Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[daqq]

Yes, you did say that.

- December 25th, 2017 09:29 AMReport

Merry Christmas to you too Patrick.
@daqq - Cobra has already been soundly refuted but wants to pretend the scripture does not teach what it teaches so that he may continue with the most important thing in his mind, which is, according to his own mindset, that the scripture is full of contradictions and blatant errors. You can prove him wrong up one side and down the other and he will not hear you: for if he truly "hears", then his whole point for being here is nullified and he himself is the one who is in error. Moreover, in order to prove a single accusation to be wrong, it takes ten times as much work as it took the accuser to make the accusation. Thus I would necessarily need to essentially take over that thread to engage him there, (so instead I proved him wrong here, lol, but one must follow the whole thread to truly see it). ​

Well, doggonit Patrick, yes, but now you have given away the answer by giving him that link! :chuckle:

 

[Lon]

Lon asks about the Words of Life.

You missed a " :doh: " in there somewhere....

I never claimed the scripture is full of contradictions.

:doh: "...for my next trick, yet another contradiction..." How many of them are there? :think:

So whoever claimed that has chosen to bear false witness.

Whoever shares in doing that participates in the sin.

Not when such is a matter of degrees. You do have a penchant for overblowing the 'inconsequential.'

As long as 'next' is in your parlor trick repertoire, 'full' will be the impression and expectation ("He's got a trunk FULL of 'em, folks!").

"...and for my NEXT trick, I'd like to compare...." :think:

 

[Gary K]

Lon asks about the Words of Life


The words of life, the Message of God to mankind, are found in the preaching and teaching of His people. They are also found in the scriptures, which are records of the preaching and teaching and events of the early church.

The claim that every word in the Bible is the Word of God is a claim not made in scripture. It is a man-made claim. The Bible never claims to be, in its entirety, the Word of God.

You have heard and repeated the falsehoods so long, and have invested so much of your time and efforts in dedication to these false ideas, that you seem incapable of recognizing the obvious truths — just as you refuse to see the errors that are obvious in the text.

Hmmm.... Scripture refutes you.

I Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Now just how much scripture does the word "all" omit as not being inspired of God? None. Nada. Zip. Zero. All includes all words of Scripture. All is a very powerful word. Very inclusive. All does not mean, some, most, very little, a lot, etc.... It means everything, the whole of, the entirety.

 

[George Affleck]

If you are claiming these stories describe two different historical events, I find that without credibility.

Agree. Too much similarity.

If you are claiming they are both just stories and do not reflect historical events, I find that without credibility.

Agree. History is what the synoptics are about.

If you are claiming the errors were put there as a test of our love of the Father, I find that without credibility.

Agree. God is not in the business of telling falsehoods.

If you would like to claim the errors are there so we will not embrace the false doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, I will consider that.

Well, 3 out of 4 ain't bad!

 

[Lon]

Agree. Too much similarity.

Doesn't matter. Both answers are 'not indicative of error by ANY necessity.'

I'm just trying to say, consistently, there should be no disregard of evidence or example. Coincidence doesn't mean 'same.'
James Cameron uncovered the 'tomb of Jesus' based off of 'coincidence.' Coincidence neither confirms or retracts. It just is. No amount of denial or presentation (against OR for) of coincidence, helps much. It is called circumstantial evidence. Helpful? Only in fact finding. Forensics are much better but we have none of that. Coincidence is insufficient for dismissal out of mind OR proof of error, thus, imho, to be consistent, one does not accuse of error nor dismiss possibility. Likely? I'd suggest such is granted, but not ruled out or in. IOW, I disagree here on the same grounds I disagree with Cobra: We cannot know and importantly, cannot carry out sentence. We can only indicate where we may lean based on impression, not information not given (except where such actually is available). So to say it cannot be two stories? I don't believe we can. I may agree it 'looks' too convenient, but I nor you can discount the idea. Daqq is correct, there are other times such did happen. You have a good mind so I'm simply trying to point to something to be grasped. In Him -Lon

Well, 3 out of 4 ain't bad!

