Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[Lon]

Telling him the Bible is error free when there are obvious errors is not going to help you spread the gospel.

Oh, I'm addressing him in another thread so don't worry about me. This is your opportunity to tell him how in the world there can be errors, yet a 'reliably' historic Jesus. See, he takes YOUR thoughts to HIS logical conclusion over the matter. What you do by degrees, he does the whole nine yards and imho, you've nothing to stop him from it. THAT is what I'm waiting to see explained. You can chat a bit with me in between, but I'm mostly watching to see how this specifically plays out. Including me in it, imho, will only be a distraction. You've said you nor I have to convince him BUT, and to me, ODDLY, you feel an INCREDIBLE compulsion to try and convince me that the scriptures have errors.

 

[2003cobra]

Don't talk to me, talk to Zeke about it. There is no advice I'd take from you, just waiting to see where you go. I too believe Jesus Sovereign. You can't think we'd disagree on every single thing. I don't really need anything from you in my theology so am really not open to your input here. We disagree. Where we might agree is incidental. The disagreement is the thing. I DO believe errant scriptures leads to a liberal unchristian theology. I've seen it. Already told you that. This isn't about me. Convince Zeke that these 'errant' scriptures aren't AS errant as he thinks they are. :think: :sigh:

Why would you think the focus of my discussions with an unbeliever should be about inerrancy? That is only a discussion for believers who have been taught the false doctrine.

We are called to share the gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ, not man-made myths about documents that are clearly wrong from the documents themselves.

 

[2003cobra]

Oh, I'm addressing him in another thread so don't worry about me. This is your opportunity to tell him how in the world there can be errors, yet a 'reliably' historic Jesus. See, he takes YOUR thoughts to HIS logical conclusion over the matter. What you do by degrees, he does the whole nine yards and imho, you've nothing to stop him from it. THAT is what I'm waiting to see explained. You can chat a bit with me in between, but I'm mostly watching to see how this specifically plays out. Including me in it, imho, will only be a distraction. You've said you nor I have to convince him BUT, and to me, ODDLY, you feel an INCREDIBLE compulsion to try and convince me that the scriptures have errors.

Yes, I would like for you to stop misleading people, setting them up for a fall with the false doctrine of inerrancy.

If no progress is made with you, perhaps others will benefit.

I would like Zeke to know that buying in to the obviously unjustifiable doctrine of inerrancy is not a requirement of following Jesus Christ.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

This is really the larger part of the intended conversation with you. Again, apology for missing a couple of quotes TO Cobra in there. He got most of it, but my post to you was more about Zeke's statement earlier this and last year, that the Lord Jesus Christ wasn't a person but an 'ideal' and such. In the thread he started "You are Divine and your own healer" the sentiment is Jesus was a nice guy to follow, but you don't need Him, you need his message and are good to go once you've married Christianity to Eastern Buddhism and mysticism. He is certainly welcome to correct me wherever I've not accurately portrayed him, but I think I've represented him and his beliefs fairly well.

Can you pull up the actual quote where he stated Jesus was not a person?

Like I said, I haven't seen it.

I've seen a lot of sentimental half truths presented on this site, what makes his different?

 

[2003cobra]

It's amazing how your kind just will not let up, especially when someone tries to cut themselves loose from your rantings: you then immediately start making things up and casting accusations just so as to force them to respond to you because you simply cannot handle being ignored. It is troll-like behavior: your reflex, when having been backed into a corner like a cobra, is to strike out and try to make people angry when you cannot get them to agree with your opinions, and what is that? apparently you chose to glory in that instead since you cannot actually prove that what you say is true. I already explained my position on the previous page, which you also responded to, and rather than offer a rebuttal, since you had none, you began tossing out lies about what I have "confirmed" in what I believe about the scriptures. I never confirmed any such things because I showed you why your own position is in error; and you had no rebuttal, not even a response except for the accusation. Then you decided to try to change the subject, going back to the centurion, again, because you obviously have no rebuttal for my position which has been clearly laid out for you. The onus is upon you to prove by the scripture why your position is correct and mine is in error before you start spewing lies. Can you not see that your accusation can only be correct if you first prove your position to be true and then after that I reject the truth? Again, you have not proven anything, so your accusation holds no water because Matthew and the other Gospel accounts do not contradict and neither can you prove it to be so.

Sorry, I must have misread your post.

I take this to mean you still haven’t decided whether Jesus told them to find and bring two animals or one.

If you figure it out, let me know.

Either way, the error stands. At least one gospel is misquoting Jesus.

