Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[2003cobra]

Thank you for the long post.

I will read it again after breakfast and may have more comments.

Lon writes
Jacob English for Ja'acob. from Hebrew. Heli is not Hebrew and so could be a Greek name equivalent, etc.

Think about this, Lon?

How could they possibly be alternate names for the same person, since one was direct male line descendant of David’s son Nathan while the other is a direct male line descendant of David’s son Solomon.

You seem quick to grasp answers that are only solutions if you don’t think about them long.

You ask me what I win or hope to achieve.

It is my desire that a few people stop making it difficult for people to come to the gospel, or difficult to stay believers, because they have been taught the lie of biblical inerrancy and built their faith on that lie. When they find an error, their foundation of sand shifts.

I presented this, probably more than once, with the discussion of Daniel Wallace as to why making inerrancy a core doctrine has turned many from the faith.

I understand that you have spent years in inerrancy-based seminary and that your support system might be damaged if you face the fact that these are errors, but shouldn’t you embrace truth, keep your faith in the Savior, and abandon that false teaching of man?

I ask you, why do you insist making inerrancy, a doctrine not presented in scripture, a core doctrine and the foundation of your faith?

 

[2003cobra]

Lon, I would like to comment on this:

Quote Originally Posted by 2003cobra
Do you have any explanation for the error in the story of the centurion?

Quote Originally Posted by Lon
Yes. You 'assume' an error. There is no intellectual intelligent way to prove an error exists.

Actually, there is no intellectually honest and no intellectually intelligent way to deny the error.

Luke clearly states the centurion did not come to Jesus and tells why.

Matthew clearly states the centurion did come to Jesus and spoke to him.

I accept your statement that you have a fairly high IQ. I know that you can intellectually understand those facts.

I remind you of your post 391 and 393:

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 are not intelligent enough to talk to me.

 

[Zeke]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you talking about the verses I quoted?

You believe in the virgin birth that you think happened with out a biological conception first 1Cor 15:46, Galatians 4:1, Jesus states that we have the same Spiritual Father, then you should have been born in like manner is my point, seeing you're worried about genealogies portrayed by fleshly generations that you think proves the Roman theory of the Eternal Spirit being born of a woman of flesh instead of a Divine Seed of Light that all come with into this world John 1:9.

Galatians 4:24,shows all those genealogies would also be symbolic, And Matt 11:11 is the thorn in the traditional theory that Jesus represented flesh and blood or he was second place to John who could claim spirit teaching yet like you he was still a son of Hagar in his mind.

John 5:39, John 21:25, but you have them all in the letters Rome/Caesar approved for you, the secrets that hide behind the mask of appearances/shadows is still beguiling you, the first place to start is in you just like the spirit of the letter told you Luke 17:20-21, that's where the kingdom is experienced Dan 4:34, Luke 15:17, if you were really awake you would know that Eph 5:14, but you would rather be a member of the mid acts guild majoring on separation and sitcom sarcasm, blind to reconciliation that is done and over for all seeing we all are of the same Spiritual Father Eph 4:6 Acts 17:28. .

 

[Lon]

Thank you for the long post.

I will read it again after breakfast and may have more comments.

Lon writes
Jacob English for Ja'acob. from Hebrew. Heli is not Hebrew and so could be a Greek name equivalent, etc.

Think about this, Lon?

How could they possibly be alternate names for the same person, since one was direct male line descendant of David’s son Nathan while the other is a direct male line descendant of David’s son Solomon.

Er, no. This debate has gone on for centuries. You'll not change my mind with parlor tricks. We both come from presuppositions that drive our respective theologies. John W has done a very good job of explaining 'why' we hold to inerrancy. That should be enough for you. There is no ground to gain by your contention and no point to it. I've rather prayed you'd "listen" and "follow" and be 'instructed' by the scriptures rather than waste time correcting them. "Benefit of the doubt" IS the Christian position. We are to entertain no hearsay OTHER than as two or three witnesses. Again, for me, your position, frankly, is sin. It doesn't seem to be for you, but I nor mine will be moved. We are resolute.

You seem quick to grasp answers that are only solutions if you don’t think about them long.

Doesn't matter. I think you the simpler, but it doesn't matter. Mine is the benefit of doubt position that I believe a Christian should approach everything with. I gave you the scripture.

You ask me what I win or hope to achieve.

It is my desire that a few people stop making it difficult for people to come to the gospel, or difficult to stay believers, because they have been taught the lie of biblical inerrancy and built their faith on that lie. When they find an error, their foundation of sand shifts.

