User Tag List

Page 7 of 36 FirstFirst ... 4567891017 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 539

Thread: Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

  1. #91
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,121
    Thanks
    3,406
    Thanked 3,104 Times in 1,845 Posts

    Blog Entries
    144
    Mentioned
    79 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147674

    Exclamation The NT Canon - **Received** By The Church Long Before Rome "Declared" a canon

    Quote Originally Posted by 2003cobra View Post
    I would first like to make a minor point. The canon was not set declared in 325 AD. The first recorded instance of the New Testament canon of 27 books was in the Festal Letter of 367 by Bishop Athanasius, and he excluded Esther from the OT while including Maccabees.
    From Origen's Homilies On Joshua, 7:1 (more than one hundred years prior to Athanasius):

    "our Lord, whose advent was typified by the son of Nun [Joshua], when He came, sent His Apostles as priests bearing well-wrought trumpets. Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel. Mark also, Luke and John, each gave forth a strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter moreover sounds loudly on the twofold trumpet of his Epistles; and also James and Jude. Still the number is incomplete, and John gives forth the trumpet-sound in his Epistles and Apocalypse; and Luke while describing the Acts of the Apostles. Lastly however came he {nb: Paul} who said: 'I think that God has set forth us Apostles last of all,' and thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his Epistles, threw down even to the ground the walls of Jericho, that is to say all the instruments of idolatry and the doctrines of philosophers."

    That's twenty-seven.

    Don't take Rome's mythological history bait.

    For more see:
    https://www.amazon.com/Canon-New-Tes.../dp/0198269544

    AMR
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    steko (November 26th, 2017)

  3. #92
    TOL Legend God's Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hidden with Christ in God, Col 3:3
    Posts
    31,748
    Thanks
    1,989
    Thanked 2,195 Times in 2,003 Posts

    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    94710
    Quote Originally Posted by 2003cobra View Post
    If you get to the point that you can admit that “take no staff” means “take no staff,” rather than “don’t take two staffs,” let me know and we can continue the discussion.
    You did not read the whole counsel of God and you are not reasonable.

    You are also trying to make the Bible untrustworthy.

    Show where a false doctrine was made because of the staff.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
    Do not just read the word do it.

  4. #93
    TOL Legend God's Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Hidden with Christ in God, Col 3:3
    Posts
    31,748
    Thanks
    1,989
    Thanked 2,195 Times in 2,003 Posts

    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    94710
    Quote Originally Posted by 2003cobra View Post
    Thank you for posting, jsanford.

    I would first like to make a minor point. The canon was not set declared in 325 AD. The first recorded instance of the New Testament canon of 27 books was in the Festal Letter of 367 by Bishop Athanasius, and he excluded Esther from the OT while including Maccabees. The Roman Catholic canon was first set at the Council of Carthage around 397. I can provide more details if you’d like. If you have evidence otherwise, please provide it. The 66-book canon used by most Protestants is only a few hundred years 1611 KJV had many more books.
    There were canons put together and used by people even before the Catholics. Different people gave personal statements about the books, but they were only commenting on the books and letters that the first Christians used from the beginning. They had only acknowledged those books early Christian communities already accepted as scripture.

    Official canonization of the New Testament scriptures came about because of heresies Gnostics and other sects spread. The first Christians accepted as scripture New Testament teachings by letter and books right from the beginning.
    The New Testament teachings were by letter and books right from the beginning. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul joins a New Testament scripture (Luke 10:7) to an Old Testament scripture (Deuteronomy 25:4) and calls them both scripture. In addition, we can see in 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter recognizes what Paul writes as scripture.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
    Do not just read the word do it.

  5. #94
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    1,012
    Thanks
    786
    Thanked 266 Times in 218 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    108594
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    From Origen's Homilies On Joshua, 7:1 (more than one hundred years prior to Athanasius):

    "our Lord, whose advent was typified by the son of Nun [Joshua], when He came, sent His Apostles as priests bearing well-wrought trumpets. Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel. Mark also, Luke and John, each gave forth a strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter moreover sounds loudly on the twofold trumpet of his Epistles; and also James and Jude. Still the number is incomplete, and John gives forth the trumpet-sound in his Epistles and Apocalypse; and Luke while describing the Acts of the Apostles. Lastly however came he {nb: Paul} who said: 'I think that God has set forth us Apostles last of all,' and thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his Epistles, threw down even to the ground the walls of Jericho, that is to say all the instruments of idolatry and the doctrines of philosophers."