 

[2003cobra]

Neither are you, you were born with that same light/Father that is portrayed speaking through him, plus the term death and resurrection is something that is symbolic and perverted by Romanism that welded the sword against those who knew better than to believe in a literal sacrifice of a man, if one wants to cry paganism the place to start would be how did such a doctrine get introduced as being from our Father who is perfect and judges no man which kinda puts a reality check on whole the theory concerning salvation.

Better to follow the Father in you like he did, the crucifixion is the spiritual seed that must die before it can awake first the natural man then the rebirth as an Quickening Spirit that happens within the heart/soul and produces its Eternal fruit 2Cor3:6 that's the correct interpretation and you don't have try and rationalize the Bible stories interpreted through a carnal mind as literal secular history, that view is promoting a dual minded god which is what religions do by the carrot/reward and stick/punishment from believing and partaking of good and evil that's keeps you in slavery Galatians 4:1, that's why interpretation is the real elephant in the traditionalist temples made withhands.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred, and that is why we know His name today.

That historical event changed a few disciples into people who changed the world.

 

[Lon]

Why would you think the focus of my discussions with an unbeliever should be about inerrancy? That is only a discussion for believers who have been taught the false doctrine.

:chuckle: Let's see with imperfect scriptures in your hands, what you can do in a conversation with Zeke. You can convince him of nothing?
How would you even begin? He agrees, the scriptures are not perfect.

We are called to share the gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ, not man-made myths about documents that are clearly wrong from the documents themselves.

Right. He is trying to convince YOU about good news. I'm just watching you two talk to each other. It fascinates me and is a study on errancy, truly. Well worth watching and reading... :think:

 

[Lon]

Can you pull up the actual quote where he stated Jesus was not a person?

Like I said, I haven't seen it.

I've seen a lot of sentimental half truths presented on this site, what makes his different?

Just ask him, or read along.... It is commencing now. We can watch together where it goes, or I'll watch you ask a couple of questions in there somewhere too

 

[Lon]

Yes, I would like for you to stop misleading people, setting them up for a fall with the false doctrine of inerrancy.

Not going to happen. You might want a website of your own. It is a pie-in-the-sky pipe-dream. I'm completely resolved to the default Christian position of trusting God. You'll have to find acquiescences someplace else OR play Holy Spirit and take this all out of His hands. Sans that, I'm not going to ever budge. Worse? I think anyone following along will be convinced by me, not you. I think you've lost a few posts ago and even further back. Just my assessment, means nothing. People can read if they like. I'd be surprised if we get much readership.
I'm not really interested in your and my conversation any more. It is a done deal.

If no progress is made with you, perhaps others will benefit.

See, I'm not THIS arrogant. A very few might ever read us. The ones reading along now? All but 3 agree with me.

I would like Zeke to know that buying in to the obviously unjustifiable doctrine of inerrancy is not a requirement of following Jesus Christ.

Oh, he is ALREADY in your park. MORESO even. He thinks they don't convey well and are wrong already! I wanted to see where you went with that. It really is a good study in degrees of error talking to one another, at least it has potential for such a study. I cannot imagine how you are going to get him to listen to erroneous scriptures you both have. I really can't. I'm watching. It is like watching a train-wreck. I can't look away. -Lon

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Just ask him, or read along.... It is commencing now. We can watch together where it goes, or I'll watch you ask a couple of questions in there somewhere too

I'll admit it's gettin' interestin' but I got bath water goin' cold.

Be back later.

 

[daqq]

Sorry, I must have misread your post.

I take this to mean you still haven’t decided whether Jesus told them to find and bring two animals or one.

If you figure it out, let me know.

Either way, the error stands. At least one gospel is misquoting Jesus.

Lol, classic denial of the truth staring you right in the face, pure and simple, and the very reason why forums such as this have threads that go on for hundreds of pages until someone starts a new thread on the same topic and the process begins all over again. I'm not interested, you had your chance, and you have denied the truth, and you openly deny the words of the Messiah in the text of Matthew 21, plain and simple.

 

[Lon]

I got it the hard way.
Experience.... bumps, bruises and hurt pride.

Sorry Lon but the price of eye salve is humility.

