Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[glorydaz]

I have the fellow below the fold, but could not escape seeing the quotes of his views. This is a man who states he has taught Sunday School classes, which explains the dire state of instruction taking place in not a few churches. Sigh.

Scary thought.

Spoiler

Sadly, he has swallowed the "synoptic problem" view—along with Bart Ehrman's nonsense—completely and thinks no one is familiar with the issues and the errors of such a view. That he claims the label "Christian" only speaks to a profession of something that he really cannot be certain about, given his many "issues" with contradictions in Scripture. Apparently, the superintendence if God the Holy Spirit could not overcome the errors of the writers of Scripture. His doctrine of inspiration is not orthodox so long as he does not consider the suppression of the penmen's errors to be an active part of it. He will simply never know what is absolute truth and what is mere accommodation. Like the liberal, the canon of reason is required to distinguish where Scripture speaks truth and where it accommodates error.

Thus, we are all forced to be mini-popes, interpreting God's special revelation riddled with inconsistencies.

Apostle in the "traditional" sense, or perhaps better put, in the strict sense, would be that this person was invested with the highest office in the church— Luke used many sources, who were eyewitnesses of what he wrote down. His version of events dovetails perfectly with the witness of men like Matthew and John, who were personally disciples. Mark from ancient times has been recognized as Peter's "interpreter," that Gospel being suffused with the memory especially of Peter; although I am persuaded that Mark (though he was but a young lad during Christ's ministry) most likely did know Jesus himself.

Thus, there were 13 men that we know of who had this office; possibly 14, if one assumes that Judas Iscariot's position as one of the original Twelve Disciples made him an Apostle as well. However, most feel as though the designation "Apostle" belongs to the days of the Resurrection; thus, Paul identifies one mark of his authoritative apostolate as his having seen the risen Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1 and Acts 1:22; 2:32).

The 13 men are, the original Twelve less Judas (so 11); plus Matthias (12) who was appointed according to the Spirit and the word of prophecy, Acts 1:15-26; and Saul/Paul (13), whose special call we know from 3 times recorded in Acts, chs. 9, 22, & 26 (n.b. v. 26); and compare 1 Cor. 15:8; Gal. 1:1,16-17; 2:6; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim.1:11.

Luke was, I suppose, a Gentile and convert from Asia—although some have suggested he was possibly one of the Seventy Jesus sent out, Lk. 10:1 and forward, but there are no comparable "we" statements in his Gospel, as there are in his Acts, e.g Acts 16:10. Luke, therefore, would not have been a personal witness to the Resurrection.

Luke used many sources, who were eyewitnesses of what he wrote down. His version of events dovetails perfectly with the witness of men like Matthew and John, who were personally disciples. Mark from ancient times has been recognized as Peter's "interpreter," that Gospel being suffused with the memory especially of Peter; although I am persuaded that Mark (though he was but a young man during Christ's ministry) most likely did know Jesus himself.

There's no reason to second-rate Luke—whose Gospel is probably the most "professionally accomplished" of the four—simply because his work relies mainly on primary sources, rather than being (from beginning to end of both volumes) the immediate product of a principal, disciple-source.

Why anyone takes the bait of this man escapes me. Ignore him and he will fade away once it is made clear that his hobby-horse is dead on arrival. :AMR:


AMR

He reminds me of those people who cry out that "Jesus has a God", while ignoring John 1:1, 14


Look out, we have more contradictions concerning His deity. :shut:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

ROFLOL

God has preserved His word through errors and all.

 

[glorydaz]

Let’s move to another error, this one from the transfiguration.

What did the Father actually say from the cloud?

Matthew 17:5 NRS
https://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/17-5.html
5 While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, "This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!"

Luke 9:35 NRS
https://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/luke/9-35.html
35 Then from the cloud came a voice that said, "This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!"

Mark 9:7 NRS
https://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/mark/9-7.html
7 Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, "This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!"


Three different versions of the real Word of God.

If the texts are the inerrant, God-breathed, Word of God, these would all be the same.

Since they are multiple witnesses of the events written by fallible people, they differ.

