Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[2003cobra]

All we need is John 10:35

Then your answer is Jesus never speaks of the inerrancy of scripture.

The passage you mentioned doesn’t mention inerrancy.

The passage is not a teaching on inerrancy.

Did you read the context? It is Jesus turning their own views back on the religious people who rejected truth because it didn’t fit their tradition.

Jesus replied, "I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?" 33 The Jews answered, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God." 34 Jesus answered, "Is it not written in your law, "I said, you are gods'? 35 If those to whom the word of God came were called "gods'—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, "I am God's Son'? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." 39 Then they tried to arrest him again, but he escaped from their hands.


You don’t want to be one of those religious people who rejects truth because it doesn’t fit your tradition, do you?

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Then your answer is Jesus never speaks of the inerrancy of scripture.

The passage you mentioned doesn’t mention inerrancy.

The passage is not a teaching on inerrancy.

Did you read the context? It is Jesus turning their own views back on the religious people who rejected truth because it didn’t fit their tradition.

Jesus replied, "I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these are you going to stone me?" 33 The Jews answered, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God." 34 Jesus answered, "Is it not written in your law, "I said, you are gods'? 35 If those to whom the word of God came were called "gods'—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, "I am God's Son'? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." 39 Then they tried to arrest him again, but he escaped from their hands.


You don’t want to be one of those religious people who rejects truth because it doesn’t fit your tradition, do you?

TBH 2003cobra I'm loosing the thread of this argument, as I said it's not really my cuppa-tea. Cop out I know but I really don't fully understand the difference between inerrancy and discredit? As I said:

inerrant
adjective
incapable of being wrong.

Where as:

discredit
verb
past tense: discredited; past participle: discredited

1. harm the good reputation of.
"his remarks were taken out of context in an effort to discredit him"

2. cause (an idea or account) to seem false or unreliable.

It's hard to tell the difference to be honest; Like geese or goose? Semantics hey..

Now if you could explain that to me then I might be able to understand the debate better and which side to back possibly?

 

[2003cobra]

Ok, Watchman, thanks for participating.

To say a document might have a few errors in hundreds of pages is not discrediting the document. It is simply recognizing reality.

 

[2003cobra]

Should I list another errror?

Should I list another errror?

Or has everyone given up trying to defend the discredited false doctrine of inerrancy, a doctrine never mentioned, much less declared, in scripture?

 

[Jacob]

2003cobra,

The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is that there are no errors in the original manuscripts. I believe that this has to do with when the original document was penned.

Shalom.

Jacob

 

[Zenn]

2003cobra,

The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is that there are no errors in the original manuscripts. I believe that this has to do with when the original document was penned.

Shalom.

Jacob

Greetings, Jacob. (My apologies that I am late to the game.)

If what you say is true, though, then the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is utterly worthless in that Nobody has these "original manuscripts". They don't exist, and so any "inerrancy" just cannot be attributed to what we have available today. Of which of the scriptures, then, can one say "This is inerrant" if such Inerrancy relies upon something that does not exist?

And yet there are many who having been told "The Bible is the Inerrant Word of God" turn their backs on the gospel (and rightly so) once the truth is discovered that the Bible is Not "Inerrant". There are mistakes, and there is irrefutable evidence of manuscript alteration.

I think this is the concern that Cobra is addressing. That we are to have faith in God, and not holy writ. That we are to have a direct relationship with God, and not vicariously through a book.

frohe Weihnachten,
Zenn

PS: At some point I do have a couple of questions for you, but alas time is pressing.

PPS: And in the interest of full disclosure, Cobra and I are acquaintances, and I am sure one day he will be brought to the light ;^)

 

[Lon]

TBH 2003cobra I'm loosing the thread of this argument, as I said it's not really my cuppa-tea. Cop out I know but I really don't fully understand the difference between inerrancy and discredit? As I said:

inerrant
adjective
incapable of being wrong.

Where as:

discredit
verb
past tense: discredited; past participle: discredited

1. harm the good reputation of.
"his remarks were taken out of context in an effort to discredit him"

2. cause (an idea or account) to seem false or unreliable.

It's hard to tell the difference to be honest; Like geese or goose? Semantics hey..

Now if you could explain that to me then I might be able to understand the debate better and which side to back possibly?

Yep. In one ear and out the other, though. He will not, and cannot listen. Using analogy, I proved, beyond doubt, discrepancy does not mean error, but rather 'something different, often with a genuine purpose and accuracy.' Will he listen? Nope. You called it right: Make a doctrine then stick to it, even it if is against God, His disciples, and his words. lain:

 

[Zeke]

Shalom.

Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

Shalom.

Jacob

Depends on which kingdom you are seeking and where you are seeking it. Letters are easy to catch the wind not so easy.

 

[Jacob]

Depends on which kingdom you are seeking and where you are seeking it. Letters are easy to catch the wind not so easy.

What do you mean?

 

[Zeke]

What do you mean?

2Cor 3:6, John 3:8.

 

[Jacob]

2Cor 3:6, John 3:8.

I do not understand what you are saying.

 

[2003cobra]

Yep. In one ear and out the other, though. He will not, and cannot listen. Using analogy, I proved, beyond doubt, discrepancy does not mean error, but rather 'something different, often with a genuine purpose and accuracy.' Will he listen? Nope. You called it right: Make a doctrine then stick to it, even it if is against God, His disciples, and his words. lain:

What is there to listen to from you?

I asked you to explain the error in Matthew saying there were 14 generations from David to the deportation and you only came up with insults for me, no explanation.

