Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[Lon]

“Believe all things, hope all things” is your scriptural support for a false doctrine not found in scripture?

In one ear, out the other.... Duly noted. I had thought I was wasting time, but had hoped.

We have three witnesses proving the doctrine of inerrancy is false: Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Believe it then. Your demise, not mine. You are simply digging in. The dialogue with hopes for meaning just ended, no?

If you want to use the instruction to believe all things, Paul did not mean believe lies and fantasies of man.

:doh: You are calling Matthew, Mark, or Luke a liar? I realize you are thinking it means me in 'inerrancy' but you aren't thinking clearly. You are by implication and end result, meaning them! You are condemning them, not I.

Why would you take such a ridiculous stand?

Knee-jerk simpleton, Cobra. "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!" :sigh: So be it. Whether you know it or not, you have your fingers in your ears. I've said "C-A-N-N-O-T" no few times. You don't seem to understand the word impossible. You CANNOT.

If you believe all things, why not believe God had an angel speak to Joseph Smith?

Notice he did not correct Matthew Mark or Luke. He was certainly capable. This is talking about within the family of believers. IOW, it REALLY wants to give the benefit of doubt to those in the faith. You do not, for some odd reason. THAT is why John W calls you a child of the devil. He sees you as NOT having the apostles in best interests.

Wouldn’t all things include that?

At first. It is the 'hope' part. If rather, you've seen the dilemma and can show such is true (you cannot with scripture), then your hopes were good, but no longer necessary. J S wasn't/isn't orthodox (true). We believe all 'good' things AND 'HARDLY' notice (next to nil, unlike you here) when someone gets it wrong (supposed or otherwise) who is in the faith (like a disciple). :doh: You are quickly making me lose hope for your needed correction If you can't even know this, there is little hope for the rest

 

[2003cobra]

Why in the world would you think I'd believe anything you say? It's not like you're inspired by God.

Did the centurion come to see Jesus and speak to him, as Matthew says? Or did he not as Luke wrote?

No answer?

 

[2003cobra]

Lon asks:
You are calling Matthew, Mark, or Luke a liar?

No, I am saying they are like all the people God uses: imperfect.

I am saying the doctrine of inerrancy is a lie, and I note that it is not a teaching of scripture.

Did the centurion come to see Jesus and speak to him, as Matthew says? Or did he not as Luke wrote?

You obviously can’t decide or can’t say, because answering the simple question will prove the doctrine of inerrancy false.

 

[glorydaz]

Did the centurion come to see Jesus and speak to him, as Matthew says? Or did he not as Luke wrote?

No answer?

That's exactly what you did in the Gospel thread. Continue to state the exact same thing, while demanding an answer. Over and over and over again. You are a one of a kind poster, and your tells stand out like Neon lights.

 

[glorydaz]

Lon asks:
You are calling Matthew, Mark, or Luke a liar?

No, I am saying they are like all the people God uses: imperfect.

I am saying the doctrine of inerrancy is a lie, and I note that it is not a teaching of scripture.

Did the centurion come to see Jesus and speak to him, as Matthew says? Or did he not as Luke wrote?

You obviously can’t decide or can’t say, because answering the simple question will prove the doctrine of inerrancy false.

And you quote the same way, too. :rotfl:

 

[2003cobra]

That's exactly what you did in the Gospel thread. Continue to state the exact same thing, while demanding an answer. Over and over and over again. You are a one of a kind poster, and your tells stand out like Neon lights.

Are you still pretending that I am someone else?

Yes, I do ask the questions you won’t answer.

Why can’t you answer a simple question about the Bible?

Did the centurion come to see Jesus and speak to him, as Matthew says? Or did he not as Luke wrote?

 

[glorydaz]

Are you still pretending that I am someone else?

Yes, I do ask the questions you won’t answer.

Why can’t you answer a simple question about the Bible?

Did the centurion come to see Jesus and speak to him, as Matthew says? Or did he not as Luke wrote?

