I saw an interesting explanation for that. It began with the common belief that Jesus’ ministry lasted three years, then asserts that He sent the apostles out on a missionary journey each year. Why different instructions, though? No explanation I can recall!
I wouldn’t even count Rome or the Reformers, except insofar as Rome was involved in the first several centuries. I say that whatever wasn’t settled early on shouldn’t be “fixed” by anyone later.
As to how the Spirit guided, we tend to think of that as binary; the truth though is that differing canons had different levels of acceptance of books, and I see no problem with the Spirit guiding to the core nineteen undisputed books and letting the church differ on anything outside that core.
= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =
Making stuff up again, I see. Or is it pigeonholing people into preconceived categories? Either way it contradicts what I’ve written.
No, you dare to say that the Holy Spirit didn’t give us documents that we can trust, and that you are the sole arbiter of which parts of the scriptures are to be heeded and which to be ignored.
It actually wasn’t set until the Council of Trent when they eliminated the difference between canon and second canon.
That Roman notion came much later!
I could get behind a canon that excludes the Apocalypse!
It is not whether any person is good or not
It is about status, recognition and judgement. Only God can pronounce someone good. If we do it raises their status to be someone to be admired or even followed.
Likewise the statement about not calling someone “Teacher”. It raises their status and demands that they be not only listened to but their words accepted as true. In both cases it is setting the person up against God.
You are the epitome of someone who calls people teacher and accept human knowledge and learning. (And expect people to accept yours)
All that learning of yours…
Shame really
Richard
PS You make the bible the ultimate authority. That is your belief. It is not the universal one. You have made Scripture God in written form which is actually blaspheme
We will disagree on whether there is an error here.
Matthew says:
Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.
Since one of those sets of 14 is actually 17, I don’t see how this cannot be viewed as an error.
Yes I dispute that the Holy Spirit gave us the Biblical text, but after that you are putting words into my mouth that are simply not true. I claim no such authority, in fact i claim that no one has that authority.
A doctrine stands of falls by its legitimacy , not by who or what formed it.
You have proved that you take Ad-hominem to the next level. You will only accept criticism of the Bible from your tutors which is precisely what Christ taught against.
Richard
PS if there was a term that crossed ad-hominem with sola scriptura, you have it. You may not claim that Scripture is the only source but you do claim that it takes priority over all else. Maybe ad-scriptorem?
Allison and Davies Commentary (International Critical) on Matthew:
9—10. These two verses—which played a decisive role in the life of St Francis (Bonaventure, Legenda maior 3.l)—contain a list of prohibitions (vv. 9—10a) followed by an explanation (10b). The disciples can and should leave behind gold and silver and copper. They are not even to take along a travel bag or an extra tunic or sandals or a stafffithe normal and necessary accoutrements of the traveller (cf. Exod 12.11; Josh 9.3—6; b. Yeb. 16.7). Preaching a kingdom ‘not of this world’, they have unloosed their ties to the present age. They are to be ‘like slaves that minister to the master not for the sake of receiving a bounty’ (m. ’Abot 1.3).
By going about without possessions the disciples not only put themselves beyond suspicion but also become examples of trust in God’s providential care (cf. 6.24—34). They are, further, signs that God is working not through the rich or powerful but through the poor and powerless (cf. 5.3—12).
The relationship between Mt 10.9f and its synoptic parallels is not easily unravelled. These are the things prohibited:
No synoptic theory can readily explain the similarities and differences exhibitedbyMt10.9f.par.Intheendonemaydowelltoallowsome role for the fluidity of oral tradition or the frailty of human memory. The following observations may, nonetheless, be made. (i) The permission to take sandals and staff (so Mark) is probably a secondary development required by the needs of Christian missionaries.23 (ii) If Lk 10.4 reproduces Q, then Matthew has altered Q’s arrangement to: money (gold, silver, copper), wallet (the nfipa was for bread), clothing (tunics, sandals, staff). (iii) The Matthean order, gold, silver, copper, is according to value (cf. Josephus, Ant. 8.76).24 (iv) Matthew’s arrangement seems to contain two small triads: gold, silver, copper, and tunics, sandals, staff. (v) Attempts to harmonize Matthew and Mark by urging mistranslations from Aramaic do not persuade; see Black, pp. 216f. (vi) The Lukan prohibitions against taking silver and staff(9.3)maybefromQsincetheyhaveparallelsinMt10.9f.(vii) Because the ‘wallet’ (m’lpa) typically contained bread, Matthew probably thought Mark’s mention of bread redundant and therefore omitted it. (viii) Mt 10.9f. is almost certainly based on a dominical word. The logion harmonizes with Jesus’ other sayings about apostolic hardship and is consistent with his radical attitude towards wealth and property (cf. Hahn (v), p. 46).
Again you say that the scripture is wrong. Where do you get such arrogance?
Given that Paul uses both “teacher” and “father” of people, the above is only your prejudice. Jesus’ statement definitely means to not do what your second sentence says, but that doesn’t mean that merely using the word “teacher” does that – and in fact from grade school all the way through grad school I can only think of a handful whom that fits.
Hardly – I do not set human learning above the scriptures the way you set yourself above them.
And I expect people to acknowledge what was given to us as authoritative.