    That's twenty-seven.

    Don't take Rome's mythological history bait.

    For more see:
    https://www.amazon.com/Canon-New-Tes.../dp/0198269544

    AMR
    This does not contradict in any way the Canon established by the Church. Nor does it negate history. There are 27 canonical books in the New Testament. And as far as being "received" before being declared Canon, well, obviously; one cannot logically declare something canon if it has never been received.
    Last edited by jsanford108; November 26th, 2017 at 04:47 PM. Reason: Clarity

  6. #95
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    1,012
    Thanks
    786
    Thanked 266 Times in 218 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    108594
    Quote Originally Posted by 2003cobra View Post
    Thank you for posting, jsanford.

    I would first like to make a minor point. The canon was not set declared in 325 AD. The first recorded instance of the New Testament canon of 27 books was in the Festal Letter of 367 by Bishop Athanasius, and he excluded Esther from the OT while including Maccabees. The Roman Catholic canon was first set at the Council of Carthage around 397. I can provide more details if you’d like. If you have evidence otherwise, please provide it. The 66-book canon used by most Protestants is only a few hundred years 1611 KJV had many more books.
    At the Council of Nicaea, the canon was discussed, but not formally assembled. The formal assembling of Scripture into a canonical "book," was at the Council of Hippo, in 393.

    Now, historically, we can find that there are a few instances of the same canon being suggested, as that which was established in Hippo. Pope Damasus (366-384), in his Decree, listed the exact books that are today's canon, if I am not mistaken. From AMR's post, we see that before the Councils even, most of the New Testament writings were already being considered as inspired. The only thing the Councils really did was make it official canon.

    So, I have two questions for you to start:
    1) Do you see the difference between Mark and Luke’s account of the words of Jesus concerning taking a staff on the missionary journey?
    2) What is the basis of your statement that “logic dictates that the scriptures are inerrant?”
    Excellent questions.

    1.)I see the difference between many accounts. Not just the exact wording, but even the numbers of people present at given events. But that is losing sight of the forest for sake of the trees. If one says there were 500 present at an event, but another says 491, it does not render the first account false. Context is key. Such a tiny discrepancy on exact figures is attributable to the gathering of eye-witness testimony. Besides, 491 and 500 are so close, the difference is negligible in historical context.

    2.)As for logic dictating that the Scriptures are inerrant, we will go down a very long path. First, we must look at them as historical documents. How do we determine authenticity of archaic documents? Historians compare any historical document that purports to have factual events against other historical documents of the time. For the sake of time, let us just progress with the knowledge that this criteria has been fulfilled. Next, we look at internal and external evidence that alludes to authorship, composition, and events detailed. Once again, this criteria is met by the Scriptures. Thus, historically, the Scriptures are reliable histories.

    As for being "divinely inspired," we then must decide on the most basic of questions, one which was asked in the Gospel accounts themselves. Who do you say that Jesus is? Either He was exactly what He declared, or He wasn't. If He wasn't, then we can throw out the Scriptures all together, for they serve no purpose except to promote falsehoods. If Christ was as He declared, being God, then, relying on historical accuracy with the knowledge that Christ is God, we can hold that which He said, declared, and fulfilled, as Truth.

    From this Truth, we see Christ establish Apostles, establish a Church, and send the Holy Spirit to guide and discern for the Apostles. Here is where we truly exhibit faith, relying on that which Christ and His Apostles declared as Truth. Truth must be logical. Anything illogical cannot be true, thus must be false. The same can go with any declaration made about Scripture. If any portion is illogical, then it cannot be true, thus cannot be the inspired Word of God; God, nor His Word, can be illogical.

    I will note that Moses was inspired by God to lead the people out of Egypt, yet he still made errors. Jesus breathed on Peter and inspired him to lead the early church. Yet Peter still made mistakes.

