WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
delete
Scripture. What is considered Scripture?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
Lon
Well-known member
I'll give them to you in brief: First one, to you: "See you later" (and I did, in this very thread).
The second one: "I'm done, I 'may' (and I did, in this very thread).
Let your yes be yes and your no be no, no?
I am done trying to explain what cannot be explained, given the shortage of resources, here.
I can read along and make occasional comments. See even our discussion? Nothing to do with thread,
clarifying what I've said about what I will and will not be participating in from this point on. :e4e: <--(also not a goodbye icon, just in case its misconstrued, I try to make my yes, yes, and no, no).
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
Lon
Well-known member
Yes, that is one of those resources too.
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
If you think you have something new there is no one is stopping you from posting it.
So you are willing and open to believing something new about the Bible?
Read the rest of the chapter, especially verses 29 and 34, and you will see.
This shall be a statute to you forever: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall deny yourselves, and shall do no work, neither the citizen nor the alien who resides among you. 30 For on this day atonement shall be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the Lord. 31 It is a sabbath of complete rest to you, and you shall deny yourselves; it is a statute forever. 32 The priest who is anointed and consecrated as priest in his father's place shall make atonement, wearing the linen vestments, the holy vestments. 33 He shall make atonement for the sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. 34 This shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the people of Israel once in the year for all their sins. And Moses did as the Lord had commanded him.
Thanks.
I encourage you to look at how inappropriate that looks with the rest of the text, which is essentially a floor plan:
Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary. 2 For a tent was constructed, the first one, in which were the lampstand, the table, and the bread of the Presence; this is called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a tent called the Holy of Holies. 4 In it stood the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which there were a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; 5 above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot speak now in detail.
I don’t know, Lon, about your comparing yourself to the Savior and to the Apostles while you refuse to engage in a discussion of the scriptures.
Seems far from appropriate.
When Jesus addressed people as vipers and hypocrites, those addressed were typically those formally trained in religion who valued their traditions above mercy and truth.
Zenn
New member
Well that's a new one to me.
Shalom.
Shabbat, the Sabbath, is the Seventh Day of the Week, both Night and Day.
Shalom.
Jacob
Lon
Well-known member
:doh: ALSO not the subject matter of this thread. Take to some appropriate place. Short answer, disagree with you AND I didn't bring this up, you two did.
ALSO not the subject matter of this thread. Take to some appropriate place. Short answer, disagree with you AND I didn't bring this up.
Agree Matthew 16:23 ALSO not the subject matter of this thread and also not what "I" brought up. :think:
:noway: ▲
lain: ▲ Kinda two-faced and viperish? :think:
Zenn
New member
(Actually, daqq-enese is pretty good.)
Thanks, but I don't need my head to hurt anymore than it currently does :bang: though I don't recall daqq appealing to any translation concerns with regards to Heb. 9:4, and Cobra is Not incorrect when he relies upon standard translations. I just happen to have become a non-standard translator since I started to use an interlinear way back in '73 and saw discrepancies.
Zenn
Zenn
New member
Oh. Okay, so now you're Jesus.
Not really. If someone genuinely cared, he or she would have said, "I'm concerned about your weight," not "You are fat."
I always argued with my teachers when they were wrong, and have a 100% win rate for arguing.
As opposed to not doing them? My views have nothing to do what what the world considers politically correct, but has everything to do with what Jesus told his followers to do. Do you truly think that gldz's words are appropriate?
Well I have called down lightning, but it wasn't to kill anyone (no, Cobra wasn't there, but my wife and 9 others were). And yes, all believers need to be working on it. Some more than others.
Zenn
jsanford108
New member
Cobra,
Allow me to make two things clear: I think you are a good person. I am sure that you mean well,
and if not, you obscure it well enough (unlike others such as Pate). The second thing;
it would be more productive if you provided where you disagree with the two definitions of inerrancy that I provided in my return post. If I need to, I can provide both quotes again.
I think that just going back and forth on specific verses is not really addressing the topic issue. We are focusing on the trees and not the forest.
Alas, I will respond to your previous post, though.
You also are ignoring cross-referenced verses/passages, which refer to close relatives as "brother" or "sister," such as Mary, mother of James, being called Mary's (mother of Jesus) "sister." One could also reference Lot being called Abraham's "brother."
In addition, the parentage of those listed as Jesus' "brothers" can be found in various other passages of Scripture, in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, specifically.
Allow me, one last time, to explain the paradox in your argument in regards to siblings of Jesus:
Your entire premise and proof lies within single words, from books which you do not consider inerrant; meaning that if one applies your argument of potential errors to these specific instances of sibling labeling, your argument fails.
