Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[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 ;^)

Shalom.

I am pleased to make your acquaintance. Inerrancy in reference to the original documents or manuscripts is different from recognizing the copies for what they are, legitimate.

Shalom.

Jacob

 

[2003cobra]

Yes, Zenn is a friend of mine.

We don’t agree on everything, and I am sure full agreement is not necessary.

I can have Christian fellowship with any believer who embraces the essentials. The creed known as the Apostles Creed is an excellent source of essentials:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Christian Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.


I think there is a lot of latitude in interpreting statements such as “sits at the right hand of God,” since that may be less physical reality and more a statement on position and authority.

 

[Jacob]

Yes, Zenn is a friend of mine.

We don’t agree on everything, and I am sure full agreement is not necessary.

I can have Christian fellowship with any believer who embraces the essentials. The creed known as the Apostles Creed is an excellent source of essentials:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Christian Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.


I think there is a lot of latitude in interpreting statements such as “sits at the right hand of God,” since that may be less physical reality and more a statement on position and authority.

This is for you. I do not know what descended into hell is or means, and if it is true.

 

[2003cobra]

This is for you. I do not know what descended into hell is or means, and if it is true.

I understand that to be a reference to 1 Peter:

1 Peter 3:18-22 NIV

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.


And it recognizes the Words of Jesus following the resurrection to Mary in John 20:
Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ” 18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.

So Peter said where Jesus had been, while John says Jesus said He had not been to the Father after three days in the grave.

 

[Zenn]

Shalom.

I am pleased to make your acquaintance. Inerrancy in reference to the original documents or manuscripts is different from recognizing the copies for what they are, legitimate.

Shalom.

Jacob

Legitimacy is a very interesting and important concept. Why would you consider "Luke" legitimate and not, for example, the gospel according to Thomas or the Gospel of Phillip?

Have you ever read the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman?

There is solid evidence that there are certain copies (i.e. families of mss.) that are Not legitimate.

Zenn

 

[Zenn]

Wow... I gather I am released from post limbo, although it would seem I still cannot edit my posts...

At least since my participation is no longer delayed, I might be able to join the conversation.

Regards,
Zenn

 

[Jacob]

I understand that to be a reference to 1 Peter:

1 Peter 3:18-22 NIV

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.


And it recognizes the Words of Jesus following the resurrection to Mary in John 20:
Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ” 18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.

So Peter said where Jesus had been, while John says Jesus said He had not been to the Father after three days in the grave.

Do you have more to share with me?

 

[Jacob]

Legitimacy is a very interesting and important concept. Why would you consider "Luke" legitimate and not, for example, the gospel according to Thomas or the Gospel of Phillip?

Have you ever read the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman?

There is solid evidence that there are certain copies (i.e. families of mss.) that are Not legitimate.

Zenn

I believe that you are focusing on my use of the word legitimate. I am only talking about copies. I am speaking about scribal transmission.

I am unable to comment on that which you refer to here. Both Luke being legitimate and what is legitimate and Misquoting Jesus and Bart Ehrman and certain copies families of manuscripts that are not legitimate (does mss. mean manuscripts and are you talking about manuscripts?).

Shalom.

Jacob

 

[Zenn]

Yes, Zenn is a friend of mine.

I am honored.

We don’t agree on everything, and I am sure full agreement is not necessary.

(Give it time...)

I can have Christian fellowship with any believer who embraces the essentials. The creed known as the Apostles Creed is an excellent source of essentials:

...
the holy Christian Church,
...

Don't you love how the Protestants edited out the word Catholic? In that Catholic actually means "Universal" to indicate there is to be a singularity in theological essence, I find using the word "Christian" to be political subterfuge. Then again, I guess the word "universal" cannot be used because it may imply unintended support for the denominational indicator "Unitarian Universalist".

So would you embrace a creed stating "...the holy Unified Church ..."? Otherwise the creed as you've provided has been altered and modified in meaning.

Zenn

 

[2003cobra]

Wow... I gather I am released from post limbo, although it would seem I still cannot edit my posts...

At least since my participation is no longer delayed, I might be able to join the conversation.

Regards,
Zenn

The edit function for me appeared after a week and 25 posts.

 

[2003cobra]

I am honored.

(Give it time...)

Don't you love how the Protestants edited out the word Catholic? In that Catholic actually means "Universal" to indicate there is to be a singularity in theological essence, I find using the word "Christian" to be political subterfuge. Then again, I guess the word "universal" cannot be used because it may imply unintended support for the denominational indicator "Unitarian Universalist".

So would you embrace a creed stating "...the holy Unified Church ..."? Otherwise the creed as you've provided has been altered and modified in meaning.

Zenn

Yes, I like the word universal in it, but I thought some might run from the room screaming if I posted a version that said Catholic. (But then, they already went running and screaming from the room on the fourth error I mentioned and fell silent on the fifth.)

Let’s go with universal, as we can’t let a small group change the meaning of words and thereby exclude them from use.

 

[Zenn]

Let’s go with universal, as we can’t let a small group change the meaning of words and thereby exclude them from use.

I actually like using the word catholic (small c) and when the hammer drops I can explain the difference between that and capital C Catholic.

(But that's just me. )
Zenn

 

[Lon]

I have more errors to discuss, but Lon and the other supporters of the false doctrine of inerrancy have given up — unable to explain and eventually not even trying.

If you have to lie and/or exaggerate, you've lost. Not addressing you, just your nonsense. Leave me out of your accusations and canards or I'll report it. I've seen my way out of this conversation. You can make as bold-as-brass inaccurate statements as you like but leave my name out of it. I don't find you honest thus quite unworthy of my time. You can't even acquiesce that anybody in thread addressed your problems. "You don't like them" never amounts to 'unable to explain.' Speak honestly our you'll be having a nice time-out.

 

[2003cobra]

I actually like using the word catholic (small c) and when the hammer drops I can explain the difference between that and capital C Catholic.

(But that's just me. )
Zenn

Yes, I know. And the ipad’s Autocorrect is excessively helpful and may have been programmed by a Roman Catholic.

 

[2003cobra]

If you have to lie and/or exaggerate, you've lost.

And I did none of that.

Not addressing you, just your nonsense. Leave me out of your accusations and canards or I'll report it. I've seen my way out of this conversation. You can make as bold-as-brass inaccurate statements as you like but leave my name out of it. I don't find you honest thus quite unworthy of my time. You can't even acquiesce that anybody in thread addressed your problems. "You don't like them" never amounts to 'unable to explain.' Speak honestly our you'll be having a nice time-out.

In which post number did you attempt to reconcile the difference between the 18 generations listed in 1 Chronicles and the 14 generations declared by Matthew from David to the deportation?

 

[Lon]

And I did none of that.

In which post number did you attempt to reconcile the difference between the 18 generations listed in 1 Chronicles and the 14 generations declared by Matthew from David to the deportation?

Again. I'm not interested in you. Don't mention my name again.

 

[2003cobra]

Thanks for confirming.

 

[patrick jane]

Let the two baby geniuses have their playtime.

 

[2003cobra]

Let the two baby geniuses have their playtime.

In which post number did you attempt to reconcile the difference between the 18 generations listed in 1 Chronicles and the 14 generations declared by Matthew from David to the deportation?

 

[patrick jane]

In which post number did you attempt to reconcile the difference between the 18 generations listed in 1 Chronicles and the 14 generations declared by Matthew from David to the deportation?

AMR answered you succinctly very early in the thread. I was satisfied with his answers.

1 Timothy 1:3-4 KJV - [FONT=&quot]As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Titus 3:9 KJV - But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.[/FONT]