Scripture. What is considered Scripture?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
popsthebuilder
New member
Sacred core writings of the faithful to GOD, spanning time and geography.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
Yes, but your reply said "if". And I had wanted to provide clarity for you.
Zenn
PS: LRon is just about "out there" as me being a Buddhist. But if I ever become one, I'll have you to thank.
I have a serious question for you, no mocking or poking fun, but seriously: if, as you say, "the Rhema" takes over and speaks through you, (that is what you meant, right?), then why is it not the same with writing? Again, serious question, why are you not writing perfect books and why are not all charismatics such as yourself writing perfect books of the wonderful things of God? Surely if what you say is true of speaking in tongues, which you said is like an experience and power that cannot really be described, then why is it not the same with writing? If you can speak such holy things through the Spirit, (or the Spirit speaking through you), then why are you not writing the same such things and putting them down for posterity? especially when writing is easier to get correct, (before "sending it out to the hearer"), rather than something you might say that might be a little off and yet cannot be taken back because it was spoken? I think this does also have some bearing on the discussion at hand, (the holy writings, scripture).
PS ~ Or are you just speaking of "unknown tongues" that no one understands? (I really do not know for sure what you mean by tongues or whether you prophesy or whatever).
It is ironic that you deny what the Bible actually says and then say that you can’t explain more to people do not want to believe the Bible.
Truly ironic.
Did Jairus tell Jesus that his daughter was near death or had already died? You can’t say.
Did Jairus find out about his daughter’s death before he came to the Savior and spoke to the Savior, or did he find out after Jesus and Jairus were already on the way to heal a sick girl? You can’t say.
Did Jairus initially ask Jesus to heal a sick girl or to resurrect a dead girl? You can’t say.
Zenn
New member
You mean like Martin Luther was? Having himself been ousted from orthodox Christianity? I didn't know you held cobra in such high esteem. It's quite a wonderful compliment Lon.
It is surprising to find you believe that revelation of divine truth comes through democratic consensus. Then again, the Orthodox Church (the real one, not the Roman Catholics of course) believed that such came through a convocation of Bishops - as opposed to revelation by the Holy Spirit.
God would write a letter with mistakes in it? :AMR:
However, I think most everyone would realize that the worship of God and the worship of one's wife's letters mean something completely different.
Ahh... you are from the UK? Things are entirely different in the US. The Evangelical movement in the US is dying off and the JW's are rapidly ascending.
Literally? :AMR: You literally have branches growing out of your head or arms? It may be advisable that you borrow Watchman's dictionary to look up that word 'literally'.
Furthermore, I take it that you believe people should Not be encouraged to question? And yet I recall (though correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe the questioning Bereans to be honorable.
And yet Paul himself even tagged portions of his letters as 'opinion'.
At some point we should discuss the concept of Ecclesiastical Authority. It could become very interesting. Hopefully you do realize that the Orthodox Church (both the Roman and Greek branches) do not consider the Bible to be authoritative in the manner you think.
Zenn
Which Jairus? (Yair). There are three, just like in the Tanach. Thank goodness you were not a second century scribe or we might only have one long Gospel account by the time you had finished harmonizing it all. :chuckle:
Unbelief.
Which Jairus? (Yair). There are three, just like in the Tanach. Thank goodness you were not a second century scribe or we might only have one long Gospel account by the time you had finished harmonizing it all. :chuckle:Originally Posted by 2003cobra
It is ironic that you deny what the Bible actually says and then say that you can’t explain more to people do not want to believe the Bible.
Truly ironic.
Did Jairus tell Jesus that his daughter was near death or had already died? You can’t say.
Did Jairus find out about his daughter’s death before he came to the Savior and spoke to the Savior, or did he find out after Jesus and Jairus were already on the way to heal a sick girl? You can’t say.
Did Jairus initially ask Jesus to heal a sick girl or to resurrect a dead girl? You can’t say.
Yes, I know, that answer is too much for your mind as I said it would be: but the kingdom of Elohim is within you. You have a centurion, a Jarius' daughter, a woman with an issue of blood, a man with a withered hand, a leper, a mother-in-law with a fever, and so on and so on. You do not understand what you are reading: it is teaching you the walk, it is teaching you the Way, but you may also have seven mountains like seven heads with seven kings that need to be cast out. However if that process was good enough for the disciples, including even Mary Magdalene, it is good enough for me.
So you are either pretending these are three different historical events, or you are spiritualizing the stories into nonsense. Ok.
