Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[2003cobra]

Today, as in times past, courts of law hold that what a man does through a duly constituted agency, he himself actually and legally does.

Personally, I think both happened. The centurion asked the elders to talk to Jesus and went with them. After they made a formal request, he reiterated what was asked.

Thank you for commenting. It is a refreshing change from the avoidance.

You do understand, I hope, that your version specifically contradicts Luke. See the part in bold.

After Jesus[a] had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. 2 A centurion there had a slave whom he valued highly, and who was ill and close to death. 3 When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave. 4 When they came to Jesus, they appealed to him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy of having you do this for him, 5 for he loves our people, and it is he who built our synagogue for us.” 6 And Jesus went with them, but when he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to say to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; 7 therefore I did not presume to come to you. But only speak the word, and let my servant be healed. 8 For I also am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.” 9 When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, he said, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” 10 When those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.

 

[2003cobra]

Lon writes:
All of us, against you. You are a joke on TOL. What a horribly depressing day you must be having....I'm home alone, family off doing a post-Christmas journey. You? Pathetically wasting time on TOL while you have grandkids. Sad really.

You are so wrong about so many things, Lon.

I know that you would like to visualize it the way you have, but it doesn’t take very long to rebut your fantasies.

Much of the day I spent outside roasting hot dogs with the 5-year-old and his baby sister, roasting hot dogs and swinging and climbing the tree fort. Now the baby is in bed, the five-year-old is winding down with his parents, and my lovely bride of 43 years is asking my opinions on her clothes. Tomorrow the kids go to laser tag, and I am off duty.

It was a great day.

So your insults don’t bother me.

So you could not be more wrong. How long have you been married?

So, do you see the error in the passage in in post 936?

 

[2003cobra]

Nope lain: "...there is certainly no demonstrated error here in the Bible. On the contrary, several plausible solutions are available."

Mr. dishonest and can't be bothered won't acknowledge that. He can't. His house of cards would topple. He HAS to dishonestly pronounce nobody was able to address and then proceed to his 'next' error, attacking God, His people, His bible.

Inerrancy is the Christian position.

Inerrancy is not “the” Christian position.

So, you want to pretend that the altar of incense stood in the holy of holies?

Or, which of seven denials of the text in your link have you chosen to embrace? Or do you not even have an opinion and just link to others who deny what the text actually says?

 

[George Affleck]

I have listed several.
Some you did not even try to explain. For example, you never attempted to explain why Matthew skipped four generations in his genealogy and miscounted 18 as 14.

So, you persist in pretending the errors do not exist. It is a sad dishonesty.

Matthew's account is not a genealogy intended to prove descent. It is a theological statement of the genesis of a nation waiting for the Messiah. It covers the period from Abraham to the birth of Christ divided into 3 sections of 14 representing 6 sections of seven generations, of which the seventh section is the Sabbath rest into which those who are the true Israel of God can enter as a result of the birth of the Messiah.

Matthew is keenly aware that Jesus' only Father is not Joseph and that he need not prove that Jesus is in the lineage of any of these men. The proof of this, among other things, is that after all these 'begats' he changes his language completely in Matt 1:16KJV and does not use the word.

Another hint that this is not intended to be exact is in Matt 1:17KJV. It is to be noted that only in the first set of 14 is the word "all" (πᾶς) utilized. Perhaps this is a recognition this set alone was exactly correct.

I hope this helps clear up this stumbling block for you.

 

[Lon]

Inerrancy is not “the” Christian position.

So, you want to pretend that the altar of incense stood in the holy of holies?

Or, which of seven denials of the text in your link have you chosen to embrace? Or do you not even have an opinion and just link to others who deny what the text actually says?

