Luk 24:46
Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise[fn] from the dead the third day, (NKJV)
Search the scriptures
- Thread starter Tambora
- Start date
Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise[fn] from the dead the third day, (NKJV)
glorydaz
Well-known member
Jonah 1:17
Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
That it has errors doesn't make it not be God's word.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I'm not so sure you'd get agreement on what is error and what isn't error.
Not even relevant to the verse. Jonah was not even a messiah.
and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise[fn] from the dead the third day,
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὅτι Οὕτως γέγραπται καὶ οὕτως ἔδει παθεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν καὶ ἀναστῆναι ἐκ νεκρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ
“and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
TOOLS
“And you are witnesses of these things."
Last edited:
Yes but what if those errors are very significant.
Last edited:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Not relevant. That's a good one.Not even relevant to the verse. Jonah was not even a messiah.
and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise[fn] from the dead the third day,
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὅτι Οὕτως γέγραπται καὶ οὕτως ἔδει παθεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν καὶ ἀναστῆναι ἐκ νεκρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ
“and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
TOOLS
Luk 24:48
“And you are witnesses of these things."
Matthew 12:40
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Yes not even relevant because it wasn't a qouoe of Jonah. It is the quote of something lost, just like the quote of the virgin birth.
So just what is your point here, Tambora?
Are you trying to undermine the word of God or are you just doing that by accident?
Just what is it that you think is supposed to be included in God's book that He failed to include?
Nothing sinister.
Neither.
Don't let your imagination run away with you.
I think the book is just fine.
But some details of things the writers present are left out, perhaps because they felt their audience was already aware of the details of those stories.
But we, in modern days, are not aware of those details without the benefit of other writings that were not included in the Canon.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
And as was mentioned they weren't even necessarily writings at the time. They were an oral tradition, only written down later.
Like the Gospel of Luke for instance. Luke 1:1 " 1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."
The contents of Luke's Gospel were "believed", "delivered" and "instructed" before Luke was written! That means it was an oral tradition until Luke wrote it down!
It has nothing to do with my imagination. I'm reading the thread and trying to wrap my head around what you could possibly be trying to insinuate.
Then everything you've said in this entire thread is a lie? Is that what you want me to believe?
If God's book is "just fine" then please explain to me what "Searching the scriptures is easier said than done when one thinks "scriptures" is only the Canon declared by the RCC." means!
Please tell me how you can say that out of one side of your mouth while saying "the book is just fine" out of the other. In what universe are those two things even remotely compatible? How could you be implying anything other than that there are ancient writings that ought to be considered scripture?
So, God did "just fine" but He could have done better. If only God could have anticipated things going for a whole 2000 years past the birth of Christ!
Yeah, no undermining of God's word to see here! Move along!
I mean, all sarcasm aside, what other point could you be making here?
If such a point isn't your intention then you sure need to work on wording things so as to communicate whatever your point actually is because what it sounds like to anyone who can read this thread is that you think that there all sorts of ancient writings that ought to be in the bible and that it's a detriment to believers that they aren't. In effect, suggesting that you'd have made a better editor of the bible than God turned out to be.
Where would one get off of this particular slippery slope at, by the way?
Clete
Last edited:
That you can't figure out my intent and read into it what is not there is no reason to jump to conclusion and start accusing me of intentions I do not have.
You know better, or you used to.
I never said that and never intended it.
Never once said any of the other writing should be included in the Canon.
Ridiculous and slanderous accusation, Clete.
I am simply responding to what I am reading. If I am missing something then that's why I'm asking you to tell me what your point is.
Okay fine but I'm pretty sure I know how to read and I quoted your exact words and specifically asked you to explain how two, seemingly incongruous ideas can fit together.
If you can do so, please do!
Questions are not accusations, Tambora!
As I said, I am reacting to what YOU have said and specifically, and now repeatedly, asked you for further explanation. You are the one who explicitly stated, right at the start of the thread, that searching the scriptures is pretty tough "when one thinks "scriptures" is only the Canon declared by the RCC."
Those are you own words - verbatim!
In what world would that not directly imply that there are other ancient writings that ought to have been included in the canon of scripture but weren't?
If that isn't your intent, THEN WHAT IS?
Clete
P.S. All caps should not be read as "yelling". It just for emphasis.
glorydaz
Well-known member
You're just mad because it wasn't lost.....you just missed it.