    They were not inerrant, yet God used them.
    Men make mistakes, yes. No disagreement there. But that does not mean that God does. So, if God, through the Holy Spirit, allows man to declare Scripture "the Word of God," then it must be so. Those men can make mistakes and err, yes; but when making such a declaration, guided by the Holy Spirit, they are infallible.

    As to the basis of my belief, it is the same as the reason I believe George Washington was our first president. I did not have to read an inerrant history text to come to that conclusion. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is clear: multiple witnesses saw the Lord die and then saw the risen Lord. The resurrection was such a powerful event that it turned a handful of unlearned disciples into men who changed the world. They didn’t need a perfect book; neither do I.
    I agree. Christ is risen, alleluia. And yes, we do not need a perfect book, but God in His infinite wisdom allowed us one. Also, the Apostles did have a perfect book, the Old Testament Scriptures. They knew, beyond a shadow of doubt, that these writings were the inerrant, divinely written, Word of God. How did they know these things though? The exact same way we know them today. God, using fallible men, allowed the Holy Spirit to speak through them, to make infallible declarations of Truth.
    Last edited by jsanford108; November 26th, 2017 at 05:23 PM. Reason: spelling

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to jsanford108 For Your Post:

    patrick jane (November 26th, 2017)

  8. #96
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    319
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 22 Times in 18 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    4330
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    From Origen's Homilies On Joshua, 7:1 (more than one hundred years prior to Athanasius):

    "our Lord, whose advent was typified by the son of Nun [Joshua], when He came, sent His Apostles as priests bearing well-wrought trumpets. Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel. Mark also, Luke and John, each gave forth a strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter moreover sounds loudly on the twofold trumpet of his Epistles; and also James and Jude. Still the number is incomplete, and John gives forth the trumpet-sound in his Epistles and Apocalypse; and Luke while describing the Acts of the Apostles. Lastly however came he {nb: Paul} who said: 'I think that God has set forth us Apostles last of all,' and thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his Epistles, threw down even to the ground the walls of Jericho, that is to say all the instruments of idolatry and the doctrines of philosophers."

    That's twenty-seven.

    Don't take Rome's mythological history bait.

    For more see:
    https://www.amazon.com/Canon-New-Tes.../dp/0198269544

    AMR
    Your quoting of Metzger is incomplete. Here is more:

    “From what has been mentioned thus far we can see that Origen has no question about most of the books of the New Testament; the exceptions are the Epistles of James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John. In fact, he nowhere quotes or mentions 2 Peter or the two minor Johannine Epistles in any of his writings that have come down to us in Greek.
    The situation is different, however, in Origen’s Homilies on Joshua (written about A.D. 240), which have been preserved, unfortunately, only in a Latin translation, made, as it seems, by Rufinus (c. A.D. 345–410). Here we find, expressed in characteristic Alexandrian oratory, an incidental enumeration of all the authors of the entire New Testament. After describing how the walls of Jericho fell down Origen continues:
    “So too our Lord Jesus Christ… sent his apostles as priests carrying well-wrought (ductiles) trumpets. First Matthew sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel. Mark also, and Luke, and John, each gave fourth a strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter moreover sounds with the two50 trumpets of his Epistles; James also and Jude. Still the number is incomplete, and John gives forth the trumpet sound through his Epistles [and Apocalypse];51 and Luke while describing the deeds of the apostles. Latest of all, moreover, that one comes who said, ‘I think that God has set us forth as the apostles last of all’ (I Cor. iv. 9), and thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his Epistles he threw down, even to their very foundations, the walls of Jericho, that is to say, all the instruments of idolatry and the dogmas of the philosophers (Hom. in Jos. vii. 1).