Er, this was NOT a man that wouldn't have known where such was, student of Gamaliel, tribe of Benjamin, Pharisee of Pharisees... yadda yadda.
There YOU are, a NONJew, claiming to know your stuff. lain: Yeah, not very impressed with you and your clown show. Me? I'm not a Jew. Sure, I've looked as such things but having NEVER been to temple (and neither have you or anybody else living), I can but wonder a little. You?
LIES!!! LIES!!! LIES!!! Yeah, that is decidedly NOT the Christian position. We, all of us, honor Christ. You? Jury is still out. A couple of folks think you a slave of Satan. I 'see' why they think that but in the same fashion I'm not stupid quick to say 'error' I'm not stupid enough to pass judgement on you either until I know (John W and GloryDaz generally are quicker on this than I am, that and I try to give the benefit of doubt). When/if it eventually comes out, I'll let you know. You don't seem to know scriptures very well and you do seem to approach scripture exactly as that serpent Genesis 3:1. Is it JUST coincidence you chose 'Cobra?' :think: If I were hasty like some old men I know, I'd already have my confirmed bias about that. Until I know for sure? I can just pass for now. That is how "I" roll, not like some quick and dirty accusers I know of... :think:

 

[George Affleck]

Thank you for commenting. It is a refreshing change from the avoidance.

You do understand, I hope, that your version specifically contradicts Luke. See the part in bold.

After Jesus[a] had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. 2 A centurion there had a slave whom he valued highly, and who was ill and close to death. 3 When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave. 4 When they came to Jesus, they appealed to him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy of having you do this for him, 5 for he loves our people, and it is he who built our synagogue for us.” 6 And Jesus went with them, but when he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to say to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; 7 therefore I did not presume to come to you. But only speak the word, and let my servant be healed. 8 For I also am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.” 9 When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, he said, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” 10 When those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.

The KJV gives a better idea of why they may have gone together. And please underscore "may".

It is this: Luke 7:7KJV
The word "myself" (ἐμαυτοῦ) is somewhat unnecessary as the verb includes the personal pronoun if the meaning is referencing only him.

But perhaps it is used to suggest that the centurion, fearing rejection, brought the elders as backup believing they would have more influence; meaning that he was fearful of going to Jesus alone.

I would bow to a Greek specialist on this as I am not one.

 

[Lon]

Matthew's account is not a genealogy intended to prove descent. It is a theological statement of the genesis of a nation waiting for the Messiah. It covers the period from Abraham to the birth of Christ divided into 3 sections of 14 representing 6 sections of seven generations, of which the seventh section is the Sabbath rest into which those who are the true Israel of God can enter as a result of the birth of the Messiah.

Matthew is keenly aware that Jesus' only Father is not Joseph and that he need not prove that Jesus is in the lineage of any of these men. The proof of this, among other things, is that after all these 'begats' he changes his language completely in Matt 1:16KJV and does not use the word.

Another hint that this is not intended to be exact is in Matt 1:17KJV. It is to be noted that only in the first set of 14 is the word "all" (πᾶς) utilized. Perhaps this is a recognition this set alone was exactly correct.

I hope this helps clear up this stumbling block for you.

:up: But it won't (good job anyway, George!)

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I yet believe you missed the 'or' in definition. I'm fairly consistent with knowing what words mean. "Difference" does not mean error. It simply means "not the same." At first, you seemed to grasp that, but you've come to agreement a few times with Cobra. I believe in inerrancy for several reasons. 1) Revelation claims it (so do other books) 2) It goes hand in hand with authority and command. One simply does not go about correcting his commander, ESPECIALLY if even as Cobra says: It doesn't matter. And that leads to 3) So inconsequential that he can't make a big deal about the claim that there is inerrancy. 4) 1 Corinthians 13 "Hardly notices when ("If") somebody gets it wrong. 5) waste of time, not worthy of our time: There is no 'reason' to entertain errant claims if, as Cobra says, such were inconsequential. You simply cannot say 'not a problem with doctrine' then say 'problem.' It is counter-intuitive discussion. 5) There are many reasons we believe in inerrancy and they are all posted within the scripture. John W posted a good many. I've posted a good many. John W asked 'where is this "word of God?" Why? Because in order to follow what is 'in' scriptures, one must have access to those written words.

I largely agree. For me it's a bit like saying a brand new car is perfect even though when you look very closely there are some hidden scratches that can only be seen by looking underneath or in side the wheel arch for example. It's not really a problem.

