Lol, I was going to comment on that, (when YOU brought it up), but I did not. However, now that YOU have brought it up a second time, (yes, I have read it, and yes I kind of hinted at it without naming it), it only shows the direction in which YOU are heading, (complete and utter failure in abysmal error). The author clearly did not understand what he was reading just like yourself. :chuckle:
Scripture. What is considered Scripture?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
Lol, I was going to comment on that, (when YOU brought it up), but I did not. However, now that YOU have brought it up a second time, (yes, I have read it, and yes I kind of hinted at it without naming it), it only shows the direction in which YOU are heading, (complete and utter failure in abysmal error). The author clearly did not understand what he was reading just like yourself. :chuckle:
So, it is a combination of pretending their are three separate events and spiritualizing the text into nonsense.
It is a blatant disbelief in what the Bible actually says.
“three different ‘daughters of Jairus’” Wow. It is incredible that Lon, glory, and Patrick Jane support you in this.
I have not noticed any of them thanking those posts. You are assuming again and pretending to read minds. Either way, yes, I stand by what I said because I know it is true and have already been where you are.
George, please look at the post above.
Look at Glory’s post above.
Maybe I misunderstood her post, but I don’t think so.
When do you think that perfect revelation was complete?
They aren’t rebuking this nonsense. That would be the righteous thing to do.
:rotfl:
I have not even seen any of them here this morning.
Just because the internet is always "on" does not mean . . . ah, never-mind. :chuckle:
Also, please allow me to fill you in a little better because you seem to have gotten yet another wrong impression: I am certainly no "ringleader" here, and in fact in the rest of the forum, for the most part everywhere outside of this thread, I am an "outsider", and I do know my place well because I have been put there enough times and either had to like it or lump it. And yet by the grace of Elohim here am I.
Shalom.
Today is Sheni, 10-21.
Thank you for giving a response. May your understanding of God's word continue to grow.
Shalom.
Jacob
I do not consider copyist errors or misspellings errors.
If I believed what others have claimed here, that God wrote the Bible and preserved it, then these would be a problem.
From a Roman Catholic and Protestant perspective, the work of Jerome could be the most complete. One could argue the 50 Bibles that Eusebius compile under a commission from the Emperor were more important. There were other churches with different important traditions.
The errors that I have been mentioning fail the affirming of something contrary to fact description.
For example, Matthew’s version of the Jairus story affirms something contrary to fact if Mark’s and Luke’s affirmations of the facts are true.
He is God Incarnate. At least He was while on earth. I don’t know for certain if He has flesh now. I would not be able to prove one way or the other that he kept or laid down the flesh at or following the resurrection or at ascension or at some other time. Unlike some here on this forum, I am not at all certain that I can define God.
I don’t know that we could say that Jesus will not misrepresent. He did not come to earth to correct all misconceptions.
Are you familiar with what Jesus told His brothers when they said that He should go to Jerusalem?
John 7 After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. 2 But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, 3 Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. 4 No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him. 6 Therefore Jesus told them, “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. 8 You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee. 10 However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.
And are you aware that Jesus said the mustard seed is the smallest seed, yet it is not?
And are you aware that God blessed the Israelite midwives for lying to pharaoh?
For that matter, a captured soldier does not sin when lying to the enemy.
So Jesus could present things that were not accurate in pursuit of a greater goal, just as He protected Himself and His mission by telling His brothers that He was not going to the festival.
He breathed on them and told them to receive the Holy Spirit. He did not give them infallibility. If they had received infallibility, Paul would not have had to rebuke Peter for avoiding Gentile believers.
We have no reason to believe Matthew wrote the gospel attributed to him, as it could have been written by his students. The gospel’s various errors indicate that.
Being guided by an inerrant guide does not insure the follower of no missteps.
The documents are trustworthy, but they never claim to be inerrant and infallibility is not a spiritual gift found in people.
For the reasons listed above, no.
And let me add, all through the life of Jesus we are told to look and see.
In the sermon at church Sunday, the pastor at my church spoke of John the Baptist when Jesus came. John said “Look” or “Behold.” He did not say have faith. He did not say believe. He said Look.
Jesus told Apostles to come and see.
Peter said they could not help but talk about what they had seen.
So we are not called to deny the obvious things in front of our eyes. And there are errors that cannot be attributed to copyists.
Last edited:
Shalom Jacob.
Stephen calls the Torah "Living Oracles", (or "Living Sayings").