I'm not pretending. I'm pointing out your beady eyes and sharp teeth.


YOU are pretending. You're pretending to be a sheep, but you are a wolf.


In fact, you are attacking the Bible just as you did the Gospel...for the same purpose.

 

[patrick jane]

I'm not pretending. I'm pointing out your beady eyes and sharp teeth.


YOU are pretending. You're pretending to be a sheep, but you are a wolf.


In fact, you are attacking the Bible just as you did the Gospel...for the same purpose.

View attachment 26085 click to enlarge

 

[patrick jane]

That's exactly what you did in the Gospel thread. Continue to state the exact same thing, while demanding an answer. Over and over and over again. You are a one of a kind poster, and your tells stand out like Neon lights.

I haven't seen Sonnet in a while.

 

[2003cobra]

I'm not pretending. I'm pointing out your beady eyes and sharp teeth.


YOU are pretending. You're pretending to be a sheep, but you are a wolf.


In fact, you are attacking the Bible just as you did the Gospel...for the same purpose.

You seem consistently wrong.

Did the centurion come to see Jesus and speak to him, as Matthew says? Or did he not as Luke wrote?

It is not a difficult question.

 

[Lon]

Lon asks:
You are calling Matthew, Mark, or Luke a liar?

No, I am saying they are like all the people God uses: imperfect.

I am saying the doctrine of inerrancy is a lie, and I note that it is not a teaching of scripture.

Did the centurion come to see Jesus and speak to him, as Matthew says? Or did he not as Luke wrote?

For posterity, you CAN'T know. We CAN speculate. YOU speculate a lie. I speculate HAVING to ask when I get to Jesus. See the difference?
One of us is skipping 'trust' and jumping IMMEDIATELY to accusation. You CAN'T. I know you don't get this, but it is illogical. It is not tenable.

You obviously can’t decide or can’t say, because answering the simple question will prove the doctrine of inerrancy false.

Fingers firmly in ears. For whatever reason, you will not be reasoned with. Sorry. I tried. You are in God's hands from here.

 

[Lon]

In fact, you are attacking the Bible just as you did the Gospel...for the same purpose.

Ouch. I didn't see that post

 

[2003cobra]

For posterity, you CAN'T know. We CAN speculate. YOU speculate a lie...

We can know!
We can know that Matthew says the centurion came to Jesus and spoke to Jesus.
We can know!
We can know that Luke says the centurion did not come to Jesus and did not speak to Jesus.

That is all obvious in the text. Either you recognize it or avert your eyes, refusing to read the Bible.

Fingers firmly in ears. For whatever reason, you will not be reasoned with. Sorry. I tried. You are in God's hands from here.

No, I hear what you are saying: you refuse to know what the Bible plainly says!

We are all in God’s hands. And you are rejecting what the Bible plainly states.

 

[2003cobra]

Ouch. I didn't see that post

She still thinks I am someone else.

Strange.

Anyway, Merry Christmas to all!

The celebration of the coming of God With Us, the Savior of the World, is a joyous time.

 

[Lon]

We can know!
We can know that Matthew says the centurion came to Jesus and spoke to Jesus.
We can know!
We can know that Luke says the centurion did not come to Jesus and did not speak to Jesus.

That is all obvious in the text. Either you recognize it or avert your eyes, refusing to read the Bible.

I see it. So? and what? I 'can' assume I don't know OR I can 'assume' it is an error. BOTH? Derivative. Deduction. Implication. Whim. Inkling of an idea. Anything else? :nono: CAN'T. It is ALL speculation. The point again: MY speculation does no damage or harm. I simply "Don't know." WAY less committed than you are!!! WAY less!

No, I hear what you are saying: you refuse to know what the Bible plainly says!

No. It is a 'deduction.' You are 'inferring it.' It is NOT found from the text. It is found precisely and only in your head. Between us? The SAME exact scriptures. There is nothing but inference from there. Nothing. Not there.

