paul' perspective?
>
> Exactly. You're finally starting to get it.

I really don't think he is starting to get it...

> The books and letters that make up the new testament were chosen by the
> Pauline church. And they were chosen because they reflect a Pauline
> perspective. The (many) other gospels and letters around at the time
> weren't chosen because they had other interpretations of the message of
> Jesus.

Who said salvation is by faith alone?

Acts says "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

According to Matthew, Jesus said "If you want to enter into life, keep the 
commandments." According to John, Jesus said "And shall come forth; they 
that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done 
evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

So... who got it right?