Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[2003cobra]

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-canon-of-the-new-testament/id806791592?mt=11
This material may be protected by copyright.

 

[2003cobra]

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.

 

[2003cobra]

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.

 

[Jacob]

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.

 

[Jacob]

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.

 

[2003cobra]

Jsanford, the Council of Cathage in 397 specified this canon:

It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two Books of the Maccabees.

17 Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John.

18 So let the church over the sea be consulted to confirm this canon. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.

20 Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. Because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church.


Is this the canon you accept? Note it exceeds 66 books.

I prefer the NT canon of the Church of the East. It has a 22-book NT, which excludes the books Eusebius mentioned as disputed in his Church History from around 300 AD.

 

[2003cobra]

P.S. you can find that canon from the Council of Carthage of 397 here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage

And other places

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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

Rufinus did the translation of these homilies upon request (Barbara Bruce, trans., and Cynthia White, ed., Origen: Homilies On Joshua (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Of America Press, 2002, pp. 23-24). He could have interpolated a passage or altered the text in the process of doing a translation for somebody else, but the fact that he was doing the work at somebody else's request suggests that he wasn't so interested in altering the text as to initiate the process himself. He was doing a translation that somebody else asked him to do.

"Other studies have confirmed the paraphrastic nature of his [Rufinus'] work, but have judged the changes to make for clarity and the thought to remain faithful to the Greek....After explaining how he had expended much labor on changing the hortatory manner of the homilies on Leviticus into the form of an exposition and supplying what was wanting in the homilies on Genesis and Exodus, he said he translated the homilies on Joshua and a few others 'just as we found them, literally and without great effort.' Annie Jaubert, in her French translation of the Homilies, supported Rufinus's statement. She noted constructions that were more dependent on Greek than on Latin syntax and a curtness of speech and density of expression that gave the feel of unpolished notes he may have been working from." (Barbara Bruce, trans., and Cynthia White, ed., Origen: Homilies On Joshua (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Of America Press, 2002, pp.16-18)
​

Notice that Rufinus explained his different intentions in different contexts. Sometimes he intended to produce a paraphrase. Other times he intended a more literal rendering. And he specified that his work on Origen's Homilies On Joshua was a case of the latter.

And exactly how much interest in canonical issues do we find in the writings of Rufinus? I and others are aware of only one passage in his writings in which he lists the New Testament canon, the commonly cited passage in his Commentary On The Apostles' Creed. He doesn't seem to have been so concerned about the New Testament canon as to be motivated to change the text of Origen.

B.F. Westcott noted that this passage in Origen is "characteristic of Origen's style" (B.F. Westcott, A General Survey Of The History Of The New Testament Canon (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1896, p. 368). Barbara Bruce (op. cit., p. 74) notes the possible influence of Clement of Alexandria on a portion of the passage. Clement is more likely to have influenced Origen than to have influenced Rufinus.

Both the internal and the external evidence are against the notion that the canon in this passage of Origen came from Rufinus.

I could go on, but will let this end here lest I give you more of a platform for your oddities than is necessary or desired.

AMR

 

[2003cobra]

It is interesting that you quote a Catholic source to support this document after writing
Don't take Rome's mythological history bait.


The words of the document are quite inconsistent with the bulk of the work of Origen. He happens to mention as “received” the documents later declared canonical, did not mention 7 documents he quoted (some extensively) and called divinely inspired.

So the writing has no credibility with me given its inconsistency with the undisputed works of Origen. You are welcome to embrace it if you choose, but I would only do so if I thought it appropriate to desperately seek to support the unsupportable.

Would you now opine on the Luke/Mark staff difference?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Would you now opine on the Luke/Mark staff difference?

I could go on, but will let this end here lest I give you more of a platform for your oddities than is necessary or desired.
AMR

:AMR:

AMR

 

[God's Truth]

P.S. you can find that canon from the Council of Carthage of 397 here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage

And other places

Nothing that you speak of is beneficial for life in Christ.

 

[2003cobra]

:AMR:

AMR

I was sure you could not resolve the error. I just wanted to see if you would try.

 

[2003cobra]

Nothing that you speak of is beneficial for life in Christ.

On the contrary, the false doctrine of inerrancy of the scriptures has caused many people to abandon the faith. If people understand they can follow Jesus without following lies, it is helpful.

A person who pretends Mark and Luke do not disagree on the words of Jesus prior to the missionary journey is elevating their false doctrine above what the scripture actually says. That is ironic.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The Alleged "staff" or "no staff" Synoptic "Problem"

The Alleged "staff" or "no staff" Synoptic "Problem"

I was sure you could not resolve the error. I just wanted to see if you would try.

