Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[2003cobra]

Cobra,
Allow me to make two things clear: I think you are a good person. I am sure that you mean well,
and if not, you obscure it well enough (unlike others such as Pate). The second thing;
it would be more productive if you provided where you disagree with the two definitions of inerrancy that I provided in my return post. If I need to, I can provide both quotes again.
I think that just going back and forth on specific verses is not really addressing the topic issue. We are focusing on the trees and not the forest.

You are free to post them again, but then we might have to go through them word by word and define the words.

I prefer to simply state that calling the scriptures “inerrant” carries with it a claim that there are no errors of fact in the Bible.

Any doctrine of inerrancy that allows errors of fact is misnamed, and I would view that doctrine as deceitfully misnamed.

So specific verses that have errors of fact are exceedingly relevant, in my opinion.

Does your definition of inerrancy allow the scriptures to have errors in facts?

Alas, I will respond to your previous post, though.

Great, so we agree that the Proto of James is fictional. So does the Catholic Church. So, why would the Church base a doctrine on a fictional work? Especially considering that the Church is the one that pronounced as a falsehood?

I don’t know why the Roman Catholic Church adopted the fiction of the perpetual virginity of Mary. The document that I mentioned is just the earliest instance of the myth that I have seen.

My entire argument against Jesus' having brothers is contextual evidence, found within the Jewish culture. If you are unaware of this custom, of referencing close relatives such as cousins as "brothers," then you are ignorant of Hebrew custom. This is not a personal attack; it is simply pointing out that you are uneducated on a piece of evidence that explains doctrine (Perpetual Virginity).

You also are ignoring cross-referenced verses/passages, which refer to close relatives as "brother" or "sister," such as Mary, mother of James, being called Mary's (mother of Jesus) "sister." One could also reference Lot being called Abraham's "brother."

In addition, the parentage of those listed as Jesus' "brothers" can be found in various other passages of Scripture, in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, specifically.

My evidence is both contextual and church history.

The people is the hometown of Jesus taking umbrage to him, in context, would have meant his brothers and sisters.

Where does the Lord's brother call himself the sibling of Jesus? I admit, I am ignorant of such a claim.

Who said He did?

Paul called James the Lord’s brother.

Eusebius call James the Lord’s brother and the son of Joseph.

It was after 300, when a bishop of the church wrote his history identifying James as the Lord’s brother and as a son of Joseph, that this myth about Mary was fully implemented.

Allow me, one last time, to explain the paradox in your argument in regards to siblings of Jesus:

Your entire premise and proof lies within single words, from books which you do not consider inerrant; meaning that if one applies your argument of potential errors to these specific instances of sibling labeling, your argument fails.

I find you have far exceeded the elastic limit of the truth.
You have reverted to “if the scriptures are not inerrant, then nothing they say is reliable.”

I did avoid this question, until we had (hopefully) resolved the prior one. One factor into why I did this was because of my answer.

If you are ignorant of Jewish customs and festivals, then it would be unfruitful to even try to explain the passage of John 7. If you are educated in such culture, then you would have readily understood my points regarding Jesus' "brothers," Mary's "sister," and would not even have posed a question regarding John 7.

So, here is my brief answer, without explaining customs: Did Jesus go to the festival? Yes, but not on the opening day. Did Jesus misrepresent His intentions? No. He told the disciples to go ahead (on opening days), in order that He may avoid publicity, which would account for His later arrival in the festival (thus, avoiding the Sanhedrin, and any immediate publicity).

I find your claim that Jesus did not misrepresent His intentions disappointing. Jesus told them that He was not going to the festival. Then He did go. That is a misrepresentation.

And you read into the text things not said. You claim He did not go on opening day. That is not in the text.

Consider how your dedication to your philosophy of Jesus is causing you to misstate the facts and to read into the text.

Finally,
This here is your answer to my question of "If something is not inerrant, what is it?" You are avoiding the logical answer.

The opposite of Justice is Injustice. The opposite of Lawful is Unlawful (or Criminal). The opposite of Inerrant is Errant. If you believe the Scriptures are errant, why be so ashamed to openly admit that? It is because logically, one cannot depend on an errant source as a basis of truth and fact.