75% is still that C and C- he's bothered about though. If 2 out of 4? Worse

(sorry Cobra, not looking good, your cognitive ability is in question)

 

[daqq]

Originally Posted by 2003cobra
If you are claiming the errors were put there as a test of our love of the Father, I find that without credibility.

Agree. God is not in the business of telling falsehoods.

I disagree with the fact that he twisted what I said, (using "if" as a qualifier to get him off the hook for making outright and blatantly false accusations). I never said nor suggested that God intentionally put errors into the text for any reason whatsoever. He interpreted my words to suit his own paradigm just as he does with the scripture. Bad form on your part for agreeing with his falsehood.

 

[George Affleck]

At last!

After reading through all the petty name calling and mud slinging someone at last addresses this most interesting discrepancy with a plausible solution, (where did you find that George if I may ask?).

Watchman,

I did some digging but did not find anything. So I did a quick study on my own. It's not that difficult given the tools that are available to us today. I also have some seminary Greek background - rudimentary at best.

I hold fast to the doctrine of inerrancy. After all, if I believe that God raised Jesus from the dead (and I do), inerrancy is a walk in the park.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Well, doggonit Patrick, yes, but now you have given away the answer by giving him that link! :chuckle:

I'm glad he did.

I missed that post and probably wouldn't have seen but for him posting it here.

 

[George Affleck]

Lon asks about the Words of Life


The words of life, the Message of God to mankind, are found in the preaching and teaching of His people. They are also found in the scriptures, which are records of the preaching and teaching and events of the early church.

The claim that every word in the Bible is the Word of God is a claim not made in scripture. It is a man-made claim. The Bible never claims to be, in its entirety, the Word of God.

You have heard and repeated the falsehoods so long, and have invested so much of your time and efforts in dedication to these false ideas, that you seem incapable of recognizing the obvious truths — just as you refuse to see the errors that are obvious in the text.

Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.

 

[2003cobra]

You missed a " :doh: " in there somewhere....


:doh: "...for my next trick, yet another contradiction..." How many of them are there? :think:


Not when such is a matter of degrees. You do have a penchant for overblowing the 'inconsequential.'

As long as 'next' is in your parlor trick repertoire, 'full' will be the impression and expectation ("He's got a trunk FULL of 'em, folks!").

"...and for my NEXT trick, I'd like to compare...." :think:

If you dismiss these obvious errors as “tricks” or “discrepancies” that you can’t admit are errors, then you have misused the education and capabilities that you have been given.

Clinging to a man-made doctrine which is disproved by an honest reading of scripture is not appropriate use of God-given talents.

 

[2003cobra]

Hmmm.... Scripture refutes you.



Now just how much scripture does the word "all" omit as not being inspired of God? None. Nada. Zip. Zero. All includes all words of Scripture. All is a very powerful word. Very inclusive. All does not mean, some, most, very little, a lot, etc.... It means everything, the whole of, the entirety.

No, only your interpretation disagrees with me.

You have an interpretation that inspiration means every word is God’s Word. That is not a teaching of scripture.

Jesus breathed on Peter and inspired him to lead the early church, yet every word out of his mouth was not God’s Word.

You have read into the passage a teaching that is not there.

Go back a verse or two and you will see that Paul was talking about the OT writings that Timothy had known from his youth.

Also, take a look at the use of all in the Bible. Try Mark 1:5
And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Were all the Jerusalem baptized, including the temple rulers?

 

[2003cobra]

Agree. Too much similarity.



Agree. History is what the synoptics are about.



Agree. God is not in the business of telling falsehoods.



Well, 3 out of 4 ain't bad!

We agree on 4 of 4.

I don’t think that is why the errors are there. I am just trying to get daqq to clarify.

Thanks again!

 

[2003cobra]

Doesn't matter. Both answers are 'not indicative of error by ANY necessity.'