So you pretend the errors do not exist.

Recognizing that God did not make the writers of the New Testament infallible is not at a statement against God, His disciples, or God’s Word. It is an honest observation from the Bible.

Don’t pretend God is on your side in making up false doctrines about the Bible.

 

[daqq]

What is there to listen to from you?

I asked you to explain the error in Matthew saying there were 14 generations from David to the deportation and you only came up with insults for me, no explanation.

So you pretend the errors do not exist.

Recognizing that God did not make the writers of the New Testament infallible is not at a statement against God, His disciples, or God’s Word. It is an honest observation from the Bible.

Don’t pretend God is on your side in making up false doctrines about the Bible.

Lol, not to brag, but I am the only one who has ever answered that here, (hey, it is what it is), and when I did I received the same treatment as you are getting now for suggesting that it is an error, (which it is not, except in your favorite buffoonerous Trinitarian-biased English translations). Moreover that was even though they have no other answer for the Matthew genealogy problem while I actually do, (which proves it is not an error). Lol, they cannot even get past the very first chapter in the New Testament without a blazing contradiction in their doctrine, (and I do not plan to answer it again here in this thread, lol). :chuckle:

 

[Nihilo]

Lol, not to brag, but I am the only one who has ever answered that here, (hey, it is what it is), and when I did I received the same treatment as you are getting now for suggesting that it is an error, (which it is not, except in your favorite buffoonerous Trinitarian-biased English translations). Moreover that was even though they have no other answer for the Matthew genealogy problem while I actually do, (which proves it is not an error). Lol, they cannot even get past the very first chapter in the New Testament without a blazing contradiction in their doctrine, (and I do not plan to answer it again here in this thread, lol). :chuckle:

The Church that Jesus Christ built upon Peter, a Rock, teaches the Trinity, and she always has.

 

[daqq]

The Church that Jesus Christ built upon Peter, a Rock, teaches the Trinity, and she always has.

Dream on dreamer: that "Rock" is at the cave of the goat, (En-Gedi north), wherein the Master spent three days and three nights before his Sanhedrin trial locked up in the pit behind the gates of Hades, (which did not prevail against him, nor his congregation), and the gate of Hades is the same iron gate which leads into the city, (Acts 12:10, and there are seven steps also [signifying immersion] which your mother removed from the scripture-writing because it was "too Jewish", http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/acts_long_02_text.htm).

 

[Nihilo]

Dream on dreamer: that "Rock" is at the cave of the goat, (En-Gedi north), wherein the Master spent three days and three nights before his Sanhedrin trial locked up in the pit behind the gates of Hades, (which did not prevail against him, nor his congregation), and the gate of Hades is the same iron gate which leads into the city, (Acts 12:10, and there are seven steps also [signifying immersion] which your mother removed from the scripture-writing because it was "too Jewish", http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/acts_long_02_text.htm).

Whew! I don't think I can count how many made up things you require to avoid having to accept that the successor of Peter is the supreme pastor of the Lord Jesus Christ's Church.

John 21:15 KJV
John 21:16 KJV
John 21:17 KJV

1st Peter 1:2 KJV

 

[Nihilo]

Dream on dreamer: that "Rock" is at the cave of the goat, (En-Gedi north), wherein the Master spent three days and three nights before his Sanhedrin trial locked up in the pit behind the gates of Hades, (which did not prevail against him, nor his congregation), and the gate of Hades is the same iron gate which leads into the city, (Acts 12:10, and there are seven steps also [signifying immersion] which your mother removed from the scripture-writing because it was "too Jewish", http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/acts_long_02_text.htm).

Whew! I don't think I can count how many made up things you require to avoid having to accept that the successor of Peter is the supreme pastor of the Lord Jesus Christ's Church.

John 21:15 KJV
John 21:16 KJV
John 21:17 KJV

1st Peter 1:2 KJV
" Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,
" through sanctification of the Spirit,
" unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:
" Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. "

 

[daqq]

Whew! I don't think I can count how many made up things you require to avoid having to accept that the successor of Peter is the supreme pastor of the Lord Jesus Christ's Church.

Whew! I don't think I can count how many made up things you require to avoid having to accept that the successor of Peter is the supreme pastor of the Lord Jesus Christ's Church.

Sorry for the twofold ευωνυμος-left handed luck.
(Nothing ever goes wrong for the lucky-lefties until it is too late: ignorance is bliss, for a time).

 

[2003cobra]

Lol, not to brag, but I am the only one who has ever answered that here, (hey, it is what it is), and when I did I received the same treatment as you are getting now for suggesting that it is an error, (which it is not, except in your favorite buffoonerous Trinitarian-biased English translations). Moreover that was even though they have no other answer for the Matthew genealogy problem while I actually do, (which proves it is not an error). Lol, they cannot even get past the very first chapter in the New Testament without a blazing contradiction in their doctrine, (and I do not plan to answer it again here in this thread, lol). :chuckle:

Yes, the people who claim they can reconcile the error never seem to have the courage to post an answer.

Only Angel4truth even tried, and she copied and pasted from a source that apparently had not even noticed that three generations were missing.

 

[daqq]

Yes, the people who claim they can reconcile the error never seem to have the courage to post an answer.

Only Angel4truth even tried, and she copied and pasted from a source that apparently had not even noticed that three generations were missing.

Since I just got an infraction for that post I probably should not comment, (there is a puppet-master and his sock in this thread, lol, but a leopard cannot hide his spots). Maybe some other time some other place.