Acts 7:37-38 HNV
37 This is that Moshe, who said to the children of Yisra'el, 'The Lord our God will raise up a prophet for you from among your brothers, like me.'
38 This is he who was in the assembly in the wilderness with the angel that spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received living oracles to give to us,
λογια ζωντα = Living Words ~ Living Sayings ~ Living Oracles
What do you think? this surely speaks of the Torah, right? and the Torah is Living Words?
Shalom Jacob.
Stephen calls the Torah "Living Oracles", (or "Living Sayings").
Acts 7:37-38 HNV
37 This is that Moshe, who said to the children of Yisra'el, 'The Lord our God will raise up a prophet for you from among your brothers, like me.'
38 This is he who was in the assembly in the wilderness with the angel that spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received living oracles to give to us,
λογια ζωντα = Living Words ~ Living Sayings ~ Living Oracles
What do you think? this surely speaks of the Torah, right? and the Torah is Living Words?
Shalom.
It sounds like you need some help with understanding the truth of God's word. We were entrusted with the oracles of God, the word or words of God.
Shalom.
Jacob
Why do you say that? I believe what Stephen says, and therefore what the author of Acts says, and moreover the author of Acts says that Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit when he gave this testimony. And what is this "we"? You sound like you exclude me from your "we"? :chuckle:
This is my "we"
1 Corinthians 10:1-4
1 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea:
2 And were all immersed into Moshe in the cloud and in the sea:
3 And all ate the same spiritual food:
4 And all drank the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Meshiah.
Spiritual food: manna from the heavens . . .
Every rhema-word that proceeds from the mouth of Elohim, Living Oracles, Living Words.
popsthebuilder
New member
Shalom.
I am a Jew of Israel.
Romans 3:1-2 KJV - 1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
Shalom.
Jacob
Zenn
New member
The theological fusion between the concepts of logos and rhema started quite awhile ago. Just because a doctrine is old doesn't mean it's correct (cf. transubstantiation), no?
Well that's hardly surprising, but with regards to Luke 6:12, such isn't an interpretation. The implications of a correct translation is anathema to mainstream Christianity, and has been for centuries, which is why such is purposefully mistranslated as with Eph. 6:17. Translations are most always driven by theological agendas.
:AMR: I don't think I can concur.
If I understand correctly, you assert that the word "in" is not present in the text? What word, then is εν (G1722 - in) from the phrase εν τη προσευχη (in the prayer)? The word 'in' is directly written in the text, it's not a 'translation helper'. In addition, προσευχη (prayer) is a noun in the dative case, not a verb.
Ahh... I'm not talking about the first phrase εξηλθεν εις το ορος προσευξασθαι; but rather the last phrase εν τη προσευχη του θεου (in the prayer of God). In this last phrase, prayer is a noun, and God is in the genitive case (of God). The word 'of' is not a helper word, but it's the way the simple genitive is actually expressed in English. If you object to the word 'of', we could write "... in God's prayer".
"He continued all night in God's prayer."
And Yes, I understand this would make no sense to you, not having had anything that might be considered a "Pentecostal Experience". But that is the way the text was actually written - Jesus was "in the prayer of God." He was not "praying to God" (although he did go into a mountain to pray). The text (Luke 6:12) describes an action (i.e. praying) that is very foreign to most Christians today.
Might we be on the same page now? (At least with regards to translation?)
Yes, exactly. But it would seem you have redefined this to mean "... every word that proceeds from the
But the Bible is not the way God communicates with people, and the inherent failures in this mode of communication is illustrated in Acts 8:29-31. Were God to actually talk to you, then you'd have a grasp of the mechanism involved. I do hope one day that God would actually speak to you. Then you would hear that voice (cf. John 10:27). But if you limit God, and redefine how God speaks to a person by "Bible reading" (and Bible Alone), then the reality of the Kingdom that ought to be a power for transforming the world is nullified. Which is exactly what has happened. Just look around you at the world. (Are you winning?)
Yeah, well, that's what people on Bible-discussion dot com thought.
The best way to destroy the 'Word of God', Lon, is to change the definition of the phrase. You have done this by defining "Word of God" to mean "Bible." Or to be more precise, you have accepted this altered definition given you by the Catholic Bishops or the Reformation demagogues. I haven't.
Yes, indeed. But the Bible isn't God. You truly can't see the difference?
Zenn
PS: With regards to Matthew 8:8, the word logos is used here so that one couldn't arrive at a conclusion that Jesus was speaking a magic spell where the utterance itself was doing the healing. The Hagin Word of Faith movement has difficulty with this.