I presented this, probably more than once, with the discussion of Daniel Wallace as to why making inerrancy a core doctrine has turned many from the faith.

This is an Arminian position. I'm decidedly Calvinist. You nor I 'can' keep anyone from God. Satan was defeated. Love covers a multitude and rocks will cry out where you or I fail. I believe this implicitly. He will use us. Even in the extreme of Open Theism, God is a Master at intervention and interaction by their reckoning. I believe your position is twice removed and twice incorrect. Others will accuse you of working for the enemy or being the enemy. You should think that through a bit. There is 'something' they are trying to tell you. Again, we aren't debating this, just giving our impressions, thoughts, and commentary. Food for thought is less threatening.

I understand that you have spent years in inerrancy-based seminary and that your support system might be damaged if you face the fact that these are errors, but shouldn’t you embrace truth, keep your faith in the Savior, and abandon that false teaching of man?

Simply posturing. I'm not here for this, Cobra. I'm here to explain other matters. We adamantly disagree on this, so far, that you are seen as a demon, minion, or satan. Why? Because it isn't the benefit of doubt position we are called to as believers <stop a second> just commentary, I'm not trying to get into anything, just explain something to you and give you pause for that thought.

I ask you, why do you insist making inerrancy, a doctrine not presented in scripture, a core doctrine and the foundation of your faith?

Just start with the idea of two or three, or three or four witnesses. Because we have no way of investigating the difference, the default position is 'benefit of doubt.' It 'should' be enough for you, that I see the difference. I'm simply walking away, as I believe scripture itself, and God Himself, has called me to do: Not to entertain without a witness (means 'eye' witness). None of us can ask, therefore default is to be a Christian who 1 Corinthians 13:5

Again, we are just making commentary. Having a discussion behind-the-scenes as it were. I think sentiment and presupposition an important component to this thread, though everyone's is his/her own. These are just the two of ours but it may serve. -Lon

 

[patrick jane]

I understand you find my presence here uncomfortable.

It is never easy to see error in one’s long-held views.

Thanks for the link. I don’t frequent such sites normally. The errors I have seen were ones that I came across in my personal studies and studies in preparation for teaching a small group or Sunday School class.


Do you have any explanation for the error in the story of the centurion?

Most folks here have been here for years, you hardly make anyone "uncomfortable". Do you point out "errors" in the Bible to all those you talk to about Jesus Christ? Do you really think people stop believing if they think they've found a discrepancy?

So far, all I've seen from you has been an attempt to raise doubt, sowing discord and division. I don't think you'll find an audience here to discuss your unproductive "studies". You won't persuade anyone here.

 

[glorydaz]

You believe in the virgin birth

Yep

 

[Lon]

Lon, I would like to comment on this:



Actually, there is no intellectually honest and no intellectually intelligent way to deny the error.

Luke clearly states the centurion did not come to Jesus and tells why.

Matthew clearly states the centurion did come to Jesus and spoke to him.

I accept your statement that you have a fairly high IQ. I know that you can intellectually understand those facts.

I remind you of your post 391 and 393:

Again, not getting into arguing points. There is no point to it. As I said, entrenching and posturing is all that 'can' happen. You are not at all innovative with your 'errors' hypothesis. I'm not at all moved by a difference. I 'assume' innocence until 'proven' guilty. As I've said, in my opinion and careful scrutiny, you cannot possibly prove an error. That means, out of the box, you CANNOT be correct because you have no possible way of making your case. It cannot be done. Most of the time, it is not in fact an error, but something that one without a Hebrew mindset, or not being a Jew, likely doesn't know. It may seem like gymnastics to you, but the gymnastic doesn't matter. What matters is that the person reading the difference, then put their faith in Christ over the difference. You 'seem' to conclude the same BUT the doubt of error is planted from your side. That danger is a man, or an Eve, who doubts the words of God, then proceeds to listen to the enemy. Genesis 3:1 is exactly that. It is a matter of trusting God. We have no way to follow the Holy Spirit without instructions. You cannot get to California from anywhere, unless you have adequate maps and road signs. The same here: we have to have instructions we can depend on. Trust and faith are the default position for a believer. Skepticism and doubt? James 1:6-8 Once you attack one who believes all things, hopes all things, you are crushing faith and creating doubt and importantly, again, about something you have no way of making but by way of impression and accusation rather than first-hand knowledge. If this were a court case, you'd be thrown out (as would I) for prejudgment. I 'might' be eligible simply because, after reading, I've no intention of a 'guilty' verdict. It is God's court and I believe you a busy-body simply because you have no stake in the prosecution. There is one accuser. Again, just thoughts. I've no intention of doing but a discussion. I'm not here to debate over these matters with you. If the thoughts give you background for the other side and give you pause for how you approach and breach this subject in the future, I think it'll have served the purpose. -Lon

 

[Lon]

You believe in the virgin birth that you think happened with out a biological conception first 1Cor 15:46, Galatians 4:1, Jesus states that we have the same Spiritual Father, then you should have been born in like manner is my point, seeing you're worried about genealogies portrayed by fleshly generations that you think proves the Roman theory of the Eternal Spirit being born of a woman of flesh instead of a Divine Seed of Light that all come with into this world John 1:9.