"Ah Ha! A mistake!" -that's ONE inference. Just one of them. Necessarily? :nono: It is but one place your mind can go. Me? Leave it. I CANNOT answer. I can make inference, just like you. I PREFER to give the benefit of doubt.

We are all in God’s hands.

Hebrews 10:31 :think: I hope you don't think that verse is a mistake (And I wish you knew and used the scriptures in your normal conversation about God ).

And you are rejecting what the Bible plainly states.

Nope. I'm rejecting your inference. The one that comes out of your head. It is ONE of several inferences. I believe, the default, is to believe all things and NOT entertain accusation.

Again, at LEAST you know why someone is[are] seeing you as a minion for questioning God. It may be true (no idea what transpired in the gospel thread).

 

[2003cobra]

I see it. So? and what? I 'can' assume I don't know OR I can 'assume' it is an error. BOTH? Derivative. Deduction. Implication. Whim. Inkling of an idea. Anything else? :nono: CAN'T. It is ALL speculation. The point again: MY speculation does no damage or harm. I simply "Don't know." WAY less committed than you are!!! WAY less!

So when the Bible clearly says anything you agree with, it is “absolute gospel truth,” and
when one part of the Bible clearly contradicts another part, “we can’t know.”

You know that is a hypocritical position, don’t you?

No. It is a 'deduction.' You are 'inferring it.' It is NOT found from the text. It is found precisely and only in your head. Between us? The SAME exact scriptures. There is nothing but inference from there. Nothing. Not there.

I am not ‘inferring’ that Matthew says clearly that the centurion came to Jesus and spoke to Jesus.
I am not ‘inferring’ that Luke says clearly that the centurion did not come to Jesus and did not speak to Jesus.
These are clear statements. No inferring is necessary. They contradict.
Pretending they don’t is dishonesty.

Hebrews 10:31 :think: I hope you don't think that verse is a mistake (And I wish you knew and used the scriptures in your normal conversation about God ).

I don’t think it is a mistake either.
And you have been warned that being dishonest about what the scriptures say, and turning a man-made doctrine not found in scripture into a core doctrine can cause the immature to stumble — something Jesus said has a fate worst than drowning in the sea with a heavy weight.

Matthew 18 6 “If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling block comes!

The doctrine of inerrancy is a stumbling block. It is not a teaching of scripture. The scriptures show it is not true.

Again, at LEAST you know why someone is[are] seeing you as a minion for questioning God.

I didn’t question God.

God didn’t make up that false doctrine of inerrancy.

Don’t pretend your false doctrine come from God.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

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:

Not sure who you're addressing there but you say:

"discrepancy does not mean error, but rather 'something different, often with a genuine purpose and accuracy.'"

Dictionary says:

discrepancy
noun
an illogical or surprising lack of compatibility or similarity between two or more facts.

 

[Lon]

So when the Bible clearly says anything you agree with, it is “absolute gospel truth,” and
when one part of the Bible clearly contradicts another part, “we can’t know.”

You know that is a hypocritical position, don’t you?

Nope. You, yourself, had said 'errors' were over things that "don't matter."

Nice try, you are just trying to win an argument now, not being logically or reasonably consistent. Remember 'parlor tricks?' This would be one of them. It isn't a consistent or worthy argument. It is posturing.

I am not ‘inferring’ that Matthew says clearly that the centurion came to Jesus and spoke to Jesus.
I am not ‘inferring’ that Luke says clearly that the centurion did not come to Jesus and did not speak to Jesus.
These are clear statements. No inferring is necessary. They contradict.
Pretending they don’t is dishonesty.

I don't pretend. You and I but surmise 'what this means.' Yours? An educated (or uneducated) guess. I CANNOT build my theology off a guess. A whim. A pretense.

I don’t think it is a mistake either.
And you have been warned that being dishonest about what the scriptures say, and turning a man-made doctrine not found in scripture into a core doctrine can cause the immature to stumble — something Jesus said has a fate worst than drowning in the sea with a heavy weight.

Matthew 18 6 “If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling block comes!