You are avoiding the question.

You have once again fallen into the trap of “it is inerrant or it is worthless.”

It is as much as saying “I believe the scriptures are inerrant because I have to. The alternative is too troublesome to me. So I must not look at specific errors that might burst my bubble.”

As for why I don’t say “the scriptures are errant,” it is the same reason that I don’t declare “my grandchildren have problems.” That is not the way in which I view the scriptures or my grandchildren. As I have said repeatedly, the scriptures are valuable and authoritative. They are not inerrant, and people should stop pretending they are and people should stop avoiding discussing the errors because they are not comfortable unless God gave them a perfect book.

The work of people can be inerrant. If I wrote a synopsis of my day, recalling details to the best of my ability, avoiding all falsehoods, then the work is inerrant. Any "insignificant error," such as spelling or numerical variation within reasonable limits, is just that: insignificant. It does not detract from the inerrant nature of the work. (I am sure there is some specific circumstance which can thrown in which would magically render such a synopsis errant; such points are niggling at best and are argumentative in nature, seeking not truth but combat)

So, if I show you an error in fact in a document written by people, are you going to claim that document is inerrant?

I counted three questions in this post. The second is rhetorical. I request answers to the other two.

 

[Lon]

I gained quite an interesting reputation.

Did you tell them about Walter and calling down lightening?

No.

Let me be the first?

Before.

(Although I can't fathom why this would make a difference.)

Zenn

Not sure if it does either unless one of them is more strenuous than the other.
I don't do miracles. God has...

PS: It was after I began my discipleship though, but before I had any encounter with Charismatics. Again, not that this would really matter. Intent carries much coin.

:think: Not familiar with that turn-of-phrase...something like 'the question feels loaded?'

(still off the OP I reckon on my side, for notice)

 

[Lon]

Cobra,
The work of people can be inerrant. If I wrote a synopsis of my day, recalling details to the best of my ability, avoiding all falsehoods, then the work is inerrant. Any "insignificant error," such as spelling or numerical variation within reasonable limits, is just that: insignificant. It does not detract from the inerrant nature of the work. (I am sure there is some specific circumstance which can thrown in which would magically render such a synopsis errant; such points are niggling at best and are argumentative in nature, seeking not truth but combat)

So, if I show you an error in fact in a document written by people, are you going to claim that document is inerrant?

I am sure there is some specific circumstance which can thrown in which would magically render such a synopsis errant; [however,] such points are niggling at best and are argumentative in nature, seeking not truth but combat.

:think:

 

[Zenn]

When Jesus breathes on the Apostles, He gives them the Holy Spirit.

Technically, the text states:

When he had said this, he breathed (G1720) on them; and he said to them: Receive (G2983) ye the Holy Ghost. (Joh 20:22 DRB)

It does not read, "he breathed on them and they received the Holy Ghost." Granted, such is implied, but not directly stated that this was the actual event where the Holy Ghost was received.

In addition, instructions for such receiving of the Holy Ghost are given in Acts chapter 1.

But you shall receive (G2983) the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth.(Act 1:8 DRB)

Followed by a description of the event.

And they were all filled (G4130) with the Holy Ghost: and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.(Act 2:4 DRB)

Shall I presume at this point you place the account of John after the ascension as described in Acts? Yet Act 1:11 rather seems to place a definitive end on any further Jesus sightings. And it's curious that the author would exclude the account in John, presenting instead, a differing account that the 'receiving' (yes I know he used the word "filled") took place without Jesus being there - or at best Didn't Even Give an Account of the Receiving.

I, myself, did make this jump in progression. And I can explain it, as it also answers your quote:

jsan, I don't see anything in your post that answers the question I asked:

Where in the New Testament is it stated that the Apostles are inerrant when writing things down?

When guided by the Holy Spirit, in action and declaration, would the Apostles be inerrant and infallible?

I have no problem with accepting this position, but ... Where in the New Testament (outside of the Apocalypse of John - cf. Rev. 1:11, Rev. 1:19) is it stated that any Apostle was guided by the Holy Spirit to write things down? And technically, the author of the Apocalypse says he was commanded by Jesus, not the Holy Spirit.

This can be further extrapolated into their writings.

Then one should "further extrapolate" this into their actions. But you yourself realize this isn't true. If one cannot extrapolate into their actions, then how can one justify an extrapolation into their writings? So... I hear... NO, without some illogical extrapolation, what the apostles write isn't inerrant.

For if they claimed to be writing "in the Spirit," or under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they must proclaim absolute truths.

Yes, unless the claim was bogus, or there actually wasn't a claim of writing "under the guidance of the Holy Spirit," or such guidance would be limited to the passages covered by such claims ... and this would be in essence, the same thing as what is claimed for the Pope today. But we're back to the question...

Where in the NT is any passage specifically claimed to be written "under the guidance of the Holy Spirit"? Just because a book got listed and published in the NT? I'm sure you wouldn't deny that pseudepigrapha exists. Just because some author slapped the name "Paul" on the writing doesn't mean it was really written by Paul, and we need look no further than 3rd Corinthians as the perfect example of this.

I think you are basing your views on the position "if it's in the New Testament it must have been authored by the Holy Spirit" and therefore by extrapolation (i.e. by definition) must be inerrant. And there is a further presupposition that your Bishops selected the right books. Hence, infallibility is not based upon "it was authored by the Holy Spirit" or that the book says "it was authored by the Holy Spirit" but upon, "My Bishops say it was authored by the Holy Spirit."

The simple contradiction in the synoptics with Jairus' daughter would make your whole argument fold. An error exists, hence the text cannot be inerrant.

I am unsure of which passages you are referencing. Could you be more concise and specific

Sure.

And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us: And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also.
(Act 15:7-11 DRB)

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. Simon hath related how God first visited to take to the Gentiles, a people to his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written: After these things I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down: and the ruins thereof I will rebuild. And I will set it up: That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all nations upon whom my name is invoked, saith the Lord, who doth these things. To the Lord was his own work known from the beginning of the world. For which cause, judge that they who from among the Gentiles are converted to God are not to be disquieted: But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols and from fornication and from things strangled and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every sabbath.
(Act 15:13-21 DRB)

The above two declarations are different and not harmonious. By your earlier assertion that a declaration of any apostle must be inerrant, something's wrong here. One of these two declarations is Not inerrant. In essence, though, James won, and Peter lost. In addition, while the written notice sent out by this convocation said that such was approved by the Holy Ghost (Act 15:28), there is nothing in the account that actually indicates this happened, unlike in Act 13:2.

And as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. (Act 13:2 DRB)

My apologies if I'm being rather stringent here, but I do find your extrapolation to be built on sand as opposed to what is actually written in the NT texts.

Zenn

PS: But maybe I missed something.

 

[Zeke]

You actually think calling somebody dense is not an insult but an 'assessment'? That it's acceptable professional practice for a teacher to call somebody dense?

Wow. You may wish to work on your social skills and ask that friend you don't have about whether calling somebody dense is an insult or not.

Zenn

If one has a religious or any other degree, some fall under a type of superior psychosis syndrome, magically granting themselves spiritual/intellectual immunity when lambasting the goyim/ignorant masses without fear of retribution from their institutional deity.

 

[glorydaz]

More Lies, you were not there: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?115654-The-Trinity/page1557&highlight=Trinity+thread

The time in question was between 5:13am and 5:29am 7th Jan):

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?127447-Scripture-What-is-considered-Scripture&p=5166073&viewfull=1#post5166073

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?127447-Scripture-What-is-considered-Scripture&p=5165951&viewfull=1#post5165951

Are you okay?

I am, but you aren't. I have explained this to you, and now I'm reporting you.

You can't even get the times and dates right on these posts.

Daqq's post was on Jan. 6 at 9:13 # 1777

My post was on Jan. 6 at 9:29 #1780


When Daqq was posting his response at 9:13, I was bouncing between the Trinity thread...Pops had quoted me at 9:03 and 9:06. I had been reading how he was wanting to debate AMR. Keypurr had responded to my post in the Jesus is God thread (9:11), so I responded to him at 9:15 # 2315.

Now, your claim that I rushed back here and saw Daqq's post, read what he posted (which didn't even say what I'd said), and then looked up scripture all so I could make myself look good in your eyes, is nothing short of insane. I was continuing to read and post, and YOU hadn't even crossed my mind.

You do think too highly of yourself, little man, but you won't be dumping your crap on me without getting it returned right back at ya. :wave:

 

[2003cobra]

One would need to use a secondary definition of the word ἔχω along with a secondary definition of the word και (using "for" instead of "and").

(LINK) See entry 2

(LINK) ἔχω 2

χρυσουν εχουσα (ἔχω 2 - bringing) θυμιατηριον και (for) την the κιβωτον ark της of the διαθηκης covenant.

(or very loosely...) Which the golden censer was brought for the ark of the covenant....

Highly interesting.

I cannot refute the possibility without much more reading. Might I ask what specifically led you to this conclusion? Some gut feel?

Zenn

PS: Cobra, this one might really be a bad translation error, or more likely, a very strange way that the author of Hebrews wrote. I can see where this would make a great PhD. thesis.

We can set this one aside, recognizing that it may have a potential reconciliation.

And then we can more on to Jairus.

Remember, it only takes one error to prove the doctrine of inerrancy false. And we have several with no potential reconciliation.

I don’t mind at all taking this one off the table.

So, let’s see who is willing to address Jairus. I am betting Lon and glory won’t even try (as is their custom). Daqq may spiritualize the text to the point that it is unrecognizable. I am still naively optimistic that JS will actually be willing to talk about what the text actually says. I think Watchman will seek the truth.

The story of Jairus is cut and dry. It will take a lot of unChristian denial to mask the error. Maybe that is why most will refuse to try to reconcile the various texts.

 

[2003cobra]

I am, but you aren't. I have explained this to you, and now I'm reporting you.

You can't even get the times and dates right on these posts.

Daqq's post was on Jan. 6 at 9:13 # 1777

My post was on Jan. 6 at 9:29 #1780


When Daqq was posting his response at 9:13, I was bouncing between the Trinity thread...Pops had quoted me at 9:03 and 9:06. I had been reading how he was wanting to debate AMR. Keypurr had responded to my post in the Jesus is God thread (9:11), so I responded to him at 9:15 # 2315.

Now, your claim that I rushed back here and saw Daqq's post, read what he posted (which didn't even say what I'd said), and then looked up scripture all so I could make myself look good in your eyes, is nothing short of insane. I was continuing to read and post, and YOU hadn't even crossed my mind.

You do think too highly of yourself, little man, but you won't be dumping your crap on me without getting it returned right back at ya. :wave:

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.

 

[2003cobra]

If one has a religious or any other degree, some fall under a type of superior psychosis syndrome, magically granting themselves spiritual/intellectual immunity when lambasting the goyim/ignorant masses without fear of retribution from their institutional deity.

And people under that psychosis can get really testy when their fantasies are revealed as foundationless.

 

[glorydaz]

Is it blasphemous to add in words? For you read the verse and add in words ...

The Father is greater than I {gldz: but only for the next day or so while I'm still in a human body, then the Father won't be greater than I.}

At what point did Jesus stop being human?

Zenn

I'm explaining it to a baby in need of some pablum. Why are you on this forum if you don't want to learn? Surely you aren't here to teach something. Especially since you don't seem to know that Jesus was both Divine and Human, and you have to be able to know the difference.

Jesus is speaking of the Father being greater....in His form as a servant, which He had previously alluded to.

John 13:16
16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.​

That "servant form" He took on was HUMANITY.

Philippians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:​

He would return to His former glory at His ascension.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.​

 

[glorydaz]

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.

I know what love is, but I don't have to love you enemies of the Gospel. Where does it say I have to?


Typical man of the flesh lecturing a member of the body of Christ. Nothing new there. :chuckle:

 

[Lon]

If one has a religious or any other degree, some fall under a type of superior psychosis syndrome, magically granting themselves spiritual/intellectual immunity when lambasting the goyim/ignorant masses without fear of retribution from their institutional deity.

Is that an ignorant statement? :think: I think it is. It is not a 'drawn' conclusion, just a wives' tale. That means you've been a bit dense, no?

