Paul's struggle with the old and the new?

[1gr8bldr]

Matthew is much easier. We have lingo that we use. Such as "riding a wave, a big wave". Is this 1 wave... or 2. Matthew being a non eyewitness, has Jesus riding in straddling 2 donkeys. "on a donkey, on a foal of a donkey", which he wrote as 2 donkeys. Clearly not an eyewitness, nor someone whom understood the lingo of that time. And he too had editorial fatigue in his writing as Luke did. Thus he was not full of info, but rather resorted to sources for his info. Does not matter to me. I don't need it to be Matthew a disciple of Jesus. It was someone just like Luke who felt inclined to record what he saw as valuable information. Either he was highly devoted to sharing the gospel..... or said to himself, mercy, the stories keep changing and getting more and more embellished, or people keep trying to change the narrative....... I had better write this down before it starts evolving into something else. And it's a good thing he did or people might still be praying to Mary. We use these books to validate which beliefs are clearly not from antiquity.

 

[1gr8bldr]

The entire point here is not who wrote what. The point was over Paul's struggle. Was it fleshly desires.... or was it another struggle seen in the context of his writings. So sorry I derailed the thread when I mentioned that I did not think he actually meant literally that he struggles with fleshly desires. I think he meant it as trying to be relate-able to people. When he says, I don't do what I want and I do do what I don't want to, the struggle, I assume he is referring to things we would not consider sins. Possibly.... I should encourage these people... but yet, I'm tired and would like to get some rest. I just don't think his struggle was with sin, as we know it. He would have no credibility as a God fearing preacher if so. But I did mention the overwhelming context in the NT of how he fought, the struggle to keep the law from trying to merge with Christianity. The gospel depends on it. The law was given until grace appeared. We died to the law to live a new life, not goverened by traditions or laws, but by the spirit he gave us. The new covenant. Not parts of the new and old, but the new covenant. If you could obtain righteousness from the law.... then Christ died for nothing. No one will enter the gates of heaven with a mindset of look at the discipline I displayed, what a good example am I. No, not one. Only those whom have torn down their man made temples for God to dwell in that they so admire, and consider them rubbish and can say as Paul, did, By the grace of God, I am what I am..... Steven understood. God does not live in houses made by man. Paul fought this battle every day. Peter was a hindrance. Because Paul reveals that Peter was succumbing to the peer pressure of mixing grace with law. Which really caused so much resistance because Peter was assumed higher up, more of an authority. Paul once called him out, to his face.... All through his writings..... We see talk about food sacrificed to idols, etc.... Never could deprogram his audience from this

 

[hummerpoo]

Have mercy

Sometimes one just ain't enough.
…

 

[BANDERSNATCH]

....I don't believe he was Paul's companion. If he had of been, then he would have had such deep pockets to draw from, of stories, regarding Paul, and the context of Christianity.

Unless you're calling Paul a liar, you must now accept that Luke was indeed with Paul and drew from "deep pockets, or stories, regarding Paul, and the context of Christianity". At least you have to admit that Luke did, in fact, know Paul and what he taught very well.

 

[BANDERSNATCH]

Just as 1 comment of Luke as the "beloved physician" does not make Luke into a Doctor.

I think most on here would agree that you are really really having to stretch it to think Paul was not talking about Luke...and calling him a physician doesn't make him a doctor. He doesn't have to be a doctor....what we know is that Luke was, indeed, a physician and Paul said that Luke was with him. The implication is that if Luke did write Acts, then we can trust what he said about Paul...as you said.