The doctrine of inerrancy is a stumbling block.

There then. You think all inerrantists are minions of satan too then. So much for quoting Wallace. It has become a VERY large and damnable heresy debate. Good job. Stop quoting Wallace, you don't believe him either.

It is not a teaching of scripture. The scriptures show it is not true.

Assessment on your part. Deduction. YOUR conclusion. Its all there is. Smoke and mirrors. An inkling of 'wrong.' I don't have to, by any necessity, entertain it. Telling someone "I don't know" OR 'perhaps they reconcile' OR 'perhaps a translation problem' isn't committing myself. You, conversely, are committed...to ONE assumption . Further? Your assumption is doesn't give the benefit of doubt. It assumes a wrong and accuses of it. What if you are wrong? If I'm wrong? No damage.

I didn’t question God.

Different presuppositions. I see the words as His, therefore see you as questioning Him.

God didn’t make up that false doctrine of inerrancy.

See, I think He did. A jot and a tittle are significant. Worse? Even you admit that Revelation is without error, at least.
That said, we both agree with inerrancy, but are rather disagreeing on the scope of that inerrancy.

Don’t pretend your false doctrine come from God.

"Pretend?" You don't believe I'm fully convinced? :think: Do you think I'm not authentic in my conviction?

You at LEAST believe Revelation (perhaps a few other books?) are perfect, yes? It can't be false if you believe in it to. Rather your contention is more particular than the broad brush-stroke, correct?

 

[Lon]

Not sure who you're addressing there but you say:

"discrepancy does not mean error, but rather 'something different, often with a genuine purpose and accuracy.'"

Dictionary says:

discrepancy
noun
an illogical or surprising lack of compatibility or similarity between two or more facts.

If you are hung up on the word, simply change it to 'difference' which is the full scope of my 'discrepancy' meaning, (rather the 'or divergence' was in mind) and, I believe, well within the parameter of its usage ("or" being operative). That said, I think I agree 'discrepancy' is too vague because of the further implication of error allowed with "or." I'm not meaning that so would 'difference' or divergence serve better? My use was merely to acquiesce the accounts are not quotes from one another. Thanks. -Lon

 

[2003cobra]

Lon misrepresents with:
Nope. You, yourself, had said 'errors' were over things that "don't matter."

As I wrote many times before, the errors don’t matter for the good news of Jesus Christ.

The errors matter greatly for the doctrine of inerrancy: the errors prove it is a false doctrine.

So your misrepresentation fails.

You wrote:
It has become a VERY large and damnable heresy debate.

How can you declare either position heresy when the scriptures never mention inerrancy and never teach it?

Who gave you the authority to claim any position on a topic never mentioned in scripture could be heretical? No one.

Even you admit that Revelation is without error, at least.

You know I never wrote that.

Is you case so weak that you must misstate my position repeatedly?

I wrote that I know of no errors in Revelation. Given your earlier claims to intelligence (when you wrote: You can't think out of a paper bag and assume everybody else is just as bad. Be truthful, C's and C- in school, right? It shows...You can go sit in the back of the class now and put your head down in shame for your disobedience...You are too thick to be taught...Were you raised in a one room school house where they had to pass you because you were all below par?...I'm smarter than you...you are not intelligent enough to talk to me.), you should know the difference between:
1) I know of no errors in that document
AND
2) That document is inerrant.

You wrote:
Do you think I'm not authentic in my conviction?

Given that you misrepresented my views at least twice in that one post, your authenticity is below questionable.

You wrote:
You at LEAST believe Revelation (perhaps a few other books?) are perfect, yes?

Why would you think I believe anything written by imperfect people is perfect?
A shopping list could be perfect, but I can’t declare it perfect because I don’t have all the information needed to declare perfection.
On the other hand, two documents telling the same story but contradicting each other cannot both be inerrant. That is the case with Matthew and Luke in the case of the centurion. That is one of several errors that your dedication to the man-made doctrine of inerrancy forces you to pretend do not exist.