If you are ignorant of Jewish customs and festivals, then it would be unfruitful to even try to explain the passage of John 7. If you are educated in such culture, then you would have readily understood my points regarding Jesus' "brothers," Mary's "sister," and would not even have posed a question regarding John 7.
So, here is my brief answer, without explaining customs: Did Jesus go to the festival? Yes, but not on the opening day. Did Jesus misrepresent His intentions? No. He told the disciples to go ahead (on opening days), in order that He may avoid publicity, which would account for His later arrival in the festival (thus, avoiding the Sanhedrin, and any immediate publicity).
Finally,
The opposite of Justice is Injustice. The opposite of Lawful is Unlawful (or Criminal). The opposite of Inerrant is Errant. If you believe the Scriptures are errant, why be so ashamed to openly admit that? It is because logically, one cannot depend on an errant source as a basis of truth and fact.
The work of people can be inerrant. If I wrote a synopsis of my day, recalling details to the best of my ability, avoiding all falsehoods, then the work is inerrant. Any "insignificant error," such as spelling or numerical variation within reasonable limits, is just that: insignificant. It does not detract from the inerrant nature of the work. (I am sure there is some specific circumstance which can thrown in which would magically render such a synopsis errant; such points are niggling at best and are argumentative in nature, seeking not truth but combat)
Allow me to make two things clear: I think you are a good person. I am sure that you mean well,
and if not, you obscure it well enough (unlike others such as Pate). The second thing;
it would be more productive if you provided where you disagree with the two definitions of inerrancy that I provided in my return post. If I need to, I can provide both quotes again.
I think that just going back and forth on specific verses is not really addressing the topic issue. We are focusing on the trees and not the forest.
Alas, I will respond to your previous post, though.
Great, so we agree that the Proto of James is fictional. So does the Catholic Church. So, why would the Church base a doctrine on a fictional work? Especially considering that the Church is the one that pronounced as a falsehood?
My entire argument against Jesus' having brothers is contextual evidence, found within the Jewish culture. If you are unaware of this custom, of referencing close relatives such as cousins as "brothers," then you are ignorant of Hebrew custom. This is not a personal attack; it is simply pointing out that you are uneducated on a piece of evidence that explains doctrine (Perpetual Virginity).
You also are ignoring cross-referenced verses/passages, which refer to close relatives as "brother" or "sister," such as Mary, mother of James, being called Mary's (mother of Jesus) "sister." One could also reference Lot being called Abraham's "brother."
In addition, the parentage of those listed as Jesus' "brothers" can be found in various other passages of Scripture, in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, specifically.
Where does the Lord's brother call himself the sibling of Jesus? I admit, I am ignorant of such a claim.
Allow me, one last time, to explain the paradox in your argument in regards to siblings of Jesus:
Your entire premise and proof lies within single words, from books which you do not consider inerrant; meaning that if one applies your argument of potential errors to these specific instances of sibling labeling, your argument fails.
I did avoid this question, until we had (hopefully) resolved the prior one. One factor into why I did this was because of my answer.
If you are ignorant of Jewish customs and festivals, then it would be unfruitful to even try to explain the passage of John 7. If you are educated in such culture, then you would have readily understood my points regarding Jesus' "brothers," Mary's "sister," and would not even have posed a question regarding John 7.
So, here is my brief answer, without explaining customs: Did Jesus go to the festival? Yes, but not on the opening day. Did Jesus misrepresent His intentions? No. He told the disciples to go ahead (on opening days), in order that He may avoid publicity, which would account for His later arrival in the festival (thus, avoiding the Sanhedrin, and any immediate publicity).
Finally,
This here is your answer to my question of "If something is not inerrant, what is it?" You are avoiding the logical answer.
The opposite of Justice is Injustice. The opposite of Lawful is Unlawful (or Criminal). The opposite of Inerrant is Errant. If you believe the Scriptures are errant, why be so ashamed to openly admit that? It is because logically, one cannot depend on an errant source as a basis of truth and fact.
The work of people can be inerrant. If I wrote a synopsis of my day, recalling details to the best of my ability, avoiding all falsehoods, then the work is inerrant. Any "insignificant error," such as spelling or numerical variation within reasonable limits, is just that: insignificant. It does not detract from the inerrant nature of the work. (I am sure there is some specific circumstance which can thrown in which would magically render such a synopsis errant; such points are niggling at best and are argumentative in nature, seeking not truth but combat)
Lon
Well-known member
:think:
Depends how many times they said "I'm concerned about your weight." I don't think I'd ever say it, but I certainly can imagine someone saying it, like a trainer to someone giving up or not really trying. So I guess we disagree what constitutes a slam, as well as your batting average.
Wait, we were talking about me. I have to be my own accountant, not everybody else's.