The doctrine of inerrancy is meaningless in such cases.
Yes, the development of the Diatesseron must have been an effort.
Zenn
New member
Lon if you think you are following 1 Corinthians 13:5 in your posts (or even the majority of your posts), I would gently point out that there is an extreme disconnect between that verse and your posts. If nothing else, have a close friend do "an independent review".
WOW. At least there seems to be some kind of miracle here in that you are finally admitting there ARE errors, but since they don't matter, it should be swept under the rug and not discussed in open public.
Lon, the actual opposite is true. Cobra has merely pointed out that there are errors (discrepancies if you prefer), and wanted those who believe in 'inerrancy' to provide evidence to the contrary. You, though, have charged (accusing & prosecuting) cobra with violating "the Christian position" by speaking of these things that you believe should be hidden, 'not questioned', 'not mentioned'.
What, have something to hide? Afraid of these errors?
Zenn
PS: However, and this is a BIG however, I think I rather understand your position that if people actually find out about these errors they will reject Christianity, possibly feeling themselves betrayed. And so they shouldn't be talked about, and hidden in the attic like an embarrassing uncle. But, Lon, if Christianity is so fearful of these errors, then shouldn't it rightly be rejected? Cobra wants people to be aware of these right from the start so that one's faith should be in a God Who Is There, rather than upon some Divine Book or Holy Writ.
Zenn
New member
And there's a reason for that.
God would like people to have a relationship with Him directly, not vicariously through a book.
And yet people don't change. They are still the same as in the time of Moses.
In Exodus chapters 19 and 20 God DIRECTLY speaks to the entire people, giving them the Ten, and how do they reply?
(Exo 20:19 KJV) And they said unto Moses, {you} Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.
They wanted a book. And so were disobedient to God.
Zenn
- There are secrets you do not share with anyone who lacks the intelligence and the discipline to discover them for themselves.
Zenn
New member
I am astonished how close this is to the following said to Marin Luther.
"Not your job. You aren't supposed to be reading the bible ---- BUT TO FOLLOW our (the Pope and the Cardinals) directions and learn more about your Saviour." Your supposed problem with the Church? Gone. End of discussion. Nobody 'should' stumble over this when the ecclesiastical authority of the church precludes it. Remember being told about perfect parents? The point? HONOR them. You CANNOT honor them or the church by pointing out faults and it is NOT YOUR JOB. So STOP Martin!"
It's just uncanny.
Zenn
Zenn
New member
Watchman, someone had a hissy fit about me using the word "b-tt" for posterior and reported it. To my utter amazement, I was chastised by one of the admins who edited my post and replaced the egregious word with "behind".
:idunno:
Guess we just have some really fragile people here.
Zenn
Zenn
New member
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
Ironically I was using it as an example of bad language in or to try and stop someone from using bad language
jsanford108
New member
To 2003cobra (mainly) and others who disagree with Inerrant Scripture doctrine:
In order to have a productive discussion, we must agree on certain terms and vocabulary. First, naturally, would be "error." If a simple misspelling is classified as "error," then you are correct. However, if a simple misspelling, or slight numerical error is not what renders something as "errant," then the doctrine of innerancy applies. Also, one must consider the historical context of the Scripture composition. The Old Testament was written, transcribed, and copied over a very long period of time, centuries in fact. The Hebrews were very meticulous when it came to preserving the Old Testament books and documents. The contents of the New Testament, however, were all copied very quickly (in the want to be able to send out as many copies as possible for converting non-Christians), thus allowing for spelling errors, possible variations in numerical representations, etc. It was in I believe 390 AD, in which St. Jerome began to compile the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew Manuscripts, creating the Septuagint/Vulgate. This text is regarded as being the most scholastic and complete gathering, comparison, and composition of the Scriptures. St. Jerome sought to create as close to original manuscript composition, as possible. It is from this text that various Bibles come from. (If we need to discuss various versions, such as comparatively the Douay-Rheims, King James, New International, English Standard, Wycliffe, etc)
Now, the doctrine of inerrancy, can be found in two locations, with strict definition. We have the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, declaring the doctrine that the Protestant Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact" (source: wikipedia). Now, various Protestant denominations and groups have gone on to declare that Scripture is infallible, and incapable of any error, in much stricter confines.