Er, you are 'quoting' the very text you'd use to prove a point. Do you realize, you are as bound to the text for your own proof? It is wrong. John 4:23 You cannot divorce one from the other. You are trying to do it, but it cannot be done. You can't be an acceptable Samaritan to God today. It is fancying your own kingdom. You don't have that capability. Gnosticism is a cart before the horse proposition. The Lord Jesus Christ, first. John 15:5 You don't believe it 'literally' to your own demise.

 

[Zeke]

Yep

You also believe in good and evil, death and sin, which shows you have a unreconciled carnal perception of you're world, God/Good is all about yet you perceive it through unbelief waiting for another Matt 11:3, who will judge in like manner, whoops..

 

[glorydaz]

You also believe in good and evil, death and sin, which shows you have a unreconciled carnal perception of you're world, God/Good is all about yet you perceive it through unbelief waiting for another Matt 11:3, who will judge in like manner, whoops..

Just shows how ignorant you are.

Why then should I listen to anything you have to say?

 

[Zeke]

Er, you are 'quoting' the very text you'd use to prove a point. Do you realize, you are as bound to the text for your own proof? It is wrong. John 4:23 You cannot divorce one from the other. You are trying to do it, but it cannot be done. You can't be an acceptable Samaritan to God today. It is fancying your own kingdom. You don't have that capability. Gnosticism is a cart before the horse proposition. The Lord Jesus Christ, first. John 15:5 You don't believe it 'literally' to your own demise.

No you repeat the common error by literal application when the duality being portrayed in scripture is figurative teachings concerning the natural and spiritual "stages of man that you cant see through that glass/darkly of intellectual judgement that keeps you bound to the world that still see's good and evil, Galatians 4:20-28 explains this dual purpose but you can't see anything except through duality that feeds you're unbelief in ignorance Matt 11:11, Galatians 4:1 you an't hear within what the ONE Spirit reveals in the holy of holies because you live in time waiting for the kingdom Matt 11:3 when the Eternal Kingdom is always at hand, but you peer into some observable fictitious future from the thoughts of other intellectual braggarts who love to teach about a god who also sees good and evil, who gives out salvation for blind men like you Lon.

Wake up Lon the world was reconciled because the true Source of life doesn't believe in death so why do you still eat those husk?

Neville Goddard explains why you think in duality Lon, if you can receive. Now, let us see what is this “tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” All religions have been founded upon this basic principle, that in the beginning God created heaven and earth and everything that in them is, that He had nothing whatever out of which to make them but Himself, that there was nothing anywhere that was, but what was made of God, but what was God,—absolutely nothing. This being true, and it is what the Bible teaches, and it is what I believe,—this being true, then there is absolutely nothing in heaven or on earth but what is God, or good. What is this knowledge? What is this “tree of the knowledge of good and evil?”Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil Why, it is the separation of ourselves from this truth of our oneness with God. It is a recognition of something else besides God here on this earth plane and in the heavens above. It is a consciousness which believes in and separates itself from this great, wonderful, constructive and harmonious power of the universe which we call by various names, but which is commonly called God. And when we come into a consciousness of our separation from God, when we create the belief and become so intellectual that we find something else in the universe besides God we surely do die, for all that is greatest, all that is highest, all that is most holy, begins to wither as a result of that separation in our consciousness. And so when we eat of this ” tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” when we begin to see the ” evil” in people and things instead of the good or God in them, when we begin to develop a consciousness that the world and most of the people in it are ” bad,” we then begin to relate with people and things whose expressions are destructive in our lives, and we attract the ” bad ” things to us. In this consciousness we do surely die. We are dead to all the higher, more constructive and harmonious conditions; a death many times worse than could be the death of the physical body. How did man begin to eat of that tree? Through his intellect, through his reason, through his logic. The brain was given to man for the purpose of using it as a companion, as a handmaiden, to his inspiration, illumination, and revelation; but he has taken it, together with his reason and logic, and used them to bury his illumination, inspiration, and revelation. He has said to himself again and again, ” It cannot be true,” ” it is impossible for it to be true,” when he has had some wonderful inspiration or illumination, and instead of using his reason and logic to work out his illumination, inspiration, or revelation in form on the objective plane, where it could be used by all the rest of mankind, he has set his brain, the physical organ through which the God-consciousness sends its expression to every part of the body, to kill out his inspiration, to kill out his glorious, wonderful illumination, and the result could only be the non-expression or ” death” of all his higher ideals as long as this condition existed. F. W. Sears Share this:[/IMG]









.