    How should one evaluate the testimony presented in this homily, where Origen seemingly mentions all52 the books of the New Testament? It is, of course, not impossible that Rufinus altered Origen’s words so as to reflect a later, fourth-century opinion concerning the extent of the canon. But, as “Harnack has pointed out,53 the position of the Acts of the Apostles in the list does not favour such a supposition. It is also possible to account for the differences in terms of Origen’s audience and purposes; namely, in the context of a sermon Origen enumerates writings which had not yet attained universal approval but which might be used perfectly well for the edification of the faith“faithful, whereas in more detailed discussions he customarily differentiates between the two categories of books.
    In any case, the list clearly is of interest for the history of the canon. In the first place, it contains together, without mentioning any other books and without making any distinctions, the books that in A.D. 325 Eusebius would cite as ‘homolegoumena’ and ‘antilegomena’ (see p. 203 below),54 and Athanasius in 367 would enumerate as constituting the New Testament (see pp. 211–2 below). Secondly, the order of the books in this list is noteworthy. There are three groups: Gospels; Catholic Epistles, with the Apocalypse and the Acts; and finally the Pauline Epistles. This sequence of Revelation (if Origen included it in the list) and Acts is found likewise in (only) the Catalogue Claromontanus (see Appendix IV. 4 below), which also belongs in the East.
    Throughout his scholarly career Origen consulted and cited many books that contributed something of value to the subject matter that was under consideration. He refers, for example, to several of the writings of those who have now come to be called the Apostolic Fathers. Four times he quotes from Clement of Rome’s I Epistle, and three times[…]”

    Excerpt From
    The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
    Bruce M Metzger
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/the...06791592?mt=11
    This material may be protected by copyright.



    It is ironic that you would advise against taking Rome’s mythological bait while quoting a Roman Catholic Latin rewriting of lost Greek text.

  9. #97
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    319
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 22 Times in 18 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    4330
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You did not read the whole counsel of God and you are not reasonable.

    You are also trying to make the Bible untrustworthy.

    Show where a false doctrine was made because of the staff.
    See post 86

  10. #98
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    319
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 22 Times in 18 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    4330
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    There were canons put together and used by people even before the Catholics. Different people gave personal statements about the books, but they were only commenting on the books and letters that the first Christians used from the beginning. They had only acknowledged those books early Christian communities already accepted as scripture.

    Official canonization of the New Testament scriptures came about because of heresies Gnostics and other sects spread. The first Christians accepted as scripture New Testament teachings by letter and books right from the beginning.
    The New Testament teachings were by letter and books right from the beginning. In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul joins a New Testament scripture (Luke 10:7) to an Old Testament scripture (Deuteronomy 25:4) and calls them both scripture. In addition, we can see in 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter recognizes what Paul writes as scripture.
    Since Scripture, the Greek word graphe, simply means writings or document, there is no significance to calling a document such as Luke “scripture.” That is what it is.

    You earlier claimed the canon was set in 325. Did you find any evidence to support that? What I have seen shows it was later.

    Metzer’s book that both “Ask Mr. Religion” and I have quoted is excellent. There are some summaries of it here:

    http://ntcanon.org/table.shtml

    Thank you for your civil and thoughtful post. Please continue to engage me as a brother in Christ.

  11. #99
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    319
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 22 Times in 18 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    4330
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    From Origen's Homilies On Joshua, 7:1 (more than one hundred years prior to Athanasius):

    "our Lord, whose advent was typified by the son of Nun [Joshua], when He came, sent His Apostles as priests bearing well-wrought trumpets. Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel. Mark also, Luke and John, each gave forth a strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter moreover sounds loudly on the twofold trumpet of his Epistles; and also James and Jude. Still the number is incomplete, and John gives forth the trumpet-sound in his Epistles and Apocalypse; and Luke while describing the Acts of the Apostles. Lastly however came he {nb: Paul} who said: 'I think that God has set forth us Apostles last of all,' and thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his Epistles, threw down even to the ground the walls of Jericho, that is to say all the instruments of idolatry and the doctrines of philosophers."

    That's twenty-seven.

    Don't take Rome's mythological history bait.

    For more see:
    https://www.amazon.com/Canon-New-Tes.../dp/0198269544

    AMR
    Another reason to question the Latin & Roman Catholic quote you provided is found in Metzger’s book.

    “In a statement quoted by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. VI. xxv. 8) from the fifth book of Origen’s Commentary on John (written perhaps during a trip to the East in 230–1), Origen says that ‘Peter… has left one acknowledged (ὁμολογομένη) Epistle); possibly also a second, but this is disputed’ (ἀμϕιβάλλεται). In the same passage he mentions that John, who wrote the Gospel and the Apocalypse, ‘left also an Epistle of very few lines, and, it may be, a second and third—but not all consider these to be genuine’ (οὐ πάντες ϕασὶ εἶνσὶ γνησίους ταύτας).”