If anything it is just of interest and something that we might learn from i.e. if we could try to find out why Matthews genealogy misses those 3 or 4 people who are included in Chronicles then we might further our understanding of something very useful? But simply ignoring this 'discrepancy' like all the others (small as they may be) then we learn nothing.

For example:

John 6:4
The Jewish Passover Festival was near.

is an added or changed verse that was not in earlier Bible's and changes Jesus 1.3 year ministry in to a 3.5 year ministry and really messes up prophetic verses and other verses that allude to Jesus 1 year ministry.

Again this is not really a big deal unless you are keenly into the chronology of Jesus ministry and the chronology of Biblical history.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

:nono: No, that is you. YOU see one of them as wrong, therefore it is you. You don't trust ONE of the accounts.

Conversely? Patrick Jane trusts both. He 'sees' the difference BUT doesn't jump the gun and stop trusting one. He holds them both before God AND leaves them there, in God's hands, where they belong. THAT is what John W was talking about. Between the lines, John W said a LOT of good things. Look for those. He was right.


:nono: YOUR position.


There, you said. "[I, Cobra], cannot trust either Matthew or Luke."

Listen to yourself. You are right.


Yes it is. It is the 'default' positions. Read 1 Corinthians 13 again: "Believes all things, hopes all things." YOU too, are called to that kind of Christianity, the one where Paul says NOT to entertain accusation without two or three witnesses. YOU are entertaining the accusations. You found them AND believed them. QUESTION: If there are NO witnesses... SHOULD you entertain an accusation? What does scripture say? 1 Timothy 5:19

John W said a lot of bad things too. Worst name caller I've seen on here.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

delete

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Matthew's account is not a genealogy intended to prove descent. It is a theological statement of the genesis of a nation waiting for the Messiah. It covers the period from Abraham to the birth of Christ divided into 3 sections of 14 representing 6 sections of seven generations, of which the seventh section is the Sabbath rest into which those who are the true Israel of God can enter as a result of the birth of the Messiah.

Matthew is keenly aware that Jesus' only Father is not Joseph and that he need not prove that Jesus is in the lineage of any of these men. The proof of this, among other things, is that after all these 'begats' he changes his language completely in Matt 1:16KJV and does not use the word.

Another hint that this is not intended to be exact is in Matt 1:17KJV. It is to be noted that only in the first set of 14 is the word "all" (πᾶς) utilized. Perhaps this is a recognition this set alone was exactly correct.

I hope this helps clear up this stumbling block for you.

At last!

After reading through all the petty name calling and mud slinging someone at last addresses this most interesting discrepancy with a plausible solution, (where did you find that George if I may ask?).

 

[2003cobra]

The KJV gives a better idea of why they may have gone together. And please underscore "may".

It is this: Luke 7:7KJV
The word "myself" (ἐμαυτοῦ) is somewhat unnecessary as the verb includes the personal pronoun if the meaning is referencing only him.

But perhaps it is used to suggest that the centurion, fearing rejection, brought the elders as backup believing they would have more influence; meaning that he was fearful of going to Jesus alone.

I would bow to a Greek specialist on this as I am not one.

Zenn is a Greek expert, perhaps we can get his opinion.

But I think verse 6 tells the story:
And Jesus went with them, but when he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to say to him...
The centurion sent to Jesus as Jesus approached the house. That means the centurion was not with Jesus.

What do you think?

 

[2003cobra]

At last!

After reading through all the petty name calling and mud slinging someone at last addresses this most interesting discrepancy with a plausible solution, (where did you find that George if I may ask?).

I join you in the joy that someone wants to discuss the scriptures!

My last post explains why I don’t think that resolves the error, but you and George are a breath of fresh air.

 

[2003cobra]

I largely agree. For me it's a bit like saying a brand new car is perfect even though when you look very closely there are some hidden scratches that can only be seen by looking underneath or in side the wheel arch for example. It's not really a problem.

If anything it is just of interest and something that we might learn from i.e. if we could try to find out why Matthews genealogy misses those 3 or 4 people who are included in Chronicles then we might further our understanding of something very useful? But simply ignoring this 'discrepancy' like all the others (small as they may be) then we learn nothing.

