Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[2003cobra]

:doh: "In your theology position."

Not at all.

Many Christians read the scriptures honestly and recognize that the scriptures have minor, insignificant errors.

 

[2003cobra]

In context, I worship the being behind the book. Again, read Psalm 19 and DON'T be amazed. See how men of God have always cherished what God says. He 'spoke' you into existence. Try 'love.' I love the Bible and worship the Word of God John 1:1.

You'll cling to whatever you like in your pettiness and PREFER to not ask for clarification. You are into marginalizing and making hasty claims. Not impressed or interested. All part of your MO.

I can’t not be amazed.

You admitted you worship a book.

That is amazingly inappropriate, to say the least.

 

[daqq]

Funny thing is that it is possible that the clothes were not even thrown upon the donkeys at all but rather strewn upon on the ground while the colt walked over them, (with the Master above, on the colt). In this sense επεκαθισεν can be understood to say that the Master rode, (the colt), over the garments, (just as επεκαθισεν is used in the Septuagint version of 2Sam 22:11, "He rode upon the Cherubim"). It is a somewhat strange usage of επανω in Matthew 21:7, which implies a separation like as the Angel of the LORD sat over-above the rolled away stone, (επανω, Mat 28:2), as opposed to directly on it: in other words, not actually touching the rolled away stone but directly above it. And this sense can be gleaned from the other accounts of the Triumphal Entry, though I will admit it is a stretch, but these are not things you discuss with people who like to mock and do not accept what the scripture puts on their plate to begin with.

 

[2003cobra]

Funny thing is that it is possible that the clothes were not even thrown upon the donkeys at all but rather strewn upon on the ground while the colt walked over them, (with the Master above, on the colt). In this sense επεκαθισεν can be understood to say that the Master rode, (the colt), over the garments, (just as επεκαθισεν is used in the Septuagint version of 2Sam 22:11, "He rode upon the Cherubim"). It is a somewhat strange usage of επανω in Matthew 21:7, which implies a separation like as the Angel of the LORD sat over-above the rolled away stone, (επανω, Mat 28:2), as opposed to directly on it: in other words, not actually touching the rolled away stone but directly above it. And this sense can be gleaned from the other accounts of the Triumphal Entry, though I will admit it is a stretch, but these are not things you discuss with people who like to mock and do not accept what the scripture puts on their plate to begin with.

Daqq, I have a feeling that anything you view as a stretch has long since exceeded the elastic limit of the material.

I would feel better about your comments and veracity if you could clearly state what the words of Jesus were when sending His disciples to fetch and bring something or some things, but you won’t commit to a set of words.

 

[daqq]

Daqq, I have a feeling that anything you view as a stretch has long since exceeded the elastic limit of the material.

I would feel better about your comments and veracity if you could clearly state what the words of Jesus were when sending His disciples to fetch and bring something or some things, but you won’t commit to a set of words.

That is a lie because I already did commit to what the Master said in Matthew and your reply was that I had "confirmed that I believe Mark and Luke are in error", (which was another lie). You actually chose not to even address all of what was in that post and other posts which followed, wherein I repeated my stance, and rather took what you could get as a reason to "prove" me incorrect according to your own opinion of what the texts actually say. You have judged not according to truth but according to your own opinions of texts which you yourself do not even believe to be true. Anyone can go back and read where I did indeed commit to what the Master says in Matthew.

 

[George Affleck]

They are there in the KJV.

I prefer the more accurate translations which had access to better manuscripts, such as the NRSV. The NRSV is my go-to translation.

Hey...now here is a fantastic place for you and I to duke it out!!

If we want a place to have a disagreement, here it is: What constitutes a "better" manuscript.

Now that I have converted you to inerrancy (lol) let's talk AV vs. RSV.
Just kidding, neither of us have the time.

 

[2003cobra]

Hey...now here is a fantastic place for you and I to duke it out!!

If we want a place to have a disagreement, here it is: What constitutes a "better" manuscript.

Now that I have converted you to inerrancy (lol) let's talk AV vs. RSV.
Just kidding, neither of us have the time.

Yes, neither do have the time.

I like the NRSV because Bruce Metzger edited it, and he was arguably the expert in textual criticism in the last 30 years.

The AV is 400 year old scholarship, just look at the mess in the last several verses (of Revelation) in which the Greek was recreated from the Latin.