Ah, yes, "Ye shall not surely die." The deceiver at work. :chuckle:

Luke 9:35KJV And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

Matthew 17:5KJV While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Mark 9:7KJV And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.​

 

[glorydaz]

I disagree. There is just that amount of material which needs to be written.

Really? Why was "Jesus of Nazareth The King of the Jews written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin?

John 19:19-20KJV
And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews.
This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.​

 

[SabathMoon]

Really? Why was "Jesus of Nazareth The King of the Jews written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin?

John 19:19-20KJV
And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews.
This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.​

To me, it says his crime was being a king of Jews-- which Pilate charged him with, himself wanting to be ironic. Secondly, the audience is the same but so-called discrepancies imply elaborations of Mark. I am of the belief that John's gospel was first, and Luke-Acts seems to be a 2 scroll gospel. You have John, then Mark, then Matthew, then Luke.

I don't know my statements clarify anything for you. It isn't differing audiences for each gospel, but differing viewpoints.

 

[glorydaz]

To me, it says his crime was being a king of Jews-- which Pilate charged him with, himself wanting to be ironic. Secondly, the audience is the same but so-called discrepancies imply elaborations of Mark. I am of the belief that John's gospel was first, and Luke-Acts seems to be a 2 scroll gospel. You have John, then Mark, then Matthew, then Luke.

I don't know my statements clarify anything for you. It isn't differing audiences for each gospel, but differing viewpoints.

Then you can't see that the different groups of people would respond to different aspects of our Lord's coming to dwell among us? Matthew, for instance, was focusing on the Jews. We can see this from the very beginning. Neither the Romans or the Greeks would have any interest in this genealogy. The Jews seek a sign. All throughout, Matthew, draws on the OT scriptures.

Matthew 1:1-2KJV
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;​

Luke, who focused on the humanity of Jesus Christ, gave the genealogy of man....clear back to the first man. The Greeks seek after wisdom.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.​

Mark's message appealed to the Romans and focused on Christ's work....His servanthood.

John, of course, focused on Christ's Deity and was meant to appeal to all men.

The four Gospels are so much more than just too much information to be included in one. God simply doesn't work in such a slipshod way.

 

[SabathMoon]

You say different audiences; I say differing perspectives. Yadda Yadda Yadda.

 

[glorydaz]

You say different audiences; I say differing perspectives. Yadda Yadda Yadda.

Oh yes....anything to disagree. :chuckle:

One certainly requires the other.

 

[2003cobra]

It was a fact....not a potshot. And you actually thought you could slander God's word and not face opposition?

I never slandered God’s Word.

I simply pointed out the error in a man-made tradition.

Strange that you can’t or won’t see that.

 

[2003cobra]

Then you can't see that the different groups of people would respond to different aspects of our Lord's coming to dwell among us? Matthew, for instance, was focusing on the Jews. We can see this from the very beginning. Neither the Romans or the Greeks would have any interest in this genealogy. The Jews seek a sign. All throughout, Matthew, draws on the OT scriptures.

Matthew 1:1-2KJV
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;​

Luke, who focused on the humanity of Jesus Christ, gave the genealogy of man....clear back to the first man. The Greeks seek after wisdom.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.​

Mark's message appealed to the Romans and focused on Christ's work....His servanthood.

John, of course, focused on Christ's Deity and was meant to appeal to all men.

The four Gospels are so much more than just too much information to be included in one. God simply doesn't work in such a slipshod way.

Interesting that you would mention the genealogies.

The irreconcilable differences between Matthew’s and Luke’s are one of the errors that I intended to raise later. Another is the irreconcilable error between Matthew and the Old Testament.

 

[2003cobra]

To me, it says his crime was being a king of Jews-- which Pilate charged him with, himself wanting to be ironic. Secondly, the audience is the same but so-called discrepancies imply elaborations of Mark. I am of the belief that John's gospel was first, and Luke-Acts seems to be a 2 scroll gospel. You have John, then Mark, then Matthew, then Luke.

I don't know my statements clarify anything for you. It isn't differing audiences for each gospel, but differing viewpoints.

I don’t see how you can think of John’s gospel as first.

