Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

WatchmanOnTheWall

Well-known member
Now you do worse by implying that the words in Matthew are "not the real words of the Savior".
Perhaps it is you who has not thought this through before leveling your false charges.



Ah yes, Captain Ego rears his head once again. First you actually need to prove that your accusation against Matthew is true, Captain Ego, but you have had your chance and have already failed miserably over a stretch of many pages herein.

daqq, can't you see/be honest that cobra is saying it is the writer who has made the mistake in misquoting Jesus and not Jesus!!


You said this for example: " You are indeed saying that Jesus did not say those words which means that you are indeed saying that those words of the Master are not true" This make no sense!!

You can't have it both ways, either Matthew was right or Mark was right (for example). Humans make mistakes , that is a simple fact of life.
 

WatchmanOnTheWall

Well-known member
He tells them to bring both in Matthew just as Matthew states/implies.
And now to you, firstly, you have admitted my understanding of Mat 21:7:







But you say that Matthew is in error because of your understanding of Zec 9:9, (which I have highlighted with bold red in the second quote from above herein, "The writers of Matthew, mostly likely the Apostle Matthew’s students, wrote the version with two animals", "The writers misread Zech 9.9 and revised the story to match the prophecy. They made an error, and we still have the error in the text"). However you have not proven that Matthew is in error just because he notes that it was actually two donkeys that were brought, (which I have now explained in my commentary at the end of the post immediately above).

Moreover you have made your position clear in the following posts:



It is agreed that the Master only sat upon one donkey, that is, the colt or foal, the son of the mother she-donkey: but again that does not prove anything because Matthew is expounding that the mother of the colt was either along side it or walking in front of it. The Matthew text does not mean that the Master rode upon both of them, and no one says that he did in any of the other texts: therefore they all agree that the Master rode upon the colt, but the other accounts simply do not mention the mother she-donkey being present. You have not proven anything: just because they did not mention the fact that the mother donkey was present does not mean it is not true. Neither does it discount or contradict what Matthew says.



Definitive version or not, Matthew does not contradict it but rather supplements the fact that the mother donkey was brought along side the colt: that fact is logically acceptable because the colt had never been ridden. If you cannot see it now I will try to come back to the translation from this author, whom you yourself chose to quote, and I will use his translation, (your very own choice, unless you have another), and with the Matthew passage and the other passages it can be shown that they do not contradict. The truth appears to be that Matthew simply expounded on the passage, and you have taken issue with that because you cannot imagine that the mother donkey would need to be present, even if merely for the fact that the young colt had never been sat upon or ridden by anyone. You do not take a young donkey colt or foal away from its mother, saddle it with garments, and then try to ride it for the first time in its life, (since you want to see all these things as natural and physical). It is you who have not thought this through:

1) she-donkey - "accustomed to the yoke" - Jerusalem (mother-covenant)
2) colt or foal - "son of the she-donkey" - "son of Zion" (Lam 4:2, 7) - the Groom

So the Master rides upon the colt, the son of the she-donkey, and the she-donkey represents the mother-covenant, which walks along either in front of the colt or beside it as they enter into Jerusalem. The colt, (upon which no man ever sat), represents the Groom, the son of Zion, (Lam 4:2, and her Nazarites are purer than snow, Lam 4:7), and that implies that the colt itself represents the Messiah, the Groom, the King, (Zec 9:9), coming to meet his bride, (the daughter of Zion), with his mother-covenant, (the she-donkey), walking along in front or beside. It is a perfect allegory-analogy for the covenants when you take into account all of the other things that have been posted herein, (especially the statements from the Last Supper).


The only problem is:

Berean Study Bible
They brought the donkey and the colt and laid their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them.



http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/21-7.htm
 

WatchmanOnTheWall

Well-known member
I don't think he was calling you an it, Lon.

At worst he was calling Jesus an it.

Seems from yer point a view Jesus himself did the same thing when he admonished Martha for snivelin' 'bout Mary sittin' at His feet.

New International Version
42but few things are needed-or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her."

things, one, what & it = teaching.
 