 

[2003cobra]

That is a lie because I already did commit to what the Master said in Matthew and your reply was that I had "confirmed that I believe Mark and Luke are in error", (which was another lie). You actually chose not to even address all of what was in that post and other posts which followed, wherein I repeated my stance, and rather took what you could get as a reason to "prove" me incorrect according to your own opinion of what the texts actually say. You have judged not according to truth but according to your own opinions of texts which you yourself do not even believe to be true. Anyone can go back and read where I did indeed commit to what the Master says in Matthew.

I wrote:

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.

That is still true.

 

[daqq]

I wrote:

That is still true.

The accusation you just made previously remains a lie.
I did answer you and did indeed commit to what the Master says in Matthew:

Either Matthew’s quote of Jesus is not accurate (not the real words of Jesus) or Mark’s and Luke’s quotes are not the real words of Jesus.

I have tried repeatedly to get you to say what Jesus really told the two disciples to find and bring, yet you will never answer.

So I ask again. Is the quote in Matthew accurate or is the quote in Mark/Luke accurate. They are mutually exclusive.

What were the real words of the Savior:
1) Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie and bring to me.
Or
2) Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie and bring

Which is it, 1 or 2?

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:

Daqq writes:
How in the world can anyone who claims to have an analytical mind and the capability to understand language think that Matthew believes the Master rode two donkeys at the same time or at the very least entered the city on one, then went back out and entered the city a second time on the other?

I don’t think Jesus rode on two animals either, as I take the 3 witnesses (Mark, Luke, and John) as having recorded the event properly.

The writers of Matthew, mostly likely the Apostle Matthew’s students, wrote the version with two animals. It’s not the only time Matthew’s gospel had a sort of double vision — it has two demoniacs in the tombs where the other gospels have one.

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. The Bible is not inerrant. Imperfect people wrote it. God has always used imperfect people.

You do know that the gospel attributed to Matthew clearly states that Jesus rode both animals, as Watchman pointed out?

Matt 21:6-7 The disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them, 7 and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their coats on them; and He sat on the coats.

Matthew 21:7 - ABP (Apostolic Bible Polyglot)
7 ήγαγον ^{they led} την ^the όνον ^donkey και ^and τον ^the πώλον ^foal, και ^and επέθηκαν ^{they placed} επάνω ^upon αυτών ^them τα ιμάτια αυτών ^{their cloaks,} και ^and επεκάθισεν ^{he sat} επάνω ^upon αυτών ^them.

It also appears that Mat 21:7 could be read in the manner that the Master sat upon the(them) garments: I speak of the last occurrence of αυτων, them, in other words he sat upon them could just as easily be speaking of sitting upon the garments and not necessarily two donkeys.

Matthew 21:7 T/R 1550
7 ηγαγον την ονον και τον πωλον και επεθηκαν επανω αυτων τα ιματια αυτων και επεκαθισεν επανω αυτων

The final pronoun, αυτων, (the last word in the sentence above), speaks of the garments.
It is not saying he sat on two donkeys at the same time but rather upon the garments.

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 beside them 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 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). We must remember that the covenant with Noah and all flesh cannot be done away, (and it is not because the Malak of Rev 10:1 has the sign of that covenant upon his head, the rainbow, and thus the Father is remembering that covenant), and of course the covenant with Abraham cannot be done away, (would you shoot yourself in the foot? after all that Paul has said about all nations and the seed of Abraham which is Messiah?), and thus the primary covenant was indeed both confirmed, (Dan 9:27), at the Last Seder and then empowered or strengthened, (the same phrase from Dan 9:27), at Golgotha.

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:

Watchman, I will add that the Oxford Annotated NRSV note for Zech 9:9 say:
Doneky, colt, in the style of Hebrew parallelism, a single animal (as in Gen 49.21; Jon 12.14-15) is meant here. In the New Testament, Mt 21.5-7 misunderstands and assumes two animals are meant...

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.

It looks like that to people accustomed to English and not trained in Hebrew.

I don’t have much time now, but perhaps this might help:
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/files/zechariah_9.pdf

I think the definitive version of Zech 9.9 is in the Old Testament.

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).

And this was your response to the above, just as I stated in my previous post, you took what you could get and completely ignored my explanations which I gave at the same time that I did indeed commit to exactly what the Master tells his disciples in the Matthew passage:

Thank you for stating clearly that you believe that Jesus told the disciples to bring two animals.

You have confirmed that you believe both Mark and Luke misquote Jesus and therefore have errors.

Let’s go the case of the centurion. Did the centurion come to Jesus and speak to Jesus, or did the centurion not come to Jesus and not speak to Jesus?