 

[Zeke]

Just shows how ignorant you are.

Why then should I listen to anything you have to say?

Only to the carnal minded like you who are still blind, and buried with the letter that keeps you dead in unbelief because you miss the clues of its secrets Galatians 4:24, Luke 17:20-21, its closer than hands and feet but you peer into the future that doesn't exist like you're god of good and evil, your life time will expire, but the real you wearing the mask can't die.

 

[glorydaz]

Only to the carnal minded like you who are still blind, and buried with the letter that keeps you dead in unbelief because you miss the clues of its secrets Galatians 4:24, Luke 17:20-21, its closer than hands and feet but you peer into the future that doesn't exist like you're god of good and evil, your life time will exspire.

:troll:

 

[Zeke]

:troll:

Is that a self portrait? anyway time will work on that mask so until you join the immortal minded who have reconciled our worlds happy and sad trails to you.

 

[2003cobra]

Er, no. This debate has gone on for centuries. You'll not change my mind with parlor tricks. We both come from presuppositions that drive our respective theologies. John W has done a very good job of explaining 'why' we hold to inerrancy. That should be enough for you. There is no ground to gain by your contention and no point to it. I've rather prayed you'd "listen" and "follow" and be 'instructed' by the scriptures rather than waste time correcting them. "Benefit of the doubt" IS the Christian position. We are to entertain no hearsay OTHER than as two or three witnesses. Again, for me, your position, frankly, is sin. It doesn't seem to be for you, but I nor mine will be moved. We are resolute.


Doesn't matter. I think you the simpler, but it doesn't matter. Mine is the benefit of doubt position that I believe a Christian should approach everything with. I gave you the scripture.
This is an Arminian position. I'm decidedly Calvinist. You nor I 'can' keep anyone from God. Satan was defeated. Love covers a multitude and rocks will cry out where you or I fail. I believe this implicitly. He will use us. Even in the extreme of Open Theism, God is a Master at intervention and interaction by their reckoning. I believe your position is twice removed and twice incorrect. Others will accuse you of working for the enemy or being the enemy. You should think that through a bit. There is 'something' they are trying to tell you. Again, we aren't debating this, just giving our impressions, thoughts, and commentary. Food for thought is less threatening.


Simply posturing. I'm not here for this, Cobra. I'm here to explain other matters. We adamantly disagree on this, so far, that you are seen as a demon, minion, or satan. Why? Because it isn't the benefit of doubt position we are called to as believers <stop a second> just commentary, I'm not trying to get into anything, just explain something to you and give you pause for that thought.

Just start with the idea of two or three, or three or four witnesses. Because we have no way of investigating the difference, the default position is 'benefit of doubt.' It 'should' be enough for you, that I see the difference. I'm simply walking away, as I believe scripture itself, and God Himself, has called me to do: Not to entertain without a witness (means 'eye' witness). None of us can ask, therefore default is to be a Christian who 1 Corinthians 13:5

Again, we are just making commentary. Having a discussion behind-the-scenes as it were. I think sentiment and presupposition an important component to this thread, though everyone's is his/her own. These are just the two of ours but it may serve. -Lon

Parlor tricks?

I showed you from the text itself that Matthew declares the centurion came to Jesus and spoke to Jesus.
I showed you from the text itself that Luke declared the centurion did neither and explained why not.

So you dismiss the scriptures as a parlor trick, and you abandon what they actually say to cling to a false doctrine never declared in scripture.

I could repeat the other errors in which you denied the text, but that has been done.

 

[2003cobra]

Most folks here have been here for years, you hardly make anyone "uncomfortable". Do you point out "errors" in the Bible to all those you talk to about Jesus Christ? Do you really think people stop believing if they think they've found a discrepancy?

Yes.