WatchmanOnTheWall

Well-known member
2022-2029 . . . :chuckle:

I find that when someone knows they have lost an argument and rather than thanking others for their gain in learning something new, at he expense of loosing face, they will side track and try to divert attention away from their 'defeat'

This is what you are now doing.
 

daqq

Well-known member
You can't have it both ways, either Matthew was right or Mark was right (for example).

If you had to pay a hefty filing fee to submit a court case would you pay a thousand dollars to file the case and then show up before the Judge naked as a jailbird with no evidence and nothing else but your privately held opinion?

Case dismissed: no evidence.
Refile fee: Your Soul. :chuckle:
 

daqq

Well-known member
I find that when someone knows they have lost an argument and rather than thanking others for their gain in learning something new, at he expense of loosing face, they will side track and try to divert attention away from their 'defeat'

This is what you are now doing.

Ah yes, of course, you defeat your perceived opponents and enemies with nothing more than your opinion and a prophecy that Jesus will return in 2029! Everyone who disagrees better hide themselves in the caves, and in the rocks, and cry for the mountains to fall upon them and hide them from your wrath! Who can make war with you?! :crackup:

Case dismissed: no evidence.
Refile fee: Your Soul. :chuckle:
 

WatchmanOnTheWall

Well-known member
If you had to pay a hefty filing fee to submit a court case would you pay a thousand dollars to file the case and then show up before the Judge naked as a jailbird with no evidence and nothing else but your privately held opinion?

Case dismissed: no evidence.
Refile fee: Your Soul. :chuckle:

The reason why you keep side stepping and dealing in analogies rather than the source material and facts of the situation only makes you look like someone avoiding admitting that you were wrong.
 

WatchmanOnTheWall

Well-known member
Ah yes, of course, you defeat your perceived opponents and enemies with nothing more than your opinion and a prophecy that Jesus will return in 2029! Everyone who disagrees better hide themselves in the caves, and in the rocks, and cry for the mountains to fall upon them and hide them from your wrath! Who can make war with you?! :crackup:

Case dismissed: no evidence.
Refile fee: Your Soul. :chuckle:

Now your developing a silly catch phase in an vain attempt to dismiss the facts:


Berean Study Bible
They brought the donkey and the colt and laid their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them.


http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/21-7.htm

Not my opinion, just what is written.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Why can't you debate this topic? I am asking 'Ask Mr Religion' in the hope I get an answer.
There is nothing to "debate" as the word implies the one advocating the affirmative actually has made a case. He, unsure even about the teachings of the Trinity in Scripture, has not made a case that is actually debatable. If he cannot come to grips with the essentials of the faith, why bother with things at the periphery?

Too much of what passes for "debate" is nothing more than cavils by those seeking to be seen that degenerate into embarrassing error that brings scandal upon that which we hold dear as the hearer is led into error by the "debater's" own error. Every disagreement is not a call to debate, so also be a good steward of your gifts and time granted by God—not everyone deserves it and you are not obligated to give it unworthily (Romans 12:6-8, Ephesians 5:15-17; Psalm 90:12; Isaiah 49:4).

Lest anyone think I am opposed to actual debate, perhaps this will settle the matter:
debates are a duty.

AMR has now answered you. Go in peace.

AMR
 

2003cobra

New member
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.
Intellect.gif

How do you know there was a ‘reliably’ historic George Washington?
 

2003cobra

New member
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.

If you openly embrace as accurate the words of the Master as recorded in Matthew 21, with his command to the disciples to find and bring 2 animals, then you openly deny the words of the Master from the same event in Mark and Luke.

So you deny two, I deny one.
 

2003cobra

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

Do you consider yourself a prophet, daqq?

Are you prophesying that the Holy Spirit cannot use an honest presentment of the gospel unless you see immediate results?

Oh ye of little faith.
 

2003cobra

New member
daqq, can't you see/be honest that cobra is saying it is the writer who has made the mistake in misquoting Jesus and not Jesus!!


You said this for example: " You are indeed saying that Jesus did not say those words which means that you are indeed saying that those words of the Master are not true" This make no sense!!

You can't have it both ways, either Matthew was right or Mark was right (for example). Humans make mistakes , that is a simple fact of life.
Well said!
 

2003cobra

New member
If you had to pay a hefty filing fee to submit a court case would you pay a thousand dollars to file the case and then show up before the Judge naked as a jailbird with no evidence and nothing else but your privately held opinion?

