Thanks. Nice to have company. Rest easy.
I will have limited time the next week or 10 days as my wife and I head to Canada to visit family.
Scripture. What is considered Scripture?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
Thanks. Nice to have company. Rest easy.
I will have limited time the next week or 10 days as my wife and I head to Canada to visit family.
Lon
Well-known member
Apologies Jacob. I had no idea Mr. steal-a-thread was going to hijack your thread nor realized for this long, but he intends to NOT answer your question but take over your thread for his own.
Briefly, whatever the Lord Jesus Christ read from, is considered scriptures. Whatever He quotes is considered scriptures. Apostles and other disciples wrote as God moved them and they call each other's writings inspired scriptures. There are other considerations as well, such as what the Jews canonized themselves, etc. I hope this thread gets back on track so these will come out, or anything else that was your purpose for creating this thread.
An elongated argument about 'errancy' is not the purview of this thread. I hope this brief answer gets the thread back on track and you'll ask any further questions you need to. In Him -Lon
Briefly, whatever the Lord Jesus Christ read from, is considered scriptures. Whatever He quotes is considered scriptures. Apostles and other disciples wrote as God moved them and they call each other's writings inspired scriptures. There are other considerations as well, such as what the Jews canonized themselves, etc. I hope this thread gets back on track so these will come out, or anything else that was your purpose for creating this thread.
An elongated argument about 'errancy' is not the purview of this thread. I hope this brief answer gets the thread back on track and you'll ask any further questions you need to. In Him -Lon
Shalom.
I actually do not know what you are talking about.
The Torah, the TaNaK, the Jewish Bible, the Hebrew Bible. How do we have them as we now do? Are these the Jewish Canon only from the Jews?
I also accept Matthew through Revelation but not by the names New Covenant or New Testament. When was this or the Canon established, must we speak of the Canon when referring to these, or when and how were these accepted and were the words Canon, New Covenant, or New Testament, used?
What is Scripture? The Torah, the TaNaK, Matthew through Revelation? What we call these and when and how we came to do so.
Do some people call the Bible Scripture, or is Scripture called or referred to as the Bible?
Shalom.
Jacob
What are you on?
Lon
Well-known member
Here is a website that talks about canonicity (scripture). See if this addresses some of your questions and ask further, which it doesn't.
As far as the latter half, what we'd call the 'New Testament,' is collated based on many reasons. 1) Because God promised to preserve His Word. Many of us believe God is active with us, not absent, therefore, what we have is by His will. 2) We also have God's stamp of approval on these books as given to us in 2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16 etc. These books cross-reference one another and while other books are quoted, these specifically are called inspired scriptures and/or carry the mark of such (i.e. such as having walked with the Lord Jesus Christ). In Him :e4e: -Lon
A search for your opinion in this case.
What do you think the voice from the cloud said?
Two answers don’t work.
If you are and angel for truth, don’t you want to know the truth in this matter? I don’t think that you believe both the statements you posted were said. It was one or the other, or something else, wasn’t it?
Last edited:
glorydaz
Well-known member
A childish power trip would be my guess. :chuckle:
The word Greek word graphe (scripture) simply means writings. In the first century when most of what is called the New Testament was written, the term scripture referred to secular and sacred writings.
People have now come to think of scripture as only sacred or holy writings, but it was not that way in the first century.
A study of the canon shows its development to be haphazard, taking hundreds of years and actually having multiple paths and multiple destinations. I prefer the shorter canon of the Church of the East. Some ancient African churches have longer canons.
There were several disputed books at the beginning of the fourth century: 2 Peter, 2&3 John, Jude, and Revelation. These books were never included in the canon of the Church of the East. As the church at Rome sought to put more local churches under its authority, I think, they found it advantageous to broaden the canon to diminish the resistance to their usurping authority.
By the way, note the passage in 2 Timothy 3 refers to the sacred scriptures that Timothy had known from his youth. That would include none of what is called the New Testament:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, 15 and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.
By the way, there is an alternate translation that makes a lot more sense: All inspired scripture is useful...
Should we start with the Torah? Were these the first writings or the first writings accepted? When was it given this name? What other names have these writings gone by? When were these names given? What about the rest of the TaNaK? The same kind of questions may, or should, be answered.
No answer for the error in Matthew, saying there were 14 generations, when there were many more?
I do not know if what you are telling me is true. Neither do I know what to do with the information.
I think it says what the literal says it does, that is the same in both verses that ive already quoted.
I don't suppose someone's mentioned that none of the accounts are themselves complete? That they each recorded something that was said, but not everything that was said?
Lon
Well-known member
Good on you, Jacob. Question everything like a good Berean (those who studied).
When you see it in those bible books, it always means "holy books."
He is correct that it means "to write" when not found in those books, unless those other sources are talking about these scriptures. :up:
He is trying to say, in so many words, that there is no such thing as anything 'considered scriptures.' He denies the term other than as it relates to books written about God. He doesn't see them as God's words, just words 'about' Him
Lon
Well-known member
True but I wouldn't say 'incomplete.' For the purpose John wrote the gospel with his name, for instance, he says it was complete for what his purpose was, while agreeing it wasn't everything. John 20:30,31 That said, you'd think when another saw that from John, they'd give other gospel writer the benefit of the doubt, when they didn't include everything John did, only what was essential to convey important facts, history, and instruction of God. Because Matthew was writing to Jews, gentiles might not appreciate all the information given therein about the Messiah King. Conversely, each of the gospel writers wrote to specific audiences for the purpose of conveying the gospel 'to them.'
glorydaz
Well-known member
No point in discussing scripture with someone who barely sees the surface of God's Holy Word.
The genealogies contain a wealth of information, but, alas, you are not able to bear it. Just like so many Corinthians.
1 Corinthians 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Actually, that has been mentioned, but Cobra refuses to hear anyone but himself.
So that the witnesses would remember key points, the voice that day may have delivered a dissertation from the cloud, continually repeating certain things, like certain Psalms do, that day when the Lord's face shown like the sun; it looked like the sun was His face, that day on the mountain. Maybe we only have 5-10 percent of what the voice said, but these were the main points He kept returning to, between other triumphant proclamations, that the witnesses chose to omit, under the influence of the Holy Spirit later on.
All right.