What I 'meant' to say to you was that I agree, if you think about it, you did too. A gym is a better place to learning fighting, a karate school is a better place to learn. Both, the instructor teaches us more quickly what works and the salve is WAY less. Ice and aspirin? Perhaps about the same, but that headgear works! Not only that, if we learn, we get hit a LOT less. And I about guarantee this: If I were going to raise horses, I'd do WAY better going to school than trying to bump and bruise my way. SO WOULD THE HORSES!!! (that's what I meant for you, again apology for missing a quote in the former, though I'm sure I'm apologized up enough with you at this point). -Lon

 

[Zeke]

Don't talk to me, talk to Zeke about it. There is no advice I'd take from you, just waiting to see where you go. I too believe Jesus Sovereign. You can't think we'd disagree on every single thing. I don't really need anything from you in my theology so am really not open to your input here. We disagree. Where we might agree is incidental. The disagreement is the thing. I DO believe errant scriptures leads to a liberal unchristian theology. I've seen it. Already told you that. This isn't about me. Convince Zeke that these 'errant' scriptures aren't AS errant as he thinks they are. :think: :sigh:

Your interpretation of the letter is my beef, it's the traditional dogma being demanded by you that needs disputed, not some missing genealogy in the symbology mistaken for history, of coarse you don't want to face the ludacris theology Rome hoodwinked you with, you want to hide behind a worldy degree with a religious label, its still just an educated mind taught dualities finer points on judging by appearance.

 

[Zeke]

The resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred, and that is why we know His name today.

That historical event changed a few disciples into people who changed the world.

OK that's tradition speaking so we will disagree on that belief, Adios.

 

[daqq]

OK that's tradition speaking so we will disagree on that belief, Adios.

:rotfl: So much for that little pow-wow. :chuckle:

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I think it helps having an idea of the cause of Matthew’s revision, the misreading Of Zech 9.9 by the writers of Matthew.

Also, there is no reason in the text to assume that Matthew himself wrote the gospel named after him. It is more likely that his students compiled his teachings.

John is the only gospel that claims to be written by an eyewitness. And Luke says he investigated and interviewed eyewitnesses. So those facts should be considered as you make your assessment.

It is a pleasure corresponding with you.

Yes I have considered those facts and to my mind it would seem more reasonable that Jesus sat on a single colt rather than awkwardly perching on two donkeys (I wonder how practical and possible that is, I've never seen anyone try) but I try to believe what is written rather than what I think and Mathew's account is the most detailed which seems to match Zechariah's vision of two donkeys.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

You really show some ignorance both of Paul's writings and the OT. Paul quoted freely, and paraphrased, from the OT all throughout his writings. His doctrinal postions all come from the OT. And his understanding of the Messiah comes from the OT too. Take a look at the Greek and see how many times he used the concept of ransom or purchasing in relation to our redemption. That comes directly from the concept of ga'al, which the book of Ruth is based upon. Every Bible writer used that concept. It is all throughout both the OT and NT. Jesus even used it.

I agree Paul upheld most of the OT books but which books exactly we are not sure, the OT of Paul's time is not the same set of books of your NKJV etc. And again the NT was not even a concept in Paul's time. It is you who seems ignorant of the actual facts of this situation.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Why anyone continues to engage this odd duck is bewildering. He needs to first come to grips with some of the essentials of the faith before waxing eloquent about the special revelation of that faith:
http://theologyonline.com/poll.php?pollid=1395&do=showresults

AMR

Why can't you debate this topic? I am asking 'Ask Mr Religion' in the hope I get an answer.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

If you are going to speak of testimony like in a court of law then why do you not think accordingly throughout? As someone else has already said, (I think Lon), "innocent until proven guilty", and moreover, "give the benefit of the doubt", lest you end up making false accusations against the scripture, (I suppose for some it is too late but hopefully they did it in ignorance). Just because the other authors only mention one donkey does not mean there cannot have been two, and that does not make their testimony weak: for Matthew is the only account that quotes Zec 9:9, so it is only logical that Matthew would give more details, and the others might only mention what they felt was necessary for their respective accounts. If I sat down for a principal meal with Moses and Paul, and Moses said to me, "You shall not muzzle the ox while he treads the corn", and Paul confirmed, saying to me, "So that the one who plows should plow in hope: and that the one who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope." Are you therefore going to call me a liar if I tell you this saying with its meaning but only mention that I was having dinner with Moses when I learned it? So Paul shows up and says, "Yep, I was there", and you therefore call me a liar? :chuckle:

Not sure what you're trying to convince me of but to my mind it would seem more reasonable that Jesus sat on a single colt rather than awkwardly perching on two donkeys (I wonder how practical and possible that is, I've never seen anyone try) but I try to believe what is written rather than what I think and Mathew's account is the most detailed which seems to match Zechariah's vision of two donkeys.

 

[daqq]

Not sure what you're trying to convince me of but to my mind it would seem more reasonable that Jesus sat on a single colt rather than awkwardly perching on two donkeys (I wonder how practical and possible that is, I've never seen anyone try) but I try to believe what is written rather than what I think and Mathew's account is the most detailed which seems to match Zechariah's vision of two donkeys.

2022-2029 . . . :chuckle: