I would not want to be the cause of your getting an infraction.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.
Scripture. What is considered Scripture?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
Nope, wasn't you, but if you would like me to do so I will start another thread explaining my view of the Matthew genealogy.
Lon
Well-known member
You are fine to post on topic. Your infraction was for your childish chest-thumping shots against Trinitarians in your drive-by. You can't argue your way out of a paper bag, so the sour demeanor for a guy stuck in his own arrogance, is certainly the outcome for the immature, but it is not an excuse to pass your bitter off. You can be held accountable, regardless of your inability to be wise and discreet. You are a bitter old man. Stop it. None of it is Spiritual fruit. Genesis 4:7 Proverbs 18:24 Luke 6:45 deaf ears?
I am always interested in hearing proposed reconciliations.
They have been as scarce as chickens’ teeth on the errors that I have raised.
Okay, I will start another thread if I do not get banned in the mean time, (lol).
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.
My limited experience here has led me to believe this forum is lightly moderated, so, unless the moderators have been off on a sabbatical, my suspicion is that anyone acquiring an infraction likely earned it.
But my experience is limited.
My comments have been on the topic of “What is considered scripture,” since some people have excluded from scripture anything that has an error — but then the errors in documents that their tradition define as scripture put them into the untenable position of denying what their scriptures actually say!
Lon
Well-known member
No, just telling you, you can answer the thread. Leave embittered comments toward Trinitarians at the door.
No, you threw in a 'buffoonerous trinitarian' in there for NO apparent reason other than bitterness and being ousted.
I don't hate you. I hate your arrogance, poor doctrine, and your disdain for anything but your own opinions. However, ignore works (except when someone quotes you in full).
I and others have repeatedly 'solved' your 'apparent' problems. Denial is all your own and untrue. You can go ahead and do a denial pow wow though. I'm not really interested, just against mistruth. You've been addressed. Your insistence that you haven't been is all in your dishonest head and so I walked away. You have not listened to a thing I've said and I find it dishonest debate tactic. If you have to lie to win, you've lost.
For instance, how many generations are there, between Abraham and David? :think: If you are thick, don't blame that on anybody but yourself, I CLEARLY answered you. Didn't catch it? Too bad. YOUR reading problem. Don't lie about it any more. We've all addressed you. You don't understand, great. That is BETTER than lying. Try it. Honesty is a good thing. -Lon
What I was trying to say in my first post to you is that the Matthew genealogy is not in error, (which you do appear to be claiming), but because of dogma blinders and bias it CANNOT be rendered for what the Greek text actually says and teaches. This has already been proven in this forum but it was quite a while back now. Perhaps I will hold off on another thread. Have a nice thread.
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
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.
Thanks Lon but I'm still not understanding what the difference is exactly, mind you my English is layman, I never went to a grammar school.:idunno:
No, you did not answer.
You have no answer.
1 Chronicles clearly contradicts Matthew and you simply continue to falsely claim you answered the error.
You also failed on the other errors I pointed out.
You couldn’t decide whether Joesph was a descendant of Nathan or Nathan’s brother Solomon.
oatmeal
Well-known member
God authored the books of the Bible.
However, we must recognize that God did not put his stamp on or sign off on any version including the KJV
Since we do not have any original manuscripts as holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, II Peter 1:21, we must work with the copies of the copies of the copies....
Yet they are very good
What we have is copies of and from the originals, the autographs.
We do have good copies.
Who told you God authored the books of the Bible?
Many of the books claim to be written by people.
Lon
Well-known member
Well, for instance, Matthew the first generation IS 14. He was correct, that was all. Why does he then produce a genealogy that is different from his O.T. after that? We don't know. We can BUT assume after that. I always thought the reason is simply this: To establish that Jesus is the Messiah and not really give superfluous information. Another has suggested that non-Jews in the timeline are eliminated. Whatever the answer, "Because Matthew cannot count" is imho ABSOLUTELY THE WORST speculation. To think he made an error is simply shooting in the dark. When encountering ANY difference in the text, assuming a mistake is simply that: A rookie assumption with nothing but inclination as the only foundation for suggesting it. It comes from a secular assumption that "everybody makes mistakes." :nono: Find one in the dictionary, for instance. I completely, unequivocally disagree there is an error when the disciples and apostles wrote under inspiration.
