Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[2003cobra]

Jsanford, you wrote:
Now, let us progress with the knowledge that three criteria are fulfilled. First, that as a historical text, the New Testament is substantiated by other documents of its time, alluding to the reasonable conclusion that the events contained therein are accurate and really occurred. Second/third, that internal and external evidence that alludes to authorship, composition, and events detailed, is accurate and reliable. Thus, let us conclude that the Scriptures are indeed reliable as accurate historical texts. Do we agree on this?


my answers:
Now, let us progress with the knowledge that three criteria are fulfilled. First, that as a historical text, the New Testament is substantiated by other documents of its time, alluding to the reasonable conclusion that the events contained therein are accurate and really occurred.
Some events are substantiated by external documents and others are not. Your blanket statement goes too far.

Second/third, that internal and external evidence that alludes to authorship, composition, and events detailed, is accurate and reliable.
No, some books are anonymous (Hebrews, for example). Some books are disputed (2 Peter, for example).

Thus, let us conclude that the Scriptures are indeed reliable as accurate historical texts.
To what level of detail? Certainly there is a discrepancy in accuracy between Mark and Luke concerning the instructions by Jesus to the disciples before the missionary journey. There are a handful of other inaccuracies, evident because the gospels disagree with each other or the New Testament disagrees with the OT.


Do we agree on this?
I hope you do agree that your statements were overly broad.

 

[2003cobra]

Jsanford, you asked:
Next, who do you say that Jesus is?


He is Messiah, the Son of the Living God, God Incarnate, the one who came to seek and to save those who are lost.

Who do you say that He is?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Luke 9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

You are trying desperately to hang onto your mistake about the scripture.

The scripture says plainly not to bring staffs.

You argued falsely before about the scripture saying don't bring a staff, and you change it up when you are faced with the truth instead of accepting the truth and admitting that you are wrong.

So which is it? You said the scripture said don't bring 'a' staff.

Now you say the scripture says don't bring staffs.

In Luke 9:3 does the scripture say not to bring BAGS, or a bag? You said 'staffs' refers to the many people, but why not 'bags' instead of 'bag'.

Do you think that they were told not to wear shoes too, or do you think they were told not to brig extra shoes?

You have shown that your integrity is not good.

You're not taking into consideration that Jesus and all those with Him only had one bag.
Judas carried it. :think::think::think:

 

[2003cobra]

So don't bring a bag or don't bring bags?

You are a dishonest person and I will not discuss with you anymore.

Try to humble yourself or wrath from God awaits you, so says the scriptures.

I did not think you could answer post 137.

 

[God's Truth]

I did not think you could answer post 137.

I did answer you, but you are blind.

 

[God's Truth]

You're not taking into consideration that Jesus and all those with Him only had one bag.
Judas carried it. :think::think::think:

Go back and read what I said, then reread. If you have any questions just ask instead of just believing any false thing that comes to your mind.

 

[Lon]

This one is tampered with.

Rev 2:13
13I know where you live, where the throne of Satan sits. Yet you have held on to My name and have not denied your faith in Me, even in the day My faithful witness Antipas was killed among you, where Satan dwells.

It should read in the days of Herod Antipas wherein my faithful were martyred.

Was no dude named Antipas that got cooked in a brazen cow.

I can put out fires all day, but that isn't my goal. I OFTEN use 1M1S and you've always known who you were, by the exact same token.
Take this paragraph from GotQuestions for instance:

The Bible also lists the twelve disciples/apostles in Mark 3:16–19 and Luke 6:13–16. A comparison of the three passages shows a couple of minor differences in the names. It seems that Thaddaeus was also known as “Judas, son of James” (Luke 6:16) and Lebbaeus (Matthew 10:3). Simon the Zealot was also known as Simon the Canaanite (Mark 3:18). The Gospel of John uses the name “Nathanael” instead of “Bartholomew,” but Nathanael and Bartholomew were undoubtedly the same person.

Does it seem to you, that you might have been mistaken about a mistake? :think: Again, you are way better off assuming that scripture is true and accurate than trying to start fires any studied man or woman can squirt water on. I don't want to run all over the backyard while you burn my grass and ruin the over all. It is supposed to be growing, by analogy, not dying.

 

[Lon]

Lon, thank you for admitting that the quote of scripture from John 7 is not found in the OT. It would have been better if you had done the right thing and admitted there is nothing close to it in the OT.