Daniel Wallace says he has seen many students go down that path:

What I tell my students every year is that it is imperative that they pursue truth rather than protect their presuppositions. And they need to have a doctrinal taxonomy that distinguishes core beliefs from peripheral beliefs. When they place more peripheral doctrines such as inerrancy and verbal inspiration at the core, then when belief in these doctrines start to erode, it creates a domino effect: One falls down, they all fall down. It strikes me that something like this may be what happened to Bart Ehrman. His testimony in Misquoting Jesus discussed inerrancy as the prime mover in his studies. But when a glib comment from one of his conservative professors at Princeton was scribbled on a term paper, to the effect that perhaps the Bible is not inerrant, Ehrman’s faith began to crumble. One domino crashed into another until eventually he became ‘a fairly happy agnostic.’ I may be wrong about Ehrman’s own spiritual journey, but I have known too many students who have gone in that direction. The irony is that those who frontload their critical investigation of the text of the Bible with bibliological presuppositions often speak of a ‘slippery slope’ on which all theological convictions are tied to inerrancy. Their view is that if inerrancy goes, everything else begins to erode. I would say that if inerrancy is elevated to the status of a prime doctrine, that’s when one gets on a slippery slope. But if a student views doctrines as concentric circles, with the cardinal doctrines occupying the center, then if the more peripheral doctrines are challenged, this does not have an effect on the core.

https://bible.org/article/interview-daniel-b-wallace-textual-criticism

So far, all I've seen from you has been an attempt to raise doubt, sowing discord and division. I don't think you'll find an audience here to discuss your unproductive "studies". You won't persuade anyone here.

It is interesting that you think you can speak for everyone on the forum, yet you will not address the clear error between Luke and Matthew in the story of the centurion.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

It is interesting that you think you can speak for everyone on the forum, yet you will not address the clear error between Luke and Matthew in the story of the centurion.

It would seem some of Luke's gospel was compiled from second hand accounts from Jews who were zealous of the law and could not consider Jesus touching a Gentile.:think:

 

[Lon]

Parlor tricks?

I showed you from the text itself that Matthew declares the centurion came to Jesus and spoke to Jesus.
I showed you from the text itself that Luke declared the centurion did neither and explained why not.

AND....you have nothing, nadda, in the way of proof, just speculation, allegation. There is nothing there for you to prosecute. You can 'think' there is all you like but legally, it cannot go to court, and I think we have a good system, both for legality and innocence. I happen to like "innocent until PROVEN beyond doubt, guilty." You don't. Okay. I'm not sue-happy. You seem to be. I've no idea what the difference means. It by NO means need be a mistake. That's simply, only, just, an estimation by you. An inkling. It is nothing but.

So you dismiss the scriptures as a parlor trick, and you abandon what they actually say to cling to a false doctrine never declared in scripture.

You. I dismiss you because you didn't write and aren't in contact with these writers. That alone says :nono: You have NO BUSINESS with declarations. Eerdman fell because he stopped reading the scriptures to know God. Eerdman fell because he thought he was judge and jury and could judge the things of God. VERY presumptuous. It had nothing to do with differences. Such can be but an excuse. You wrongly bought the excuse. Don't. It is from the enemy. Simple question: Is God trustworthy? If so, then you've nothing left to do in thread. If not, we'd all be in trouble, but I find God completely trustworthy. Like my cohort, John W says, 'if God is sovereign, it is up to Him to ensure we have Him perfectly. ANY shadow and we no longer have God in control and guiding us. John W is right: we'd be lost, with nothing. Romans 10:13-15 If the message is imperfect, you and I lose. God must have ensured a true message. Does He not care about details? Matthew 5:18? Are we saved by sloppy unprofessional work? The Unitarians would be right. Zeke would be right. No one would ever need to come to the Savior because if it isn't clear, then we can't anyway. John W taught me that. He said the same to you as well.

I could repeat the other errors in which you denied the text, but that has been done.

Waste of both our times. I think discussing our presuppositions the better. Some understanding of the posture at this point, I think is all there is. You may be aware of such, but if not, it is to hopefully serve. If not, at least it'd reinforce the position for others who may read.

 

[glorydaz]

Is that a self portrait? anyway time will work on that mask so until you join the immortal minded who have reconciled our worlds happy and sad trails to you.

Being "immortal minded" ain't gonna save your soul.

 

[Zeke]

Being "immortal minded" ain't gonna save your soul.

Logic would admit being saved is a mortal minded thought veiled in Spiritual ignorance, Galatians 4:1 is the spiritual state you have yet to progress from, and by the response it shows you are in unbelief in the power of the Spirit that transcend your inanimate object you claim gives you the formula to life, when Life has always been Eternal without beginning or end grasshopper.