You can say what you will. But Jonah was not quoted by the passage, yet you wrongly believe it was.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
"Scripture" and "The Canon of Scripture" carry two slightly different meanings. There may be entirely original works that contain scripture, but that does not mean the work be included in the Canon. And while there are tons of manuscripts found since then, we also have to keep in mind that the Early Church Fathers would have likely been aware of all sorts of works that we aren't now - and so if one were important to be considered Canonical, it seems to me we would have multiple allusions to it.
In principle, of course, there could be entire works that are worthy of inclusion. However, at some point one has to settle on the truth that God preserves His Word. And while He may have revealed things we haven't seen in the Scriptures, we can boldly assert that what we do have is sufficient to make clear stands on what matters. So that if anything were to come up that isn't directly referred to in the Bible as we have it, it can be considered secondary, a matter of conscience or something God didn't want included.
At the ground of it all, one has to believe Christ is actually building His church and that God's Word will not return to Him void.
Again - I would simply say that reference to something in a work does not mean the entire work is considered scripture. We don't have a "Dead Sea Scrolls" book in the Canon, but we do have attestation in it that validates what is accepted.
No, but the authority it had was as if it were scripture (as I understand it). The Jewish take on Scripture and Commentary was not the same as ours (at least as I understand it). I don't know if I'm cherry-picking, but here's an answer I found to the question of the Talmud's authority (underlining and bolding mine):
Authority of the Talmud (Q&A)
Once again, I think their categories were not the same as ours. I don't know exactly how to detail it, but the fact that "The Son of David" carried weight enough to be mentioned when men cried out "Son of David, have mercy upon me" (in more than one situation) and"Hosanna to the Son of David" tells me it wasn't necessarily out of place - in their minds - for Him to be doing miracles (they could easily have compared Him with Elijah, for example, who raised the dead).
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
By each of those phrases, either someone is referring to the Bible, or he/she is not referring to the Bible. By "Scripture", Christians are referring to the Bible. To what would/ought someone be referring to by the phrase, "The Canon of Scripture", if not to the Bible? Anything called "The Canon of Scripture" that is not the Bible is, needless to say, extra-Biblical, and is thus something that is of no authority. And, if anyone uses the phrase, "The Canon of Scripture", to refer to something created (or "established", as some like to say) by bishops, emperors, or anyone else living years, decades, or centuries after the last book of the Bible (Revelation) was written (by the end of the first century), they are thus necessarily referring to something that is not the Bible, and thus to something that is of no authority (however historically interesting or helpful it may be).
I have no grievance against the phrase "The Canon of Scripture", in and of itself; although, so long as by it one is just referring to the Bible, then why not cut the superfluous syllables and just say "the Bible" or "Scripture"?
I've heard people, by the phrase "The Canon of Scripture", mean a list of the books that are the Bible. And they'll say that "The Canon of Scripture" was needed because no one had yet had a list of the books that are the Bible until centuries after the writing of the Bible had already been finished. But that's false, because the Bible, itself, is a list of the books that are it.
I do not know if I can satisfy your question but I will say to you that the context of this Scripture lies in the fact that Jesus has just healed a demon oppressed man who could not see or speak, likely by removing the demon from him.
Suddenly, the man spoke and saw. The change was dramatic, because Matthew reports that the crowd was amazed.
In some cases, people react to Christ's miracles with fear (Mark 5:14–17) or awe (Matthew 8:26–27). This time, the people connect their amazement with the possibility that Jesus might be the long-promised Messiah: the Savior of Israel.
They ask each other, "Can this be the Son of David?" The name "Son of David" was a title reserved for the Messiah. It came from God's promise to David to establish his throne over Israel forever in 1 Samuel 7:16)
Because of Isaiah's prophecies, many Israelites likely associated the time of the Messiah's coming with the healing of the blind, the deaf, the lame, and the mute. Jesus had accomplished all those miracles and many more. Those who witnessed this healing made the correct connection between Jesus' power and the idea that He might be the Messiah, hence the Son of David because of the birth line.
Not everyone who witnesses this will be so reasonable. Some are so committed to disbelief that they'll explain the supernatural act as coming from Satan.
I disagree.
If we read the Bible at face value, without a preconceived bias for finding errors, we will find it to be a coherent, consistent, and relatively easy-to-understand book. Yes, there are difficult passages.
Yes, there are verses that appear to contradict each other.
However, we must remember that the Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1,500 years. Each writer wrote with a different style, from a different perspective, to a different audience, for a different purpose. We should expect some minor differences. However, a difference is not a contradiction or an error! It is only an error if there is absolutely no conceivable way the verses or passages can be reconciled.