I'm just trying to say, consistently, there should be no disregard of evidence or example. Coincidence doesn't mean 'same.'
James Cameron uncovered the 'tomb of Jesus' based off of 'coincidence.' Coincidence neither confirms or retracts. It just is. No amount of denial or presentation (against OR for) of coincidence, helps much. It is called circumstantial evidence. Helpful? Only in fact finding. Forensics are much better but we have none of that. Coincidence is insufficient for dismissal out of mind OR proof of error, thus, imho, to be consistent, one does not accuse of error nor dismiss possibility. Likely? I'd suggest such is granted, but not ruled out or in. IOW, I disagree here on the same grounds I disagree with Cobra: We cannot know and importantly, cannot carry out sentence. We can only indicate where we may lean based on impression, not information not given (except where such actually is available). So to say it cannot be two stories? I don't believe we can. I may agree it 'looks' too convenient, but I nor you can discount the idea. Daqq is correct, there are other times such did happen. You have a good mind so I'm simply trying to point to something to be grasped. In Him -Lon



75% is still that C and C- he's bothered about though. If 2 out of 4? Worse

(sorry Cobra, not looking good, your cognitive ability is in question)

On those 4 questions, George and I are in 100% agreement. I was just asking daqq a question.

By the way, I am carrying out sentence. I am observing that errors exist.

You are making a judgment contrary to the facts, contrary to the witnesses, contrary to what the scriptures actually say. You are the juror passing judgment based on your presuppositions, not on the facts in evidence.

 

[2003cobra]

I disagree with the fact that he twisted what I said, (using "if" as a qualifier to get him off the hook for making outright and blatantly false accusations). I never said nor suggested that God intentionally put errors into the text for any reason whatsoever. He interpreted my words to suit his own paradigm just as he does with the scripture. Bad form on your part for agreeing with his falsehood.

I made no false accusations.

I asked you for clarification.

Why do you think the errors are there?

 

[2003cobra]

Watchman,

I did some digging but did not find anything. So I did a quick study on my own. It's not that difficult given the tools that are available to us today. I also have some seminary Greek background - rudimentary at best.

I hold fast to the doctrine of inerrancy. After all, if I believe that God raised Jesus from the dead (and I do), inerrancy is a walk in the park.

I believe in the resurrection.

We have multiple witnesses that present that history.

Those same witnesses disprove the doctrine of inerrancy, because of minor, insignificant errors.

Also, the doctrine of inerrancy is not found in scripture—it seems to be a Protestant response to the Roman Catholic claim of papal infallibility.

 

[daqq]

I made no false accusations.

I asked you for clarification.

Why do you think the errors are there?

Again, not true, yet another falsification: I see no question marks at all in the set of statements which you made in your post to me, (which is the one that was reposted and which we were commenting on). You did not ask me for clarification, but you did rather clarify your own stance, just as I said. In fact you invalidated every thing I said by twisting what was said and gave me one and only one topic of discussion that you are willing to entertain.

If you are claiming these stories describe two different historical events, I find that without credibility.

If you are claiming they are both just stories and do not reflect historical events, I find that without credibility.

If you are claiming the errors were put there as a test of our love of the Father, I find that without credibility.

If you would like to claim the errors are there so we will not embrace the false doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, I will consider that.

You clarified yourself quite well, and your words even clarified to me what I already knew to be true about you: but you did not ask me for any clarification whatsoever. You slither back and forth and side-wind like a snake. I do not believe you when you say that all the errors you find in the scripture do not have any impact on your faith. You do not actually have faith in anything but your own intellect who tells you that he and you are correct and the Word is wrong.

I gave you my opinion after reading your post.

If you present credible arguments, I will listen. But you did not comment on my post in a meaningful way. So I ask specifically:

Are claiming these stories describe two different historical events?

Are claiming they are both just stories and do not reflect historical events?

Are claiming the errors were put there as a test of our love of the Father?

Are you claiming the errors are there so we will not embrace the false doctrine of Biblical inerrancy?

I would appreciate your clear answers.

Also, where are we called to have faith in the man-made doctrine of inerrancy? Not in the scriptures.