Tradition and church history has it much later, and John seems to go out of his way to correct the timing of the the Last Supper in three specific places. That indicates he knew of the other gospels.

 

[2003cobra]

Ah, yes, "Ye shall not surely die." The deceiver at work. :chuckle:

Luke 9:35KJV And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

Matthew 17:5KJV While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Mark 9:7KJV And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.​

It is easier when you use 400-year-old scholarship that did not have the best manuscripts.

Yet even the quotes you provided have the error of omitting the words of God from the cloud.

You haven’t yet answered the question: what did the voice from the cloud say?

 

[2003cobra]

ROFLOL

God has preserved His word through errors and all.

Yes, the Message of God for mankind is still loud and clear, despite minor and insignificant errors in the documents prepared by fallible people.

Repent, follow Jesus, love one another, and more.

 

[glorydaz]

I never slandered God’s Word.

I simply pointed out the error in a man-made tradition.

Strange that you can’t or won’t see that.

You lie when you say the inerrancy of the Bible is a man-made tradition.
I certainly won't bow down to your making that false claim.

I've watched you cherrypick different translations, and I've watched how you ignore that the Gospels were never intended to be biographies or history books, but have another purpose altogether. That each writer was chosen to say exactly what they were given at the direction of the Holy Spirit. The four Gospels make the one whole picture of the Lord Jesus Christ.....just as the three persons of the Godhead make the ONE God. There are many who are simply incapable of admitting that truth...or either of those truths. I'm not one of them, and you are. Simple.

 

[glorydaz]

Yes, the Message of God for mankind is still loud and clear, despite minor and insignificant errors in the documents prepared by fallible people.

Repent, follow Jesus, love one another, and more.

Much more.....Paul's Gospel of salvation by Grace through faith.

Look out, you'll find some real "contradictions" there.

And IN those contradictions, you'll find greater truths than what you're preaching in yellow.

 

[glorydaz]

It is easier when you use 400-year-old scholarship that did not have the best manuscripts.

Yet even the quotes you provided have the error of omitting the words of God from the cloud.

You haven’t yet answered the question: what did the voice from the cloud say?

Clearly, the words, "In whom I am well pleased" stood out more to Matthew because he was directing his writings to the Jews. It's simply impossible that God had Matthew record those words for the Jews, but did not have Mark and Luke record them for the Romans and Greeks. Is that your claim?

The Jews were the ones who looked for these confirmations that Matthew gave them. The Lord knew what He was doing.....you don't, oh man of the flesh.

Isaiah 42:21 The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.​

 

[glorydaz]

Interesting that you would mention the genealogies.

The irreconcilable differences between Matthew’s and Luke’s are one of the errors that I intended to raise later. Another is the irreconcilable error between Matthew and the Old Testament.

Don't tell me you're not Sonnet. There couldn't possibly be two such fools on the same forum.

 

[2003cobra]

Clearly, the words, "In whom I am well pleased" stood out more to Matthew because he was directing his writings to the Jews. It's simply impossible that God had Matthew record those words for the Jews, but did not have Mark and Luke record them for the Romans and Greeks. Is that your claim?

The Jews were the ones who looked for these confirmations that Matthew gave them. The Lord knew what He was doing.....you don't, oh man of the flesh.

Isaiah 42:21 The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.​

While the errors of omission are interesting, I am more interested in why Luke says “My Chosen” and leaves out “the beloved.” No other gospel does.

Do you have a proposed explanation?

 

[2003cobra]

Don't tell me you're not Sonnet. There couldn't possibly be two such fools on the same forum.

Have you not read

Matthew 5:22 NRS
https://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/5-22.html
22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, "You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire

 

[glorydaz]

While the errors of omission are interesting, I am more interested in why Luke says “My Chosen” and leaves out “the beloved.” No other gospel does.

Do you have a proposed explanation?

The translation you've chosen is the problem. It is not that way in the authorized version.

Clearly, you didn't read the verses I quoted. They were exactly the same except Matthew had added, "In whom I am well pleased".....which related back to two OT verses in Isaiah.

Luke 9:35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

Luke 9:35YLT 35 and a voice came out of the cloud saying, `This is My Son -- the Beloved; hear ye him;'