Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[2003cobra]

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.

The error that I pointed out did not concern the number of animals that were riden.

I pointed out that at least one gospel misquotes Jesus in His Words to the two disciples he sent to find and bring the animal(s).

So it is not a case of adding details. It is a case of contradiction.

 

[2003cobra]

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.

No, I don’t think I got it backwards.

We have more manuscripts now. We have had more work in textual criticism to trace the ancestors of manuscripts.

What I have read and posted, if I recall correctly, showed 11 distinct differences in the last few verses of Revelation. Book and tree are the biggest errors.

 

[George Affleck]

No, I don’t think I got it backwards.

We have more manuscripts now. We have had more work in textual criticism to trace the ancestors of manuscripts.

What I have read and posted, if I recall correctly, showed 11 distinct differences in the last few verses of Revelation. Book and tree are the biggest errors.

Unfair! You got the last word for now!

 

[daqq]

:yawn: opcorn: :chuckle:

EDIT: Hmmm, four hours and no response, not even an acknowledgment:

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.

Even though the scripture Accuser is back here posting in this thread.

EDIT: Alas, all have gone, and no response. Parting is such sweet sorrow, as the parting of the two ways at Amphodon, (Mark 11:4, lol), for the natural man ever chooses the door which faces him to his left, thinking it to be to his right. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit: and those who walk according to the flesh do mind the things of the flesh, but those who walk according to the Spirit mind the things of the Spirit. To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is Life and Peace: for the carnal mind is enmity against Elohim, for it is not subject to the torah-teachings of Elohim, neither indeed can it be. Those who walk according to the flesh cannot please Elohim.

 

[2003cobra]

Unfair! You got the last word for now!

One of the benefits of being retired and having a night owl for a wife, although now I have a desire to go look up the differences Erasmus introduced.

But we do go pick up a granddaughter tomorrow and keep her all day, so I shan’t look long!

 

[Lon]

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

Agree, I had to ask. It was hidden in there as the thread hopped.

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.

Once, recently to you. He believes Matthew is wrong as well as doesn't believe Zechariah 9:9 is two donkeys. He believes Matthew made the mistake.

 

[Lon]

Unfair! You got the last word for now!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament#Book_of_Revelation

 

[Lon]

I can’t not be amazed.

You admitted you worship a book.

That is amazingly inappropriate, to say the least.

Doesn't matter. You and I do not like each other so latching onto whatever off-hand comment and building a vitriol is nowise out of the park for my expectation. I'll leave you with George. He seems to speak your language and I have no patience with you nor this position. I disagree with George and Dr. Wallace and think such can be and often is a damning heresy. It is for poor, Zeke. You? :idunno: George has hope for you so, again, I leave you in his capable hands.

 

[2003cobra]

Unfair! You got the last word for now!

As would be expected from such a procedure, here and there in Erasmus’ self-made Greek text are readings which have never been found in any known Greek manuscript – but which are still perpetuated today in printing of the so-called Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament


Page 100 of Bruce Metzger’s The Text of the New Testament second edition

 

[2003cobra]

Doesn't matter. You and I do not like each other so latching onto whatever off-hand comment and building a vitriol is nowise out of the park for my expectation. I'll leave you with George. He seems to speak your language and I have no patience with you nor this position. I disagree with George and Dr. Wallace and think such can be and often is a damning heresy. It is for poor, Zeke. You? :idunno: George has hope for you so, again, I leave you in his capable hands.

How can a position on something not even mentioned in scripture be a damning heresy?

And you are wrong that I don’t like you. I don’t like your worshipping the Bible, and I don’t like your spreading a false doctrine. But I am trying to help you overcome these presuppositions that have led you astray, and that comes from a love of the truth and a love for others.

 

[2003cobra]

Agree, I had to ask. It was hidden in there as the thread hopped.


Once, recently to you. He believes Matthew is wrong as well as doesn't believe Zechariah 9:9 is two donkeys. He believes Matthew made the mistake.

You have again misstated my position.

I have said repeatedly that the gospel attributed to Matthew has no internal claims to being written by the Apostle himself. It is very unlikely that Matthew would have made the mistake of putting Jesus on two animals or of misquoting Jesus in his instructions.

It was likely some students of Matthew who compiled his teaching and misunderstood Zech 9.9.

 

[Lon]

How can a position on something not even mentioned in scripture be a damning heresy?

And you are wrong that I don’t like you. I don’t like your worshipping the Bible, and I don’t like your spreading a false doctrine. But I am trying to help you overcome these presuppositions that have led you astray, and that comes from a love of the truth and a love for others.