Lon
Well-known member
Don't blame YOUR inability on me. Yes. I did.
lain: (and yet just again with Wotw, incidentally).Yes. I do. You cannot know if I have an answer or not. You never stop to listen, for one. You are being a simpleton with this assertion. It is braindead dumb to say such, repeatedly.
I did. 1) That ALL discrepancy doesn't by ANY necessity mean 'error' but can mean 'on purpose' for a specific reason. 2) I addressed it AGAIN with watchman, just now. Maybe you won't miss it this time. One can only hope.
Nope. YOU aren't judge and jury whether I failed or not. That honor will remain in other hands. You don't 'get' to assert anything. You are quick to judgments, the same reason your theology is off. You don't take the time to be careful. Quick and dirty is horrible theology most times.
Incorrect. I answered that too, several ways like above.
Try this: Instead of being dishonest, that I didn't answer, rather accurately say: "You answered, but I didn't like your answer and believe it isn't true. Because of that, you may have answered but it wasn't adequate for me."
"Never answered" is untrue.
Next error
Next error
Did the centurion come to see Jesus, or did the centurion send others because he was unworthy?
Matthew 8 When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him 6 and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress." 7 And he said to him, "I will come and cure him." 8 The centurion answered, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, "Go,' and he goes, and to another, "Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, "Do this,' and the slave does it." 10When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, "Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith.
Luke 7 After Jesus had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. 2 A centurion there had a slave whom he valued highly, and who was ill and close to death. 3 When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave. 4When they came to Jesus, they appealed to him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy of having you do this for him, 5 for he loves our people, and it is he who built our synagogue for us." 6 And Jesus went with them, but when he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to say to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; 7 therefore I did not presume to come to you. But only speak the word, and let my servant be healed.8 For I also am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, "Go,' and he goes, and to another, "Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, "Do this,' and the slave does it." 9 When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, he said, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." 10 When those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.
Matthew clearly says the centurion came to Jesus.
Luke clearly says the centurion sent others, did not come Himself, and had the others explain why he did not come.
Which has the error?
If the centurion did not come to Jesus, Matthew has the error.
If the centurion did come to Jesus, Luke has the error.
One has an error. Both stories cannot be inerrant, because the facts are mutually exclusive. Centurion came of Jesus or he did not come to Jesus.
Those of you who embrace the doctrine of inerrancy, a man-made doctrine never found in scripture, have another opportunity to explain an error.
My view is that by the time Luke investigated the matter the story had been somewhat exaggerated.
I have concluded no one will be able to answer the questions on the errors in the genealogies, just as no one would answer what was really said from the cloud at the transfiguration. So I am going on to another error.
Next error
Did the centurion come to see Jesus, or did the centurion send others because he was unworthy?
Matthew 8 When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him 6 and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress." 7 And he said to him, "I will come and cure him." 8 The centurion answered, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, "Go,' and he goes, and to another, "Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, "Do this,' and the slave does it." 10When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, "Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith.
Luke 7 After Jesus had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. 2 A centurion there had a slave whom he valued highly, and who was ill and close to death. 3 When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave. 4When they came to Jesus, they appealed to him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy of having you do this for him, 5 for he loves our people, and it is he who built our synagogue for us." 6 And Jesus went with them, but when he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to say to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; 7 therefore I did not presume to come to you. But only speak the word, and let my servant be healed.8 For I also am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, "Go,' and he goes, and to another, "Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, "Do this,' and the slave does it." 9 When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, he said, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." 10 When those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.
Matthew clearly says the centurion came to Jesus.
Luke clearly says the centurion sent others, did not come Himself, and had the others explain why he did not come.
Which has the error?
If the centurion did not come to Jesus, Matthew has the error.
If the centurion did come to Jesus, Luke has the error.
One has an error. Both stories cannot be inerrant, because the facts are mutually exclusive. Centurion came of Jesus or he did not come to Jesus.
Those of you who embrace the doctrine of inerrancy, a man-made doctrine never found in scripture, have another opportunity to explain an error.
My view is that by the time Luke investigated the matter the story had been somewhat exaggerated.
I have concluded no one will be able to answer the questions on the errors in the genealogies, just as no one would answer what was really said from the cloud at the transfiguration. So I am going on to another error.
Last edited:
I do not know how to help you with that. Was your post in response to my post? Is it okay to ask questions of anyone?