We also have the Catholic Church's declaration expressed by the Second Vatican Council, citing earlier Catholic declarations, in the following: "Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation".The Council adds: "Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words." (source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, also supported on wikipedia)
If you note, neither one of the above declares that there are no spelling errors, or absolute infallibility. Yet, logically, it makes sense to work one's way forward through history, in order to find why such declarations were made.
Here is where we get to where we must also agree on a particular theological principle. We must agree that Jesus is God Incarnate. If we disagree on this, then it is pointless to progress on the attributes of Scripture, since we do not agree on one of the (if not, as I would argue, the) central figures in Christianity.
Assuming that we agree, we would then say that Jesus, as God Incarnate, is infallible. Jesus will never, in past, present, or future, declare or teach something that is false. From this, we can jump to when Jesus endows the Apostles with the Holy Spirit (again, infallible). From here, we progress to the Apostles (Matthew and John) composing their respective Gospel accounts. If, guided by the Holy Spirit, while composing their accounts, we can definitively say that their accounts are inerrant, due to the Holy Spirit being inerrant/infallible. Historically, we can also trust the Apostles' disciples, who would want to as accurately as possible, transcribe future Gospel accounts.
So, to trust Jesus, is to trust the Apostles, which leads to trusting the Scriptures to be inerrant.
Here ends my opening statement. The floor is yours.
In order to have a productive discussion, we must agree on certain terms and vocabulary. First, naturally, would be "error." If a simple misspelling is classified as "error," then you are correct. However, if a simple misspelling, or slight numerical error is not what renders something as "errant," then the doctrine of innerancy applies. Also, one must consider the historical context of the Scripture composition. The Old Testament was written, transcribed, and copied over a very long period of time, centuries in fact. The Hebrews were very meticulous when it came to preserving the Old Testament books and documents. The contents of the New Testament, however, were all copied very quickly (in the want to be able to send out as many copies as possible for converting non-Christians), thus allowing for spelling errors, possible variations in numerical representations, etc. It was in I believe 390 AD, in which St. Jerome began to compile the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew Manuscripts, creating the Septuagint/Vulgate. This text is regarded as being the most scholastic and complete gathering, comparison, and composition of the Scriptures. St. Jerome sought to create as close to original manuscript composition, as possible. It is from this text that various Bibles come from. (If we need to discuss various versions, such as comparatively the Douay-Rheims, King James, New International, English Standard, Wycliffe, etc)
Now, the doctrine of inerrancy, can be found in two locations, with strict definition. We have the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, declaring the doctrine that the Protestant Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact" (source: wikipedia). Now, various Protestant denominations and groups have gone on to declare that Scripture is infallible, and incapable of any error, in much stricter confines.
We also have the Catholic Church's declaration expressed by the Second Vatican Council, citing earlier Catholic declarations, in the following: "Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation".The Council adds: "Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words." (source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, also supported on wikipedia)
If you note, neither one of the above declares that there are no spelling errors, or absolute infallibility. Yet, logically, it makes sense to work one's way forward through history, in order to find why such declarations were made.
Here is where we get to where we must also agree on a particular theological principle. We must agree that Jesus is God Incarnate. If we disagree on this, then it is pointless to progress on the attributes of Scripture, since we do not agree on one of the (if not, as I would argue, the) central figures in Christianity.
Assuming that we agree, we would then say that Jesus, as God Incarnate, is infallible. Jesus will never, in past, present, or future, declare or teach something that is false. From this, we can jump to when Jesus endows the Apostles with the Holy Spirit (again, infallible). From here, we progress to the Apostles (Matthew and John) composing their respective Gospel accounts. If, guided by the Holy Spirit, while composing their accounts, we can definitively say that their accounts are inerrant, due to the Holy Spirit being inerrant/infallible. Historically, we can also trust the Apostles' disciples, who would want to as accurately as possible, transcribe future Gospel accounts.
So, to trust Jesus, is to trust the Apostles, which leads to trusting the Scriptures to be inerrant.
Here ends my opening statement. The floor is yours.
I doubt you fully understood: I am saying three different Gospel authors, three different people, three different "daughters of Jairus" because the authors are three and they are giving you a glimpse into themselves as they follow the Master in their walk, (Mark may as well be Peter as well as Luke may as well be Paul and they all borrow from each other because they are brethren). You will only get worse because the deeper you dig the more your mindset will disallow what the texts actually say. You cannot get to where you need to be from your mindset and your in-thread mentor is not going to be able to help you in that. If I really wanted to I could go ahead and push you over the edge with some of the real issues you haven't even touched on and probably do not even know exist, rather that let you flounder as you appear to be doing, but it is not my duty to try to break anyone or drive them away from the faith. You wanted my answer: I gave it to you. What you believe in your house is your business, but you freely admit that you do not have a Word foundation you can trust: in my house, I do.