Oh, I love truth. As I've told you several times 'inerrancy' is simply a good 'assumed' position because it is Christian. Someone who comes to the text to 'be instructed' doesn't turn around and try to 'accuse' it. It simply isn't done. One is more interested in 'following' than correcting. It is, as I've said, a bit like you enumerating and insisting that your wife isn't perfect. "Yeah? Doesn't look loving to me." If love 'believes all things' and "hardly notices wrong" then one enumerating isn't a lover. So, when scripture says to do something and we don't do it? To me: Sin. Problem. I have a good mind, so I'm well able to see these. Unlike you, I set them aside and have simply trusted God. I don't know 'why' the difference is there. Most times, as I've said, they reconcile later.

Oh, you do have 'correction' on your scripture reading docket of course, and that is why I worry. Zeke? Missing the Savior BECAUSE of this 'error' assumption. United Methodists? Yeah, same. They've missed the Savior. If you 'assume' the scriptures are authoritative, 'seemingly'errant is WAY on the back-burner (as it always sits with me). So no, your position is, imho, the presuppositional and presumptuous one. For me? I CAN'T be that fellow. I'm smart, but not self-willed and self-appointed. Faith and trust means it isn't warranted or appropriate. There is no place for us to BE instructed but there. It wouldn't matter 'if' you were correct, it is still inappropriate discussion imho. You can do NOTHING about it, unless you'd rewrite the scriptures in your own image (as I said, all things 'errant' lead to poor ends, imho.

You have again misstated my position.

I have said repeatedly that the gospel attributed to Matthew has no internal claims to being written by the Apostle himself. It is very unlikely that Matthew would have made the mistake of putting Jesus on two animals or of misquoting Jesus in his instructions.

It was likely some students of Matthew who compiled his teaching and misunderstood Zech 9.9.

Close enough for the matter imho, though I don't recall your post where you talked about students. I estimate your 'actual' position to be worse, in fact, so giving you benefit of a lesser wouldn't have been a disservice. Until now, I actually thought better of you. You are off following rumors and wives' tales of any old conspiracy theory out there. I've seen them and hold little to no stock. Your theory carries a domino effect that would have me an unbeliever at the end. As George said, only those who have no stake (non-Christian and weak) would be swayed by such. There is no Christian on TOL that would or could entertain such. We follow the words therein, we don't correct them. -Lon

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Which all, sadly, makes me wonder if you are a new creation in Christ. No laughing matter. NOBODY on TOL thinks I'm insane or will for what I wrote.

Spoiler

Read it again, it is about walking with God. That's 'crazy?'
:think:
It is really a sad commentary from you, Watchman. 2 Corinthians 5:17 Revelation 3:20. A Christ-less and carnal Christianity? That is crazy. The lonely bit is about how many are into this error theology. Not many.

My post? Crazy? Not by a long shot. Your commentary? Not crazy, just lazy, poor reading, and maybe no relationship with the Savior at all? Sad. It was crazy when Eve listened to the lying serpent and put us in a crazy horrible nightmare mess. Romans 8:20 It is crazy that men reject the Lord Jesus Christ.

Crazy? Maybe it is you, tipping YOUR hand as to what is inside your head? Sticking up for a supposed friend isn't a poor thing. Doing so against the Lord Jesus Christ? Crazy. Read it again. It is all about what Christianity is.

Sorry I upset you, you're easily offended. A deeper relationship with Jesus will make you less insecure. Please don't put any store in what others here think about you, you only need to be concerned about what God thinks of you. Just because someone openly and honestly discusses whether Mathew and Zechariah meant one or two donkeys will no stop them from going to Heaven. This is not salvation issue. Please relax.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

:nono: I completely disagree with you and George and believe some 'questions' aren't innocent nor the intent in making them. I appreciate George, but think he'd given benefit of doubt where none is warranted. In that, he'll quickly (and already is) coming to see who is posturizing and who is sincere in discussion.

That's paranoia

Because you like and hold to his ideas. You ALSO have a reading comprehension problem OR haven't bothered to read the whole thread.

I have read from about page 40 sorry if I missed anything

No, what isn't Christian is false-accusation and shoddy thread work upon which that accusation is made. Try not butting your nose into other people's business and your nose won't get bent out of joint in the first place.

You need to control your emotions better. A deeper relationship with Jesus would help that.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

:doh: "In your theology position."

Then you should have said that, perhaps you have a writing comprehension problem?

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

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.

How you can think that is beyond all:

Mt21:7 They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them.

 

[daqq]

How you can think that is beyond all:

Mt21:7 They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them.

:yawn: opcorn: :chuckle:

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

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).

Good idea, but who was leading the mother donkey? The mother donkey would have been lead by one of the disciples, most likely one of the two disciples who Jesus sent.

 

[daqq]

Good idea, but who was leading the mother donkey? The mother donkey would have been lead by one of the disciples, most likely one of the two disciples who Jesus sent.

:yawn: opcorn:

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

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.

I agree, cobra has shown those scriptures and asserted his position. daqq is playing a game or is deluded.