    Excerpt From
    The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
    Bruce M Metzger
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/the...06791592?mt=11
    This material may be protected by copyright.

  12. #100
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    319
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 22 Times in 18 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    4330
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108 View Post
    At the Council of Nicaea, the canon was discussed, but not formally assembled. The formal assembling of Scripture into a canonical "book," was at the Council of Hippo, in 393.

    Now, historically, we can find that there are a few instances of the same canon being suggested, as that which was established in Hippo. Pope Damasus (366-384), in his Decree, listed the exact books that are today's canon, if I am not mistaken. From AMR's post, we see that before the Councils even, most of the New Testament writings were already being considered as inspired. The only thing the Councils really did was make it official canon.

    Excellent questions.

    1.)I see the difference between many accounts. Not just the exact wording, but even the numbers of people present at given events. But that is losing sight of the forest for sake of the trees. If one says there were 500 present at an event, but another says 491, it does not render the first account false. Context is key. Such a tiny discrepancy on exact figures is attributable to the gathering of eye-witness testimony. Besides, 491 and 500 are so close, the difference is negligible in historical context.

    2.)As for logic dictating that the Scriptures are inerrant, we will go down a very long path. First, we must look at them as historical documents. How do we determine authenticity of archaic documents? Historians compare any historical document that purports to have factual events against other historical documents of the time. For the sake of time, let us just progress with the knowledge that this criteria has been fulfilled. Next, we look at internal and external evidence that alludes to authorship, composition, and events detailed. Once again, this criteria is met by the Scriptures. Thus, historically, the Scriptures are reliable histories.

    As for being "divinely inspired," we then must decide on the most basic of questions, one which was asked in the Gospel accounts themselves. Who do you say that Jesus is? Either He was exactly what He declared, or He wasn't. If He wasn't, then we can throw out the Scriptures all together, for they serve no purpose except to promote falsehoods. If Christ was as He declared, being God, then, relying on historical accuracy with the knowledge that Christ is God, we can hold that which He said, declared, and fulfilled, as Truth.

    From this Truth, we see Christ establish Apostles, establish a Church, and send the Holy Spirit to guide and discern for the Apostles. Here is where we truly exhibit faith, relying on that which Christ and His Apostles declared as Truth. Truth must be logical. Anything illogical cannot be true, thus must be false. The same can go with any declaration made about Scripture. If any portion is illogical, then it cannot be true, thus cannot be the inspired Word of God; God, nor His Word, can be illogical.

    Men make mistakes, yes. No disagreement there. But that does not mean that God does. So, if God, through the Holy Spirit, allows man to declare Scripture "the Word of God," then it must be so. Those men can make mistakes and err, yes; but when making such a declaration, guided by the Holy Spirit, they are infallible.

    I agree. Christ is risen, alleluia. And yes, we do not need a perfect book, but God in His infinite wisdom allowed us one. Also, the Apostles did have a perfect book, the Old Testament Scriptures. They knew, beyond a shadow of doubt, that these writings were the inerrant, divinely written, Word of God. How did they know these things though? The exact same way we know them today. God, using fallible men, allowed the Holy Spirit to speak through them, to make infallible declarations of Truth.
    I missed this post earlier, when I made post 98, so ignore any questions I had in that post. I will respond to this post shortly.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to 2003cobra For Your Post:

    jsanford108 (November 26th, 2017)

  14. #101
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    319
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 22 Times in 18 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    4330
    On your second paragraph in post 95, I think you have confused inspiration with canonicity. The church fathers considered many writings inspired but not in the canon. Origen (whom AMR quoted a likely revised Roman Catholic writing from), for example, considered many other writings inspired. For a list of 7, see:
    http://ntcanon.org/Origen.shtml

    Inspiration was never a criterion for canonicity.

    On the second paragraph, the 382 document from Rome is quite disputed as to authenticity. That is why it is rarely referred to.

    You really did not answer my question 1. I would appreciate an answer. Luke clearly contradicts Mark, doesn’t it? No just a rounding or judgment issue: Luke says Jesus said “take no staff” and Mark says Jesus said take a staff.