No I did not. I quoted a LOT of scriptures. Do you understand how Hebrew is translated??? :idunno: You don't seem to have this concept in your head and it is essential. The quote may not be in the LXX (the Greek translation). It certainly can be from Hebrew. As I said, listen. Speak later. Thanks.

And thank you for making it clear that you have no explantion of the difference between The instructions of Jesus in Mark and Luke. Your claim that they were specifically told not to “being extra things” is, of course, false in the matter of staffs and Luke. In Luke, Jesus tells them not to bring a staff. What is really interesting here is your desire to defend the man-made doctrine of inerrancy even if you must deny what the Bible says to do it.

See, this is why Glory says you are dishonest. You know very well I gave you two reconciliations in a row. You are purposefully being dishonest in conversation. Please don't. You are making 'winning at all costs' your goal and the end does not justify the means. Follow Jesus.

You asked me whether I was a “bible follower” or a “Bible corrector.” This is very telling: it reveals that you have elevated the Bible and put it in the place of Jesus.

Matthew 4:4, He said it. Peter said it: "Your words are life, where else can we go?" The Urantian book?
You have to live with your own philosophy of life and so if I can't shake you from this, it is your sad state. If you are in His hands, you have a whooping coming Hebrews 12:4-6

Jesus told us to follow Him. You have replaced Him with a book.

:doh: "How" am I to follow Him? Where is the map? Is it an accurate map? THINK! You are making erroneous accusations and equations.
Luke 4:4 Matthew 4:4

You call the Bible, in it’s entirety, the Word of God, making a claim not found in scripture.

:doh: I don't care what church you come from, they were WRONG! Keep anything good they taught you, chuck this mess. Please. Luke 4:21 Jesus called it scripture. See CARM on this as well. Matt Slick rightfully calls this antichristian.

John identifies Jesus as the Word. Again, you have replaced Jesus with a book.

:doh: And Jesus addressed Satan with "SCRIPTURE" authority! You are blinding yourself. THINK!

I read what Luke actually says. You are pretending to correct it to match Mark and Matthew.

No I am not. I gave you two reasons to stop this nonsense and you didn't. Genesis 3:1 You are the one! Stop working for the wrong guy! It is ignorance, but if you persist in this, it becomes sin. Don't be satan's unwilling or willing dupe!

Consider these things. Yes, the scriptures are valuable and authoritative and our second best source of information and guidance, second to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

John 14:26 AND bring to remembrance all His words! THINK! Hebrews 10:16 Peter said "Your words are life!" :doh: There is no second best. Look, I have a bunch of letters from my wife. I keep them and cherish them. They express her heart. Without 'words' frankly, my life with her would have no meaning. When God gives you directions and expressions, if you can't trust them, then you are lost. Romans 10:14,15
Further? God says HIS word will not return void: Isaiah 55:11 You are guilty of correcting them. Down-grading them. EVERYTHING from the Lord is precious to me. You? Nope, "second best 'source'" WAKE UP! THINK! Please. Matthew 24:35 Question: Do you opinionate, or do you KNOW what the bible actually says about itself? Are you reading these verses??? Did you pray and meditate upon Psalm 19? Please do so tonight. I cannot have you on the same page with me if you will not do anything to meet me AND GOD halfway. You will be stuck in your proverbials. Be diligent: Acts 17:11 Why were the Bereans of more noble character, E.E? Read it. Why?

I was hoping you would address Luke 9:3 in a manner that honored the scripture and what it actually says, even if that honoring threatened a man-made tradition. But it seems you choose your tradition of man over rightly dividing the word of truth. Please reconsider.

Pray(and read) more, hope less. Your man-made conclusion is unacceptable. I wrestled a good amount of time over this long ago, maybe you'd not even been born yet. I realized it was not a mistake. How, frankly, could it have been? The point was 'not' to bring a cloak. Either this was a different time, or Jesus was talking about something not explained. That means, it is a 'truth' that you don't know. What do you do then? You conclude, hastily, that it is an error. 1) This isn't enough to discern an error. 2) It echoes Genesis 3:1 all over again. You either follow and believe the Lord God, or you correct Him. The scriptures are before you EITHER to correct/ignore or to follow. Peter said His words were life and there was no place else to go. He wouldn't have went to the Urantia book, or the BoM. John 6:67 Please read some of these scriptures while we are chatting. They are inerrant and they only way you can know the Lord Jesus Christ. ONLY He can tell you about Himself. If it is full of errors, you CANNOT know Him then (nor can I). Inerrancy is part and parcel to having Jesus. If you don't have one, you can't have the other. Read these scriptures. They are important. Carrying a staff? If that's it, it is pithy and unworthy of me or God. I've settled this a long time ago. It is time you do the same. This is beneath a child of God. -Lon

 

[2003cobra]

Lon writes:
See, this is why Glory says you are dishonest. You know very well I gave you two reconciliations in a row.