For example:

John 6:4
The Jewish Passover Festival was near.

is an added or changed verse that was not in earlier Bible's and changes Jesus 1.3 year ministry in to a 3.5 year ministry and really messes up prophetic verses and other verses that allude to Jesus 1 year ministry.

Again this is not really a big deal unless you are keenly into the chronology of Jesus ministry and the chronology of Biblical history.

It is interesting that you mentioned the Passover.

The next error I planned to mention is that the synoptic gospels present the Last Supper as the Passover meal, while John seems to go out of his way to make it clear that Jesus was in custody before the Passover Meal.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I join you in the joy that someone wants to discuss the scriptures!

My last post explains why I don’t think that resolves the error, but you and George are a breath of fresh air.

If it doesn't resolve the genealogy discrepancy then what does? And why doesn't it? (I couldn't find your response).

 

[2003cobra]

Matthew's account is not a genealogy intended to prove descent. It is a theological statement of the genesis of a nation waiting for the Messiah. It covers the period from Abraham to the birth of Christ divided into 3 sections of 14 representing 6 sections of seven generations, of which the seventh section is the Sabbath rest into which those who are the true Israel of God can enter as a result of the birth of the Messiah.

Matthew is keenly aware that Jesus' only Father is not Joseph and that he need not prove that Jesus is in the lineage of any of these men. The proof of this, among other things, is that after all these 'begats' he changes his language completely in Matt 1:16KJV and does not use the word.

Another hint that this is not intended to be exact is in Matt 1:17KJV. It is to be noted that only in the first set of 14 is the word "all" (πᾶς) utilized. Perhaps this is a recognition this set alone was exactly correct.

I hope this helps clear up this stumbling block for you.

Thank you, George.

I think you are saying that it is not actual history, and there were more generations, and Matthew altered the history to make a spiritual point.

I have read that explanation before, but few adherents to the doctrine of inerrancy are willing to accept that Matthew took those steps.

I appreciate your post.

Did you also notice the error that I noted in comparing the Matthew genealogy to that of Luke? One says Joseph was a descendant of David through Solomon and the other says through Solomon’s brother Nathan.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

It is interesting that you mentioned the Passover.

The next error I planned to mention is that the synoptic gospels present the Last Supper as the Passover meal, while John seems to go out of his way to make it clear that Jesus was in custody before the Passover Meal.

Much debate and confusion exists around Jesus' 3 days and 3 night in the Heart of the Earth. The answer to this is simpler than many believe. Here are the relevant verses:

Matthew 12
39He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Mark 15:42-43
42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body.

Matthew 28:1
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

Jesus died at about 3pm on the 14th Aviv (Preparation day). He was put in the tomb just before sunset at about 6pm. He rose at sunrise on the 16th Aviv (The day of first fruits) at about 6am. This means was in the tomb for 3 days and 2 nights (about 36 hours). However the term 'Heart of the Earth' that Jesus spoke of was not the tomb. The Bible interprets the Bible and elsewhere we can find what Jesus meant by this phrase:

Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart come evil thoughts; murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

Therefore Jesus was talking about the wickedness of the whole Earth. The moment Jesus entered the wicked heart of the Earth was when He allowed Himself to be arrested and this is what He said at that moment:

Luke 22:53
“Every day I was with you in the temple courts and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour--when darkness reigns."

So it is from this moment that Jesus enters into the Heart of the Earth, which was around midnight on the 14th Aviv and means that He was indeed in the Heart of the Earth three days and three nights.