Does that hurt horribly? Should I say it in a way that doesn't hurt your feelings? Look, I've been through 'public' education, I get what people think that passes for 'gentle, kind, and polite.' I'm generally exceptionally polite to you, despite you not showing it back. You started with this mean and snarky before I even knew you were full of angst and angry. I STILL do not believe I've earned it. Does 'taking it' from you count? :think:

 

[Lon]

And people under that psychosis can get really testy when their fantasies are revealed as foundationless.

:nono: Not testy at all. Sorry to burst that bubble. ANY of that is reading 'into' my statements. There is none there. Try again?

(anything here that sounds abrupt or impolite? :think: )

 

[Lon]

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.

I could point fingers in thread but I always think first what "I" can do to follow such and contemplate. I've no problem with even a pagan asking, though I will surely disagree on definitions. Without pointing fingers, everybody can take about three or four of these and work on them a bit this week. If you don't think so, you are probably the one that needs to work on eight or ten lain:

 

[glorydaz]

:nono: Not testy at all. Sorry to burst that bubble. ANY of that is reading 'into' my statements. There is none there. Try again?

(anything here that sounds abrupt or impolite? :think: )

What would we do if we didn't have these ninnies here to tell us how we should be talking to them?

 

[Lon]

What would we do if we didn't have these ninnies here to tell us how we should be talking to them?

AND what as well. We have to agree and we have to do it politely according to Oprah Winfrey, not the Bible

Condemned if we do, condemned if we don't. Quite a pickle. Interesting nonetheless. They said "I" had to attack the messenger then proceeded to do exactly the same thing? :think: Shoot, can't win (which is why I've largely bowed out, I've BEEN over this conversation with Charismatics before. It is near always the same way BECAUSE Charismatics are into.... :drum: Personal Charisma!

If the Lord Jesus can change sons of thunder, there is some hope for another brother and sister of the same. Don't loose hope. At least you nor I ACTUALLY called down fiery judgement from heaven. Luke 9:55 But he turned and rebuked them. Hebrews 12:8

 

[iouae]

I know what love is, but I don't have to love you enemies of the Gospel. Where does it say I have to?

1Th 3:12
And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you:

"For God so loved the world that..."... go and do ye likewise.

And only in your mind is someone with a slightly different view of what the Bible says, an "enemy of the Gospel".

1Jo 2:9
He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
1Jo 2:11
But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
1Jo 3:15
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1Jo 4:20
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar:

 

[2003cobra]

:nono: Not testy at all. Sorry to burst that bubble. ANY of that is reading 'into' my statements. There is none there. Try again?

(anything here that sounds abrupt or impolite? :think: )

Not testy?

No “reading into” was required of this:
You can't think out of a paper bag and assume everybody else is just as bad. Be truthful, C's and C- in school, right? It shows...You can go sit in the back of the class now and put your head down in shame for your disobedience...You are too thick to be taught...Were you raised in a one room school house where they had to pass you because you were all below par?...I'm smarter than you...you are not intelligent enough to talk to me.


Deny again?

 

[2003cobra]

What would we do if we didn't have these ninnies here to tell us how we should be talking to them?

Actually, the scriptures were quoted. We weren’t instructing you. But you reject that counsel.

 

[2003cobra]

AND what as well. We have to agree and we have to do it politely according to Oprah Winfrey, not the Bible

Condemned if we do, condemned if we don't. Quite a pickle. Interesting nonetheless. They said "I" had to attack the messenger then proceeded to do exactly the same thing? :think: Shoot, can't win (which is why I've largely bowed out, I've BEEN over this conversation with Charismatics before. It is near always the same way BECAUSE Charismatics are into.... :drum: Personal Charisma!

If the Lord Jesus can change sons of thunder, there is some hope for another brother and sister of the same. Don't loose hope. At least you nor I ACTUALLY called down fiery judgement from heaven. Luke 9:55 But he turned and rebuked them. Hebrews 12:8

Why do you have such great fear of talking with people who believe the scriptures concerning the charismatic gifts? Did the previous discussions harm you that much?

I have asked you to discuss the scriptures, not personal charisma, and you will not. So I ask again. Did Jairus ask Jesus to resurrect his dead daughter or to heal his sick daughter? It is a simple question. Why do you fear answering?