I will ask you the same questions that I asked jsanford in post 140.

1) Did Jesus tell the disciples not to take a staff? If you answer yes, then you accept Luke’s version and declare Mark’s version to be an error.

2) Did Jesus tell the disciples that they could take a staff? If you say yes, then you accept Mark’s version and declare Luke’s to be an error.

These are not hard questions: either Jesus told them not to take a staff or He told them they could take a staff. You can’t have it both ways.

Please give a clear honest answer. You have declared me to be dishonest. I ask you for honesty.

 

[glorydaz]

Lon writes:
See, this is why Glory says you are dishonest. You know very well I gave you two reconciliations in a row.


I will ask you the same questions that I asked jsanford in post 140.

1) Did Jesus tell the disciples not to take a staff? If you answer yes, then you accept Luke’s version and declare Mark’s version to be an error.

2) Did Jesus tell the disciples that they could take a staff? If you say yes, then you accept Mark’s version and declare Luke’s to be an error.

These are not hard questions: either Jesus told them not to take a staff or He told them they could take a staff. You can’t have it both ways.

Please give a clear honest answer. You have declared me to be dishonest. I ask you for honesty.

Ah, you're a my way or high way guy, I see. :kookoo:

 

[2003cobra]

Ah, you're a my way or high way guy, I see. :kookoo:

You are welcome to answer, if you can.

People want to write around the problem without answering the question plainly.

It is easier to comment without contributing, but it is less fruitful and less honorable.

1) Did Jesus tell the disciples not to take a staff? If you answer yes, then you accept Luke’s version and declare Mark’s version to be an error.

2) Did Jesus tell the disciples that they could take a staff? If you say yes, then you accept Mark’s version and declare Luke’s to be an error.

These are not hard questions: either Jesus told them not to take a staff or He told them they could take a staff. You can’t have it both ways.

Please give a clear honest answer.

 

[jsanford108]

Jsanford, let’s take it a step at a time.
You wrote:
1.) The exact numbers/listing of "staffs" does contradict, however, the text contextually does not. The inclusion of "a staff" does not render the alternate account false. Context is key. Such a tiny discrepancy on exact figures is attributable to the gathering of eye-witness testimony on specific quotations.


Do you deny that the text in Luke says Jesus told the disciples not to bring a staff?

Or do you text in Mark says they can bring a staff?

Which one is it — we’re the disciples forbidden from bringing a staff or was bringing a staff allowed?

Your clear answer will help clarify your position.

I will answer your questions in the next post.

I am not disagreeing that there are two different "numbers" of staffs being represented. What I am saying is that the point of the passages is that the faithful will provide what the Apostles need; which both passages agree upon.

Yes, one passage says "a staff" and the other says "no staff." Who cares? The staff numbers are irrelevant to the point of the passage. And you are arguing over literally one piece of elongated wood.

It doesn't matter if the Apostles brought staffs or not.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[glorydaz]

Lon writes:
See, this is why Glory says you are dishonest. You know very well I gave you two reconciliations in a row.


I will ask you the same questions that I asked jsanford in post 140.

1) Did Jesus tell the disciples not to take a staff? If you answer yes, then you accept Luke’s version and declare Mark’s version to be an error.

2) Did Jesus tell the disciples that they could take a staff? If you say yes, then you accept Mark’s version and declare Luke’s to be an error.

These are not hard questions: either Jesus told them not to take a staff or He told them they could take a staff. You can’t have it both ways.

Please give a clear honest answer. You have declared me to be dishonest. I ask you for honesty.

Perhaps it's time to move on. Clearly, you are invested in proving a contradiction exists, but you foolishly ignore the fact that Luke's is a direct quote and Mark's is not. That each author has his own word usages he commonly uses. Study to show thyself approved.....

Here's an interesting read that shows the depth that can be found in the Scripture if you but look. Lots of good details before this summation. At least read it before you try and claim there are contradictions.

When Mark wrote his account of Jesus' instruction, he did not anticipate Luke's later account. He only had in mind a desire to tell what Jesus did and taught. When he came to the words of Jesus to His disciples in that initial commission, he wanted to make clear that Jesus' "nothing" was not absolute, but relative to the issue of Jesus' desire to teach His disciples that He would provide for them as they followed His commands. He had no idea that his record of Jesus' desire in his (Mark's) own words might later be a difficulty for people who want to stumble over words rather than dig into their meaning.