Case dismissed: no evidence.
Refile fee: Your Soul. :chuckle:

There certainly is evidence, and recognizing errors in the Bible or not has nothing to do with a person’s soul.

To imply a position on this has an impact on salvation is inappropriate.
 

2003cobra

New member
There is nothing to "debate" as the word implies the one advocating the affirmative actually has made a case. He, unsure even about the teachings of the Trinity in Scripture, has not made a case that is actually debatable. If he cannot come to grips with the essentials of the faith, why bother with things at the periphery?

Too much of what passes for "debate" is nothing more than cavils by those seeking to be seen that degenerate into embarrassing error that brings scandal upon that which we hold dear as the hearer is led into error by the "debater's" own error. Every disagreement is not a call to debate, so also be a good steward of your gifts and time granted by God—not everyone deserves it and you are not obligated to give it unworthily (Romans 12:6-8, Ephesians 5:15-17; Psalm 90:12; Isaiah 49:4).

Lest anyone think I am opposed to actual debate, perhaps this will settle the matter:
debates are a duty.

AMR has now answered you. Go in peace.

AMR

Once again, you show you have no answers — other than “change the subject quickly!”
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
If you are quoting Jesus’ instructions to the disciples, the differences between Matthew and Mark/Luke are more than Snickers and toothpicks.

The error I am pointing out are the Words of God: what did God Incarnate, Jesus Christ, say?

It's very simple, in my opinion.

He told them to go and bring both animals. Matthew, however, only tells us that He requested the colt. His omission of the the other animal does not make what he records wrong; only incomplete.

In Matt 9:18KJV ff Matthew condenses the episode about Jairus' daughter and then again about the woman with the issue of blood.
Luke gives a lot more detail Luke 8:41KJV ff but we do not suggest there is an error simply because Matthew gives less information.

I am reminded of John 21:25KJV. Undoubtedly both Luke and Mark would have left out some details as well.

But your question is a different one. Your question is: Which one of the two things Jesus is recorded as saying, did He, in fact, say?
Could He have said;

"Loose them both and bring them to me. Bring the colt which has never been ridden that I may enter Jerusalem to fulfill prophecy and bring the other one to lead it."

In this case both Matthew and Luke would have recorded correctly different aspects of the same command.
 

Zeke

Well-known member
Tradition?

No, we have multiple witnesses who recorded the events.

And we still see the effects.

Well lots of kids will tell you they have seen Santa but that's a diversion to hide from the child mind who and where the real gift givers are, that being within ones own household, I won't post a bunch of historic research because you would still believe in Santa no matter what is presented without revelation, but you do have some fortitude in that you are not bluffed by fear of challenging the dead letter with Santa's helpers.
 

daqq

Well-known member
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by daqq
If you had to pay a hefty filing fee to submit a court case would you pay a thousand dollars to file the case and then show up before the Judge naked as a jailbird with no evidence and nothing else but your privately held opinion?

Case dismissed: no evidence.
Refile fee: Your Soul. :chuckle:
There certainly is evidence, and recognizing errors in the Bible or not has nothing to do with a person’s soul.

To imply a position on this has an impact on salvation is inappropriate.

Neither of you know the scripture and therefore do not understand what I said:

Matthew 16:23-27
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get yourself behind me, Satan: you are a stumbling-block unto me: for you savor not the things that be of Elohim, but those that be of men.
24 Then said Yeshua unto his disciples, If anyone will come after me, let him utterly disown himself, and take up his own stake, and follow me:
25 For whosoever will save his soul shall destroy it: and whosoever will destroy his soul for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.


Go tear down your soul and destroy it as the Master commands you to do, and in Luke he also tells you that you cannot even be his disciple if you do not take up your own stake and follow him: and when you have sacrificed yourself, and when Elohim has raised you from the dead and given you the truth, then come back and bring the truth with you, and we will see if you even wish to refile your case then. In other words, YOU HAVE NO SKIN IN THE GAME, for it costs you nothing to level your charges and that is clear by the fact that you cannot produce any evidence. The things I know and believe cost me my soul, I had to lay it down; but you, the carnal and blind, claim to see, and refuse to die. :chuckle:
 
Top