Moreover, as I said before, you then immediately tried to change the subject back to the centurion, acting as if you had "won" and I had confessed-confirmed something which I never said. Now your lying tongue is not only twofold but forked. :chuckle:

 

[daqq]

Here is yet another issue of theologic-doctrinal import which I suspect that not many have thought about: if indeed there was only one donkey, then who is it being led by? who is it "tethered" to? the disciples? a person? a man? If so then you would have the imagery of the Master being led into Jerusalem by men, or by man, which does not bode well as far as doctrinal supposition. It is far better to have the colt tethered to its mother, (or even not tethered but following?), whether in front of the colt or along side the colt, (?), and in the typology the Master therefore is led into Jerusalem on a colt, which no man had ever ridden, and the colt is tethered to or at least following its mother, (mother-covenant, that is typo-logically and allegorically Jerusalem of above, "the mother of us all", Gal 4:26). But without the mother she-donkey the Master is being led into Jerusalem by man, nono: Jhn 2:24-25).

 

[2003cobra]

The accusation you just made previously remains a lie.
I did answer you and did indeed commit to what the Master says in Matthew:



And this was your response to the above, just as I stated in my previous post, you took what you could get and completely ignored my explanations which I gave at the same time that I did indeed commit to exactly what the Master tells his disciples in the Matthew passage:



Moreover, as I said before, you then immediately tried to change the subject back to the centurion, acting as if you had "won" and I had confessed-confirmed something which I never said. Now your lying tongue is not only twofold but forked. :chuckle:

It is simple, daqq.

If you believe that Matthew accurately recorded the words of the Savior giving instructions to the disciples — telling them do find and bring 2 animals — then you do not believe that Mark and Luke accurately recorded the words of the Savior — telling them to find and bring one animal.

It is not complicated. At least one gospel is misquoting Jesus.

Reams of wiggling won’t change that.

The same is true of the centurion. If you believe that Matthew accurately records that the centurion came to Jesus and spoke to Jesus, then you cannot honestly deny that Luke made an error in recording that the centurion did not come to Jesus and did not speak to Jesus.

You can’t spiritualize contradictory historical facts into agreement.

Likewise, if you believe Matthew accurately listed the genealogy of Joseph as leading from Solomon and having 14 generations from David to the deportation, then you cannot also claim Joseph was a descendant of Solomon’s brother Nathan and that 1 Chronicles is accurate in listing 18 generations from David to the deportation. You can pick which one you believe is correct, but pretending contradictions are congruence is not truthful.

I could go on, but I hope you get the picture.

 

[2003cobra]

Here is yet another issue of theologic-doctrinal import which I suspect that not many have thought about: if indeed there was only one donkey, then who is it being led by? who is it "tethered" to? the disciples? a person? a man? If so then you would have the imagery of the Master being led into Jerusalem by men, or by man, which does not bode well as far as doctrinal supposition. It is far better to have the colt tethered to its mother, (or even not tethered but following?), whether in front of the colt or along side the colt, (?), and in the typology the Master therefore is led into Jerusalem on a colt, which no man had ever ridden, and the colt is tethered to or at least following its mother, (mother-covenant, that is typo-logically and allegorically Jerusalem of above, "the mother of us all", Gal 4:26). But without the mother she-donkey the Master is being led into Jerusalem by man, nono: Jhn 2:24-25).

John 12 is likely the best information, from the only gospel with internal claims to have been written by an eyewitness:
Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it; as it is written:

15 “Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion.
Look, your king is coming,
sitting on a donkey’s colt!”


As for thinking Jesus needed another animal to calm the colt, have you not read that the Lord Jesus could calm a raging storm and quiet the sea? To think that One who can calm the sea would have trouble riding any beast seems quite odd.

 

[daqq]

It is simple, daqq.

If you believe that Matthew accurately recorded the words of the Savior giving instructions to the disciples — telling them do find and bring 2 animals — then you do not believe that Mark and Luke accurately recorded the words of the Savior — telling them to find and bring one animal.

It is not complicated. At least one gospel is misquoting Jesus.

Reams of wiggling won’t change that.

I removed your comments concerning other so-called errors, (so-called by yourself), because we, or at least myself and others, are still speaking about one topic, the Triumphal Entry and how many donkeys were there. And it is indeed very simple, and is not complicated, just as you say: you have made accusations and assertions but you yourself have not yet laid out the scripture passages for us so as to provide your evidence for what you assert. How hard can that be? Show me and everyone else your evidence. Post all of the passages and exegete them: show us all how and where they contradict according to your understanding of them. As of now you are just making an accusation without providing the evidence from the scripture to support what you have asserted.

And if you cannot do that???