When Luke came along, he intended to tell his readers what Jesus said in Luke 22, so he felt no need to attempt to clarify anything Jesus said in Luke 9. Therefore, he simply recorded Jesus' words as a direct quote and left them to be explained later by Jesus himself.

The conclusion of the matter is this: hermeneutics is not a sloppy reading of words, assigning meaning hit or miss because the possibility exists in a lexicon somewhere. Rather, hermeneutics is an investigation of the clues a writer gives us as to his meaning. The more clues we dig up, the greater clarity we have of his meaning. The fewer clues we dig up, the greater the ambiguity there is in our minds. So, let this be a motivator to us to dig, dig, dig...clear meaning leads to solid faith and solid faith leads to enormous peace of soul and mind. The fruit is worth the labor!



http://biblical-thinking.org/cgi-bin/article.pl?250

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I can put out fires all day, but that isn't my goal. I OFTEN use 1M1S and you've always known who you were, by the exact same token.
Take this paragraph from GotQuestions for instance:
Does it seem to you, that you might have been mistaken about a mistake? :think: Again, you are way better off assuming that scripture is true and accurate than trying to start fires any studied man or woman can squirt water on. I don't want to run all over the backyard while you burn my grass and ruin the over all. It is supposed to be growing, by analogy, not dying.

Hey, I was shown in a vision the guy who penned it wrong.

It is the Holy Spirit who shows us truth.

Didn't cost me a dime, just sayin'.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I am not disagreeing that there are two different "numbers" of staffs being represented. What I am saying is that the point of the passages is that the faithful will provide what the Apostles need; which both passages agree upon.

Yes, one passage says "a staff" and the other says "no staff." Who cares? The staff numbers are irrelevant to the point of the passage. And you are arguing over literally one piece of elongated wood.

It doesn't matter if the Apostles brought staffs or not.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Sure it does.

They weren't sent out as shepherds yet.

 

[jsanford108]

Jsanford, you wrote:
Now, let us progress with the knowledge that three criteria are fulfilled. First, that as a historical text, the New Testament is substantiated by other documents of its time, alluding to the reasonable conclusion that the events contained therein are accurate and really occurred. Second/third, that internal and external evidence that alludes to authorship, composition, and events detailed, is accurate and reliable. Thus, let us conclude that the Scriptures are indeed reliable as accurate historical texts. Do we agree on this?


my answers:
Now, let us progress with the knowledge that three criteria are fulfilled. First, that as a historical text, the New Testament is substantiated by other documents of its time, alluding to the reasonable conclusion that the events contained therein are accurate and really occurred.
Some events are substantiated by external documents and others are not. Your blanket statement goes too far.

Second/third, that internal and external evidence that alludes to authorship, composition, and events detailed, is accurate and reliable.
No, some books are anonymous (Hebrews, for example). Some books are disputed (2 Peter, for example).

Thus, let us conclude that the Scriptures are indeed reliable as accurate historical texts.
To what level of detail? Certainly there is a discrepancy in accuracy between Mark and Luke concerning the instructions by Jesus to the disciples before the missionary journey. There are a handful of other inaccuracies, evident because the gospels disagree with each other or the New Testament disagrees with the OT.


Do we agree on this?
I hope you do agree that your statements were overly broad.

My statements were meant to be broad. I specifically made them that way so we could progress in discussion. But once again, you wish to discuss the metaphorical bark of the tree rather than the forest that is the topic.

First, which biblical events in the NT are not substantiated? As I said before, either the Scriptures are reliable historical texts, or they aren't. They can't be both (which is ironically your issue with "staffs").

Second, Hebrews, based on early century reports, as well as internal evidence, alludes to Paul being the author. 2 Peter, based on early century reports, as well as internal evidence, alludes to Peter being the author. Do you with to posit any negating information to this point, or can we move on?

When does the NT disagree with the OT?

What contradictions are there in the NT?

You seem to really be a focused on irrelevant details.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[jsanford108]

Jsanford, you asked:
Next, who do you say that Jesus is?


He is Messiah, the Son of the Living God, God Incarnate, the one who came to seek and to save those who are lost.

Who do you say that He is?

Great. We agree. Christ is God.

So, do you believe what Christ said, taught, and did?