    I have read your answer to my second question and do not see an answer there. I do not see why how logic dictates the scriptures must be inerrant. I know it would be nice if they were. It only takes one error to prove the doctrine of inerrancy is false. And I have presented one. I can present more, but one is enough.

    You have argued for reliability of the scriptures. They are reliable. The minor, insignificant error in either Luke or Mark, showing that they are not perfect in every detail, does not damage their reliability but it does invalidate the doctrine of inerrancy.

    This might be helpful:

    “II. INSPIRATION AND THE CANON
    It will have been noticed that in the preceding discussion concerning criteria used by early Christians in discerning the limits of the canon, nothing was said concerning inspiration. Though this silence may at first sight seem to be strange, the reason for it arises from the circumstance that, while the Fathers certainly agreed that the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments were inspired, they did not seem to have regarded inspiration as the ground of the Bible’s uniqueness. That is, the inspiration they ascribe to the Scriptures was only one facet of the inspiring activity of the Holy Spirit in many aspects of the Church’s life.7”

    Excerpt From
    The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
    Bruce M Metzger
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/the...06791592?mt=11
    This material may be protected by copyright.

  15. #102
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    319
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 22 Times in 18 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    4330
    If I have accidentally attributed a statement to one person that was made by another, I apologize. I am not familiar yet with the individuals here and have not yet been granted editing ability.

  16. #103
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    319
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 22 Times in 18 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    4330
    AMR, I noticed you have not addressed this topic, or I missed it if you did address it.

    Mark 6 7 He called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. 8 He ordered them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; 9 but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics.

    Luke 9 1 Then Jesus called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, 2 and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal. 3 He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money—not even an extra tunic.

    In Luke, Jesus told them to take no staff. In Mark, Jesus told them to take a staff.


    Do you agree that Mark and Luke disagree on the command of Jesus to the disciples?

    If not, please explain how they are not in contradiction.

  17. #104
    TOL Legend Jacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    10,876
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 504 Times in 473 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    81516
    Quote Originally Posted by 2003cobra View Post
    Yes, it is a prophecy recorded in scripture.

    And scripture simply means writing, unless the context implies sacred writings.

    A sermon or a document can include the Word of God, and that doesn’t mean every word of the sermon or document is God speaking.

    The “Word of God”is not a synonym for “Bible.” To text that, try taking every instance of the term “Word of God” from the Book of Acts and substituting the word Bible in its place. You will see the passages become nonsense.

    The term Word of God in scripture has three meanings:
    1) The message of God for mankind
    2) A particular message from God (e.g., “the word of God came to...”)
    3) The message of God incarnate, Jesus The Messiah, who was the embodiment of the Word of God — and those who saw Him saw the Father

    To elevate every word of the Bible to “The Word of God” is not a teaching of scripture, and it tends to inappropriately deify a book which contains the Word of God but is not, in its entirety, the Word of God.

    We should turn our eyes upon Jesus.
    Finding the Word of God in the Bible is simply different from rightly calling the Bible, or the Torah, or the TaNaK, the Word of God.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Jacob For Your Post:

    2003cobra (November 26th, 2017)

  19. #105
    TOL Legend Jacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    10,876
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 504 Times in 473 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    81516
    Quote Originally Posted by 2003cobra View Post
    I meant to test that, not to text that. I suppose I will have the ability to edit my posts after a probationary period on the forum.

    See if these verses from Acts make sense if you replace “Word of God” with “Bible.”

    When they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.

    Acts 6:2 And the twelve called together the whole community of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables.

    Acts 6:7 The word of God continued to spread; the number of the disciples increased greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.

    Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.

    Acts 11:1 [ Peter’s Report to the Church at Jerusalem ] Now the apostles and the believers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also accepted the word of God.

    Acts 12:24 But the word of God continued to advance and gain adherents.

    Acts 13:5 When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John also to assist them.

    Acts 13:7 He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and wanted to hear the word of God.

    Acts 13:46 Then both Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you reject it and judge yourselves to be unworthy of eternal life, we are now turning to the Gentiles.

    Acts 17:13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica learned that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Beroea as well, they came there too, to stir up and incite the crowds.

    Acts 18:11 He stayed there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them

    Recall that the Bible, as you have it, did not exist at that time.
    Shalom.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us