You are playing some sort of shell game with words and I already know that clarifying anything to you is a worthless endeavor. The only thing you actually asked me was the same one and only thing you said you were willing to discuss:

"Are you claiming the errors are there so we will not embrace the false doctrine of Biblical inerrancy?"

I never said anything about errors being there: I spoke of "apparent surface errors" and made it clear that they may be apparent on the surface but can be resolved with deeper study, just as others have likewise been trying to tell you. The so-called errors only persist and remain for people like you who read and hear only what they want to read and hear.

 

[2003cobra]

Daqq,
I said I would appreciate your clear answers. That is a request for clarification.

In my first post to you on the topic, I said “if you are saying...” That is not an accusation.

When you did not provide clear answers, I asked you straight out if you were saying those things.

There was never an accusation.

I would have preferred that you understood.

Is English your first language?

I would still appreciate your clear answers to the question.

As for this:
You do not actually have faith in anything but your own intellect...

Now, that is an accusation, and a false one.
I have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His offer of salvation. I follow Him.

I do not have faith in the man-made tradition of inerrancy.

Please clarify your position. Thanks.

 

[2003cobra]

Agree. Too much similarity.



Agree. History is what the synoptics are about.



Agree. God is not in the business of telling falsehoods.



Well, 3 out of 4 ain't bad!

George,
It would have been nice if you were more involved in the earlier errors we discussed.

In particular, the error in what Jesus said to the Apostles that he sent to fetch an animal or two animals for the triumphal entry. At least one of the gospels misquoted Jesus.

 

[daqq]

Daqq,
I said I would appreciate your clear answers. That is a request for clarification.

In my first post to you on the topic, I said “if you are saying...” That is not an accusation.

That is another falsification. I clearly said this:

I disagree with the fact that he twisted what I said, (using "if" as a qualifier to get him off the hook for making outright and blatantly false accusations). I never said nor suggested that God intentionally put errors into the text for any reason whatsoever. He interpreted my words to suit his own paradigm just as he does with the scripture. Bad form on your part for agreeing with his falsehood.

You have twisted what I said once again. :chuckle:

When you did not provide clear answers, I asked you straight out if you were saying those things.

There was never an accusation.

I would have preferred that you understood.

Is English your first language?

Perhaps I should be asking you if English is your first language?

I would still appreciate your clear answers to the question.

As for this:
You do not actually have faith in anything but your own intellect...

Now, that is an accusation, and a false one.
I have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His offer of salvation. I follow Him.

I do not believe you because of what comes forth from your mouth, (Mat 15:18-20). And the truth is not an accusation: it simply is what it is, and you have already proven by what comes forth from your mouth that what I say is true, (for the tree is known by its fruit, Mat 12:33).

I do not have faith in the man-made tradition of inerrancy.

That says nothing about whether you actually have faith in the Messiah or not. If you do not believe his Testimony then you do not have faith in him. If you do not believe the testimony of his apostles and the authors of the Apostolic writings then you do not believe the Word.

Please clarify your position. Thanks.

My position should be clear enough to you by now but you chose not to believe what I said when I set forth my position: not only the time just before all of this here and now but also concerning the generations, wherein I quoted much scripture, and you said my post was "nonsense" because you do not wish to allow the Testimony of the Messiah and the scripture therein to shape and mold your position. You were given everything you need in that post to be able to go and search out what I said on your own, and if indeed you had done so, you might have understood why those things are true by now: but as has already been shown and proven time and again, you do not care about actually finding the truth and resolving what you perceive as errors because that would mean that you have been wrong in this thread and in your own failed paradigm. That alone proves that your intellect is essentially your messiah, leader, and authority: the master of your house while the real HouseMaster is as if "away in a far journey", (lol).

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I think Matthew is very clear the centurion came and spoke to Jesus, and Luke is very clear the centurion did not come to Jesus.

I find the error evident.

Luke wrote later and told us he investigated and interviewed eyewitnesses. I think there was a little exaggeration by the time Luke heard the story.

As we have already agreed things like this occur all the time with witness statements, especially if they are second or third hand. As said this shows a lack of collusion. We simply cant say exactly what happened other than something like this event/events occurred.