Let me say this: I've BEEN on the receiving end of Glory AND it hurt! Guess what? She was right. Harsh? Yep. I guess I needed it that day. It did wake me up. Try not to out James and John while you are thinning the Christian herd? John wound up being "beloved."
Arguing? :nono: Just giving you some things to chew on. There is no good whatsoever in this conversation otherwise, just posturing over "who is the best." I DO hope you realize that you (pl) are dishing it out as good or worse as you get. I truly hope you see that. After that, think about whether 'dense' is harsh. I don't think you can dent a hard head. Have you ever been stubborn and someone called you that? Didn't hurt much did it... I will 'try' and use whatever is at my disposal to help another think, empathize, or change. TOL is not your mother's website, it's made for iron sharpening iron and takes that job seriously. The headgear has to come off, I'm not sure about the gloves. TOL used to have a slogan: "They say you shouldn't argue religion or politics... Yeah right!" as well as "celebrating slam since..." So I think 'some' lack of kid-gloves goes with the territory but I agree with you, we need to be thinking about our calling and need for delivery. When I was in the public schools, I did comply with political expectation. Kids 'need' kid-gloves. TOL isn't that place, however, I do note no punching below the belt or elbow jabs (iow, that we have biblical directives to follow).
Interesting. Even James and John couldn't do it and the Lord Jesus Christ didn't give them permission. :think: Was this before or after you raised Walter from the dead?
I disagree: some 'just the same as all' others. The moment you think you are better, you are in less need of mercy and grace. John W says 'you are just trying to be a cleaner rat.' Romans 3:23 You are doing a lot of the "Him vs. ME" comparison. :nono: Hebrews 12:2
(None of this on the OP topic btw, just fyi if it needs another thread etc.)
Zenn
New member
Cobra, I find the following just as viable (compare red), in that the "bringing in of the censer" would come under the heading of "regulations for worship":
Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary. 2 For a tent was constructed, the first one, in which were the lampstand, the table, and the bread of the Presence; this is called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a tent called the Holy of Holies. 4 In it was brought the golden altar of incense for the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which there were a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; 5 above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot speak now in detail.
But I did say it would require using a secondary definition for ἔχω (LINK)
Zenn
jsanford108
New member
Hello there Zenn,
I am just going to skip the Trinity/Jesus is God parts of our discussion, because you are right; they really veer off topic and tangentially related to this thread. Best to focus on the core topic.
Can persons be in error and fallible? Absolutely. Can persons be in error and fallible, when under guidance by the Holy Spirit? Absolutely not. For such error would directly be applicable to the Holy Spirit, and thus to Jesus and God.
Thank you for the good response.
I am just going to skip the Trinity/Jesus is God parts of our discussion, because you are right; they really veer off topic and tangentially related to this thread. Best to focus on the core topic.
I, myself, did make this jump in progression. And I can explain it, as it also answers your quote:
When Jesus breathes on the Apostles, He gives them the Holy Spirit. He did this to fulfill His words that He would be with them, even unto the end of time. So, is the Holy Spirit infallible? Yes. When guided by the Holy Spirit, in action and declaration, would the Apostles be inerrant and infallible? Yes. We can know this, logically, because if the Holy Spirit allowed the Apostles to proclaim error, then it is not of Jesus (for He was infallible), for it has led them to proclaim erroneous material. This can be further extrapolated into their writings. For if they claimed to be writing "in the Spirit," or under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they must proclaim absolute truths. Anything proclaimed/written under such guidance, which is erroneous, would thus again mean that the Holy Spirit is fallible/errant, and thus not of Jesus.
Can persons be in error and fallible? Absolutely. Can persons be in error and fallible, when under guidance by the Holy Spirit? Absolutely not. For such error would directly be applicable to the Holy Spirit, and thus to Jesus and God.
I am unsure of which passages you are referencing. Could you be more concise and specific
Thank you for the good response.
Zenn
New member
Yeah... but you said it could start before night and end after day giving the impression that Shabbat could cover a longer time frame than just any ol' regular "day" (from sundown to sundown). And I've never heard of that before.
Slalom,
Zenn
Shalom.
I can say that the Sabbath is from sundown to sundown, where a day ends with sundown. Or I can refer to candle lighting times. These are before sundown and after sundown.
Shalom.
Jacob
Zenn
New member
To answer your questions...
(Although I can't fathom why this would make a difference.)
Zenn
PS: It was after I began my discipleship though, but before I had any encounter with Charismatics. Again, not that this would really matter. Intent carries much coin.
Seriously? You're making me play the context card? Oh well.
I gained quite an interesting reputation.
No.
Before.
(Although I can't fathom why this would make a difference.)
Zenn
PS: It was after I began my discipleship though, but before I had any encounter with Charismatics. Again, not that this would really matter. Intent carries much coin.