 

[2003cobra]

Er, this was NOT a man that wouldn't have known where such was, student of Gamaliel, tribe of Benjamin, Pharisee of Pharisees... yadda yadda.
There YOU are, a NONJew, claiming to know your stuff. lain: Yeah, not very impressed with you and your clown show. Me? I'm not a Jew. Sure, I've looked as such things but having NEVER been to temple (and neither have you or anybody else living), I can but wonder a little. You?
LIES!!! LIES!!! LIES!!! Yeah, that is decidedly NOT the Christian position. We, all of us, honor Christ. You? Jury is still out. A couple of folks think you a slave of Satan. I 'see' why they think that but in the same fashion I'm not stupid quick to say 'error' I'm not stupid enough to pass judgement on you either until I know (John W and GloryDaz generally are quicker on this than I am, that and I try to give the benefit of doubt). When/if it eventually comes out, I'll let you know. You don't seem to know scriptures very well and you do seem to approach scripture exactly as that serpent Genesis 3:1. Is it JUST coincidence you chose 'Cobra?' :think: If I were hasty like some old men I know, I'd already have my confirmed bias about that. Until I know for sure? I can just pass for now. That is how "I" roll, not like some quick and dirty accusers I know of... :think:

You might as well give up on the insults, Lon.

You can’t run me off with bad words. You need to deal with facts.

You certainly can’t intimidate me with your claims of academic success, as I have had my own as well as success in business.

The 2003 Cobra name refers to one of my cars, a 2003 Mustang Cobra convertible, which I bought new back in June of 2002. It was the first year there was a supercharged Mustang available.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

It is interesting that you mentioned the Passover.

The next error I planned to mention is that the synoptic gospels present the Last Supper as the Passover meal, while John seems to go out of his way to make it clear that Jesus was in custody before the Passover Meal.

This is also to do with the The Fast of Esther:

Not many Christians know about this Jewish tradition but it was a fast that Jesus took part in but has virtually gone unnoticed. The fast of Esther begins on day 13 of month 1 (Aviv) and lasts three days till the 16th:

Esther 3:12
Then on the thirteenth day of the first month the royal secretaries were summoned.

Later that day:

Esther 4:15-16
15 Then Esther sent this reply to Mordecai: 16 “Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my attendants will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.”

Esther broke with tradition and rather than eat the Passover meal she decided to fast in the hope of receiving God’s Favour, as she was about to break a law that could have resulted in her receiving a death sentence. In recognition of this event many of the Jews who were saved began a tradition by fasting over these same three days and instead ate the Passover meal early on the 13th, others however continued to eat it on the normal day. (I believe the Essenes kept the fast of Esther).

After the last supper, that took place on the evening of the 13th Aviv as the sun set, Jesus also fasted over these same three days, ending on the evening of the sixteenth day when He broke bread with Cleopas and the other disciple in Emmaus (Luke 24). He then immediately appeared to the eleven disciples in the upper room that night and asked for some broiled fish to eat. His disciples also fasted over that time just as Jesus had said they would:

Mark 2:19-20
19 Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. 20 But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.

 

[2003cobra]

Much debate and confusion exists around Jesus' 3 days and 3 night in the Heart of the Earth. The answer to this is simpler than many believe. Here are the relevant verses:

Matthew 12
39He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Mark 15:42-43
42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body.

Matthew 28:1
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

Jesus died at about 3pm on the 14th Aviv (Preparation day). He was put in the tomb just before sunset at about 6pm. He rose at sunrise on the 16th Aviv (The day of first fruits) at about 6am. This means was in the tomb for 3 days and 2 nights (about 36 hours). However the term 'Heart of the Earth' that Jesus spoke of was not the tomb. The Bible interprets the Bible and elsewhere we can find what Jesus meant by this phrase:

Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart come evil thoughts; murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

Therefore Jesus was talking about the wickedness of the whole Earth. The moment Jesus entered the wicked heart of the Earth was when He allowed Himself to be arrested and this is what He said at that moment:

Luke 22:53
“Every day I was with you in the temple courts and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour--when darkness reigns."

So it is from this moment that Jesus enters into the Heart of the Earth, which was around midnight on the 14th Aviv and means that He was indeed in the Heart of the Earth three days and three nights.

Yes, that timing is difficult to pinpoint, and I know there has been controversy about that.

The error I was thinking of is simpler to see. In the synoptic gospels, the Last Supper was the Passover Meal. In John, the Last Supper was before the Passover Meal. I will provide details later today if I get time.

Thanks for the friendly discussion.