I will indulge you as my foil this one final time.

Matthew 10:1,9-10 (KJV)
Matthew 10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
Matthew 10:9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
Matthew 10:10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

Mark 6:7-8 (KJV)
Mark 6:7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
Mark 6:8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:

Luke 9:1,3 (KJV)
Luke 9:1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
Luke 9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

Matthew 10:10 includes a further clarification: Do not acquire a staff as special equipment for the tour of the twelve. Matthew 10:10 often is rendered with "extra" in the verse, as in

Don't take a traveling bag for the road, or an extra shirt, sandals, or a walking stick, for the worker is worthy of his food. HCSB

The word "extra" applies to shirt, sandals, or walkings stick. Naturally the solid KJV rendering catches the "extra" meanings in the pluralizations shown therein.

Mark 6:8 teaches that this did not require that the disciples discard or leave behind the walking stick that they normally took with them wherever they went, while they were following Jesus. The twelve are to go about with the staff they had at the time, but they were not to seek one specially, or make it a condition of their travelling.

For fun see a variety of renderings:
Mark 6:8: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/mARK 6:08
Luke 9:3: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Luke 9:03
Matthew 10:10: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/matthew 10:010

No "synoptic problem" here or anywhere else in Holy Writ. :AMR1:

Now please feel free to have the last word. I have no time to interact with anyone who denies the infallibility, and plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture. You are trying to function out of your weight class. Your fifteen minutes are up. :AMR:

AMR

 

[2003cobra]

I will indulge you as my foil this one final time.

Matthew 10:1,9-10 (KJV)
Matthew 10:1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
Matthew 10:9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
Matthew 10:10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

Mark 6:7-8 (KJV)
Mark 6:7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
Mark 6:8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:

Luke 9:1,3 (KJV)
Luke 9:1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
Luke 9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

Matthew 10:10 includes a further clarification: Do not acquire a staff as special equipment for the tour of the twelve. Matthew 10:10 often is rendered with "extra" in the verse, as in

Don't take a traveling bag for the road, or an extra shirt, sandals, or a walking stick, for the worker is worthy of his food. HCSB

The word "extra" applies to shirt, sandals, or walkings stick. Naturally the solid KJV rendering catches the "extra" meanings in the pluralizations shown therein.

Mark 6:8 teaches that this did not require that the disciples discard or leave behind the walking stick that they normally took with them wherever they went, while they were following Jesus. The twelve are to go about with the staff they had at the time, but they were not to seek one specially, or make it a condition of their travelling.

For fun see a variety of renderings:
Mark 6:8: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/mARK 6:08
Luke 9:3: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Luke 9:03
Matthew 10:10: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/matthew 10:010

No "synoptic problem" here or anywhere else in Holy Writ. :AMR1:

Now please feel free to have the last word. I have no time to interact with anyone who denies the infallibility, and plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture. You are trying to function out of your weight class. Your fifteen minutes are up. :AMR:

AMR

Since Luke Jesus said “take no staff,” you have simply chosen to deny what the text says.

I have seen that approach many times. It should be embarrassing to anyone who uses it.

 

[2003cobra]

It should say “Since in Luke...”

Luke 9:3 He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money—not even an extra tunic...

You deny what the text in Luke says, pretending it says “no extra staff.”

When your doctrine causes you to deny what the Bible says, both your doctrine and your actions are inappropriate.

 

[God's Truth]

On the contrary, the false doctrine of inerrancy of the scriptures has caused many people to abandon the faith. If people understand they can follow Jesus without following lies, it is helpful.

The scriptures don't lie.

A person who pretends Mark and Luke do not disagree on the words of Jesus prior to the missionary journey is elevating their false doctrine above what the scripture actually says. That is ironic.

What kind of damage does staff make?
You do more damage for not teaching people to read all the Bible.
There are people who are not reasonable and they will fall away for such things as one staff or not more than one.

 

[2003cobra]

The scriptures don't lie.

What kind of damage does staff make?
You do more damage for not teaching people to read all the Bible.
There are people who are not reasonable and they will fall away for such things as one staff or not more than one.

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 do continue the discussion.

 

[God's Truth]

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 do continue the discussion.

The scripture was PLAINLY about not packing anything, and it is clear that it was about not taking an extra staff.

When you can humble yourself you would be wiser.

 

[2003cobra]

The scripture was PLAINLY about not packing anything, and it is clear that it was about not taking an extra staff.

When you can humble yourself you would be wiser.

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.

Luke 9:3 He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money—not even an extra tunic.