(I promise, I have a point to this; not being condescending or "witnessing")


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[2003cobra]

I am not disagreeing that there are two different "numbers" of staffs being represented. What I am saying is that the point of the passages is that the faithful will provide what the Apostles need; which both passages agree upon.

Yes, one passage says "a staff" and the other says "no staff." Who cares? The staff numbers are irrelevant to the point of the passage. And you are arguing over literally one piece of elongated wood.

It doesn't matter if the Apostles brought staffs or not.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

You are avoiding answering the questions as if it is a leper.

Who cares? Anyone interested in the truth cares.

Did Jesus tell the disciples not to take a staff, or did Jesus say they could take a staff?

It is not a difficult question!

 

[Lon]

Lon writes:
See, this is why Glory says you are dishonest. You know very well I gave you two reconciliations in a row.


I will ask you the same questions that I asked jsanford in post 140.

1) Did Jesus tell the disciples not to take a staff? If you answer yes, then you accept Luke’s version and declare Mark’s version to be an error.

YOU don't listen very well. Just because that is all the sum of your mental powers doesn't make it a problem for the rest of us. This is YOUR problem. I've answered you, this will be #3: EITHER these were two separate occasions (they were sent out more than one time! THINK!!!) OR the point was to not take extra things. Hint: (Listen you!) The Lord Jesus was giving them a reason for doing something. It was to bring no staff, and no extra cloak. Let me throw in another: Luke 10:1-4 Did you know the Lord Jesus sent them out AGAIN??? READ YOUR BIBLE!!! :doh: Read it! He said NOTHING about a staff this time! Matthew 17:17 How long will the Lord contend with us? ARE YOU LISTENING???? CAN YOU HEAR ME??? Matthew 13:14 --> John 6:68 Where have you left to go??? Where?

2) Did Jesus tell the disciples that they could take a staff? If you say yes, then you accept Mark’s version and declare Luke’s to be an error.

Should I cry for you or laugh at you? Did you read Luke 10:1-4? :*( How stubborn are you? Are you listening? Are you?

These are not hard questions: either Jesus told them not to take a staff or He told them they could take a staff. You can’t have it both ways.

Er, Luke does, once in 9, then AGAIN in 10. :think: Your way or the highway? How many of these inane little apparent discrepancies do you have? Are you reading atheist websites OR the word of God? Which will it be? I can tell you what 'it looks like.' It looks like you aren't reading the Bible much these days.

Please give a clear honest answer.

John 6:66 They asked for 'a sign' an 'honest answer' and turned away. Why? Because they were committed to themselves and what they wanted, not what God wanted. What are you committed to? Truth? Listen. Listen hard. If not, you will be like these, "going their own way." see John 6:22-71

You have declared me to be dishonest. I ask you for honesty.

I said this was why Glory said you were dishonest. My comment rather, was that your response was dishonest and to mark that, so you'd know why others are saying it. My goal is to serve. I realize some of this comes a bit harsh. I don't want to shake you violently, but carefully. I pray these words of God's are the focus. Mine, I believe are at or near the heart of inspiration, authority, and I think too, such goes beyond infallibility. Instead of looking for mistakes, you'll start looking for what God originally wanted from you. He does NOT want you going through like pagans do, looking for problems, mistakes, and other things they do not like and then turning away. He wants disciples: "You have the words of life, where else shall we go?" Imho, even though I genuinely believe in inerrancy, both from scripture declarations and the fact that these go away when I read and reread the Bible, following the scriptures redirects me to reading them for an entirely different goal: to live and believe them and follow Him. Contrast this with those who correct, and go their own way, and explain away the scriptures to people. Why were the Bereans more noble? Why is carrying a staff not reconciled for you? Answer? Because you don't want it resolved???? :think: It is resolved for me. Why don't you want it resolved? These resolutions not 'good enough' for you? Why not? I know them all, so certainly thought them worth my time. Question: Why are they not worth your time? What do you have at stake here? What is the drive to dismiss scriptures? For me John 6:68

 

[2003cobra]

Perhaps it's time to move on. Clearly, you are invested in proving a contradiction exists, but you foolishly ignore the fact that Luke's is a direct quote and Mark's is not. That each author has his own word usages he commonly uses. Study to show thyself approved.....

Here's an interesting read that shows the depth that can be found in the Scripture if you but look. Lots of good details before this summation. At least read it before you try and claim there are contradictions.

So you are unwilling to answer?

Is that because an honest answer would reveal your position on inerrancy is unsupportable?