PPS:
Raise somebody from the dead first, and then get back to me on your accusation of pride.
It is not wise to make such a claim for yourself unless the Master has made such a thing clear to you, (he is the Minister of Circumcision), for what if you do not even know who or what is a Yhudi according to the scripture? (in such a case you have fallen into rebuke, Rev 2:9, Rev 3:9).
Hebrews 5:12-14
12 For when by reason of the time you ought to be teachers, you again need to have someone teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the Oracles of Elohim: you have come to need milk, and not solid food.
13 For everyone who lives on milk is not experienced in the Logos-Word of Righteousness, for he is a babe.
14 But solid food is for those who are full grown, who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil.
jsanford108
New member
Great. See, we already agree.
Let us keep the focus on our discussion. Others can believe various other erroneous doctrines and ideas, yet that should not impact our discussion.
I hate to ask for further clarification, but alas, I am going to.
I will try and address the various "errors" that you listed below.
Would you make the argument that Jesus misrepresented something? Or, would you say that the error lies with human interpretation, rather than Jesus?
To imply that Jesus would misrepresent various items of discussion would lead to a contradiction in the nature of God. God must be Truth, otherwise, he is a liar and a deceiver, and not God. Therefore, logically, if we agree that Jesus is God, then Jesus cannot misrepresent anything.
Two questions regarding this passage: 1.) What purpose is this being presented? 2.) You are aware that Jesus did not have "brothers," however, this passage references "brethren," as Hebrew custom was to call any close relative "brother/sister," "brethren," etc.?
And here is where context, both within passages, biblical books, and history come to matter. Jesus at this time is speaking to an audience of locals, yes? To these locals, the smallest seed is a mustard seed.
Does this mean Jesus was lying or wrong (scientifically)? Of course not. He was addressing a specific audience, in a specific location, relating parables to what they could easily identify and grasp. This is contextual evidence.
What specific passage are you referencing? (I would go ahead and consider passage/book/historical context, as that will be a significant foundation for my "proofs" and arguments)
Was Jesus misrepresenting, which would be dishonesty, or was He relating parables to the targeted audience and their respective knowledge? I would obviously argue the latter as true.
I did not imply that, as humans, they were forever infallible. You see how by simply avoiding specific clarity (which I did purposefully) how you extrapolated my meaning to a different connotation?
I think this is your personal error when it comes to doctrine regarding inerrancy. You have taken inerrancy, and made it "infallible," meaning free from any and all errors, including minute detail comparison (lack of disparity). "Infallible" would only apply to the Apostles, and their successors when speaking under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. After all, they are still humans, and capable of sin (while they lived).
This is a common falsehood/misunderstanding. We actually have several accounts of first and second century persons explicitly referring to Matthew and the author of the Gospel attributed to him. For example, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, refers to Matthew and Mark as the authors of the first two Gospel accounts, in 130 AD. We also have similar confirmations from Irenaeus. Around the same time, we have statements in "Muratorian Canon," a document of Roman origin, also giving this confirmation. Likewise, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian also describe early Christians, priests, and churches, ascribing authorship of the Gospels to their respective ascribed authors.
Let us also consider historical context. Matthew was a tax collector. Who, among the Apostles, was most likely, based on occupation, the most literate? Matthew's job would have entailed documentation and detailing, through written records.
Furthermore, what is the likelihood that hundreds of people would have ascribed authorship, for four distinct books, to the exact same authors, respectively, without any disagreement? The probability would demonstrate that the attributed authorship(s) are correct.
How do you know that the documents are trustworthy?
Agreed.
Such as....?
Zenn
New member
Ah daqq... how disappointing. You see, I didn't boast. I mentioned it. You took umbrage and elevated it to a boast, and then condemn me as boastful. Re-read my post and you will realize it's a fact I merely mentioned offhand, but obviously in a manner that offends your religiosity. The Pharisees had trouble with that too.
So go raise somebody from the dead, and then get back to me about boasting.
Yes, as is typically espoused by those who indeed have nothing to tell.
daqq, my apologies. Servants have Masters, but truly I don't, as I'm not a servant and haven't been for awhile. I have a friend and brother John 15:14-15.
God bless you,
Zenn
PS:
You do realize that the concept of "the written Word" is made up stuff, as neither the phrase nor the concept exists in the New Testament? :AMR: The "Written Word" is as much an invention of the Reformation as "Transubstantiation" is an invention of the Roman Catholics.