Since daqq brought up the Diatessaron, possibility inadvertently, I thought it might be helpful to quote how a second century harmony of the gospel tells the story of Jairus:
And when Jesus had crossed in the ship to that side, a great multitude received him; and they were all looking for him. And a man named Jairus, the chief of the synagogue, fell before the feet of Jesus, and besought him much, and said unto him, I have an only daughter, and she is come nigh unto death; but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. And Jesus rose, and his disciples, and they followed him. And there joined him a great multitude, and they pressed him. And a woman, which had a flow of blood for twelve years...And Jesus said unto her, Be of good courage, daughter; thy faith hath made thee alive; depart in peace, and be whole from thy plague.
And while he was yet speaking, there came a man from the house of the chief of the synagogue, and said unto him, Thy daughter hath died; so trouble not the teacher. But Jesus heard, and said unto the father of the maid, Fear not: but believe only, and she shall live. And he suffered no man to go with him, except Simon Cephas, and James, and John the brother of James. And they reached the house of the chief of the synagogue; and he saw them agitated, weeping and wailing. And he entered, and said unto them, Why are ye agitated and weeping? the Arabic, maid hath not died, but she is sleeping. And they laughed at him, for they knew that she had died. And he put every man forth without, and took the father of the maid, and her mother, and Simon, and James, and John, and entered into the place where the maid was laid. And he took hold of the hand of the maid, and said unto her, Maid, arise. And her spirit returned, and straightway she arose and walked: and she was about twelve years of age. And he commanded that there should be given to her something to eat. And her father wondered greatly: and he warned them that they should tell no man what had happened. And this report spread in all that land.
The Diatessaron rejects Matthew’s version and follows the Mark/Luke version.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diatessaron.html
And when Jesus had crossed in the ship to that side, a great multitude received him; and they were all looking for him. And a man named Jairus, the chief of the synagogue, fell before the feet of Jesus, and besought him much, and said unto him, I have an only daughter, and she is come nigh unto death; but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. And Jesus rose, and his disciples, and they followed him. And there joined him a great multitude, and they pressed him. And a woman, which had a flow of blood for twelve years...And Jesus said unto her, Be of good courage, daughter; thy faith hath made thee alive; depart in peace, and be whole from thy plague.
And while he was yet speaking, there came a man from the house of the chief of the synagogue, and said unto him, Thy daughter hath died; so trouble not the teacher. But Jesus heard, and said unto the father of the maid, Fear not: but believe only, and she shall live. And he suffered no man to go with him, except Simon Cephas, and James, and John the brother of James. And they reached the house of the chief of the synagogue; and he saw them agitated, weeping and wailing. And he entered, and said unto them, Why are ye agitated and weeping? the Arabic, maid hath not died, but she is sleeping. And they laughed at him, for they knew that she had died. And he put every man forth without, and took the father of the maid, and her mother, and Simon, and James, and John, and entered into the place where the maid was laid. And he took hold of the hand of the maid, and said unto her, Maid, arise. And her spirit returned, and straightway she arose and walked: and she was about twelve years of age. And he commanded that there should be given to her something to eat. And her father wondered greatly: and he warned them that they should tell no man what had happened. And this report spread in all that land.
The Diatessaron rejects Matthew’s version and follows the Mark/Luke version.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diatessaron.html
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
No one here (except the occasional atheist) thinks that God cannot and does not perform miracles on a daily basis.
Or that He is, in any way, impotent or limited.
Every time a sinner is saved, a miracle of the Holy Spirit is performed.
You are deliberately and mischievously attempting to put words in people's mouths.
That attitude is a mark of a troll and the deception that they specialize in.
If you persist with this, do not be surprised if others answer you unkindly.
I prefer to think differently of you because I came out of the same teaching, subjectivism, and I have seen both sides clearly.
You prefer to listen to yourself rather than God.
This is a characteristic of charismatic teachers.
The supernatural gifts of prophetic utterance, unlearned languages, and heavenly knowledge ceased when God's perfect revelation to sinful man was complete. God said this by imparting previously unknown knowledge to Paul and he faithfully gave it to us by way of the Corinthian church. The burden is upon you to cite instances where this doctrine of cessation may be proven false.