Boiyoiyoiyoiyoing . . . whah, whah, whah . . . you lose. Thank you for playing, if you would like to try again please deposit another soul: if you do not have another soul to exchange, sorry for your left-hand-sided fork-tongued luck.

 

[iouae]

Jhn 12:12

On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
Jhn 12:13
Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.
Jhn 12:14
And Jesus, when he had found a young ***, sat thereon; as it is written,
Jhn 12:15
Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ***'s colt.

Mat 21:2
Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an *** tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
Mat 21:3
And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.
Mat 21:4
All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
Mat 21:5
Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ***, and a colt the foal of an ***.
Mat 21:6
And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,
Mat 21:7
And brought the ***, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

John focuses on the young *** Christ sat on, Matthew mentions the mother *** came along too.

The Gospels do this all the time, one Gospel adding detail to the other's story.

 

[daqq]

I removed your comments concerning other so-called errors, (so-called by yourself), because we, or at least myself and others, are still speaking about one topic, the Triumphal Entry and how many donkeys were there. And it is indeed very simple, and is not complicated, just as you say: you have made accusations and assertions but you yourself have not yet laid out the scripture passages for us so as to provide your evidence for what you assert. How hard can that be? Show me and everyone else your evidence. Post all of the passages and exegete them: show us all how and where they contradict according to your understanding of them. As of now you are just making an accusation without providing the evidence from the scripture to support what you have asserted.

And if you cannot do that???

Boiyoiyoiyoiyoing . . . whah, whah, whah . . . you lose. Thank you for playing, if you would like to try again please deposit another soul: if you do not have another soul to exchange, sorry for your left-hand-sided fork-tongued luck.

And just so you know: if you cannot lay out your case then you are the one playing games, and you lose, for not only are you playing the part of the Accuser, but it is the scripture that you are accusing, which is way worse than anything you have said to me or anyone else here. It is time to stop playing games and put forth your case to actually prove what you have asserted. And if you feel you need to start a new thread, who is stopping you? Lay it all out, post all of the passages: exegete them and make your case to prove your accusation. It is as plain and simple as that.

 

[George Affleck]

Yes, neither do have the time.

I like the NRSV because Bruce Metzger edited it, and he was arguably the expert in textual criticism in the last 30 years.

The AV is 400 year old scholarship, just look at the mess in the last several verses (of Revelation) in which the Greek was recreated from the Latin.

You got it backwards guy!

Older manuscripts = suspect quality.
Older scholarship = excellence never matched since.

Gross exaggeration regarding a so-called mess in Revelation. Six verses Erasmus got nearly right for 1516. During the next 90 years there were revisions to the TR from Greek texts leading up to 1611. In all those verses there are only 2 words not supported by Greek mss - a particle and a conjunction. I think we can trust the Vulgate that far.

But let's not hijack this thread for that.

 

[George Affleck]

I removed your comments concerning other so-called errors, (so-called by yourself), because we, or at least myself and others, are still speaking about one topic, the Triumphal Entry and how many donkeys were there. And it is indeed very simple, and is not complicated, just as you say: you have made accusations and assertions but you yourself have not yet laid out the scripture passages for us so as to provide your evidence for what you assert. How hard can that be? Show me and everyone else your evidence. Post all of the passages and exegete them: show us all how and where they contradict according to your understanding of them. As of now you are just making an accusation without providing the evidence from the scripture to support what you have asserted.

And if you cannot do that???

Boiyoiyoiyoiyoing . . . whah, whah, whah . . . you lose. Thank you for playing, if you would like to try again please deposit another soul: if you do not have another soul to exchange, sorry for your left-hand-sided fork-tongued luck.

He did that Daqq.

Pay attention

 

[daqq]

He did that Daqq.

Pay attention

If you know where that is please point me to the place where he laid out all of the concerned passages and explained his reasoning for how and why they contradict. I actually have not seen where he did that, (it is getting to be too large of a thread).

 

[George Affleck]

If you know where that is please point me to the place where he laid out all of the concerned passages and explained his reasoning for how and why they contradict. I actually have not seen where he did that, (it is getting to be too large of a thread).

I understand your difficulty finding them all. Its not easy.

All I can tell you is that he has quoted the scriptures involved and explained the contradictions he sees there.

I can't point you to one place. But they are there multiple times.

 

[daqq]

I understand your difficulty finding them all. Its not easy.

All I can tell you is that he has quoted the scriptures involved and explained the contradictions he sees there.

I can't point you to one place. But they are there multiple times.

Do you actually believe that I have not seen him quote scriptures? Get real.