The error you illustrate is the same as the pope was caricatured as holding in the middle ages: scripture is authorittive only when it agrees with you.
Of course – it is the only source we have of which we are told it is inspired. Any other approach is making up your own religion.
There is no error because genealogies were not meant as science reports. Matthew’s Jewish readers would have had no problem with his three sets of fourteen because they would have recognized what they were reading. And as I noted, there’s a strong chance that Luke and Matthew were using genealogies that were already known, in which case they weren’t making errors but rather were being accurate in their “reporting”.
“Got Questions” actually has a fair summary of the Jewish attitude:
The purpose of a genealogy is to document the proof of ancestry from the origin of the line to the person under discussion. Every individual need not be included, but only those necessary to establish descending relationship. The author may legitimately abridge a genealogy to establish a point or to make it simpler. Matthew is correct in the factual material for his purpose, which is to document the ancestry of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, from Abraham.
In ancient thought, genealogies were treated fluidly, so trimming a few generations was no error. Indeed the question that would make sense here is “Why did Matthew leave out the ones he did?”
BTW, there are only forty-one names in Matthew’s genealogy, so how does he get fourteen three times anyway? There’s a clue in how he got three set of fourteen.
He does well what he’s best at, analyzing Greek grammar – his analysis is fine. What bugs me is the excuses he invents from outside the text! as well as just glossing over the fact that Mark and Luke use the very same word! I also got a chuckle from the point about philosophers because I encountered that in a Greek readings class; one philosopher was complaining about itinerant ones who were giving the title/profession a bad name.
Mounce should be embarrassed; Answers in Genesis actually makes the same point about the verbs but has a much clearer presentation!
You mean the interesting (I almost wrote “amusing”) explanation? It’s not mine; I don’t have an explanation.
BTW, I’m not convinced Mark was first, but he almost certainly wrote before Luke did.
Accuracy does not have to be at the science report level, but we will disagree as to the missing three generations being an error.
If Matthew’s lists had simply skipped three names, I think a case could be made for the lack of an error. But the specific 14/14/14 generation count is wrong, and Matthew is making a point of the 14s.
You’ve said that the scriptures can’t be trusted, and you set yourself above them repeatedly, saying that one part is wrong and another is right, which is the same as declaring which parts can be heeded and which not.
But you repeatedly pronounce things as though you have that authority.
No, I will only accept criticism that is in accord with the Bible’s status as inspired by the Holy Spirit and confirmed by Him via canonization. I just won’t accept criticism from those who treat the scriptures as having falsehoods.
Of course I do – except for Rome’s deviation into claiming the authority to invent novel doctrines§, that’s what Christians have always claimed. Church Fathers held to it, and they were clearly what Paul described when he said that the Holy Spirit gives teachers to the church. And it is quite proper to do so since the only other alternative is to make up your own religion.
§ which the Orthodox have been falling into by some asserting the authority to change traditions that Jesus set in place
That’s overstating the case; the Greek word most likely indicates what Mounce said, that they are not to acquire gold or silver (though he overdoes the comparison with itinerant philosophers trying to get rich).
One interesting thing is that either view requires the assumption that the disciples had their own moneybelts, which contrasts with the description of Judas as having charge of their funds.
The chart is useless without noting the differences in the verbs used. Matthew’s meaning is almost certainly that they shouldn’t accept what is likely to be offered: don’t accept any coin, don’t accept an extra shirt, don’t accept extra sandals, don’t accept a new staff. Itinerant speakers (philosophers, preachers) often got necessities offered instead of money, so Jesus is saying don’t accept even those basic things!
Seems superfluous. Mounce has a good point that no one would have gone traveling barefoot, and a walking stick was standard for travelers. Matthew and Luke not including those could be because they thought it unnecessary to even mention those.
I agree; we looked at that in one class.
[Which reminds me of a reason I pity people like Bart Ehrman who show no evidence of having studied either Hebrew or Aramaic, both of which – specially the latter – are critical to understanding the New Testament writings.]
The only thing “wrong” is that he cheated by listing David twice in order to get his fourteen in the first place. To a Jew at the time that would have not been a problem; as with missing names, they would have asked why Matthew did it that way.
Yes, he is – so that’s not an error, it’s a (very Jewish) device with a message.
The 14/14/14 isn’t wrong because that accurately summarizes what he wrote. The question is why 14 to begin with, then why leave out three names, then why mention David twice. The 14/14/14 isn’t an error but a deliberate structure to provide a message; seeing it as an error misses the point.
Why the 14s is something I don’t recall a good explanation for (though I know I’ve read plenty about it), why leave out the three names is something I’ve read hundreds of pages about and none of it stuck, and why David was mentioned twice isn’t just because it made the 14s come out even.
Inerrancy.
Such an important doctrine that is based upon 1 verse at the end of the second pastoral letter to one person and is repeated? Never!
It is not actually stated.
If you take the passage as a whole, the final words to Timothy. It basically means
"If in doubt, dont forget Scripture, it can help.
It does not say Scripture is the only source in fact it is preceded by referring to Paul’s own teaching.
Neither does it say scripture is perfect, or infallible .
And the term “God breathed” is so innacurate, if he had meant "By the Holy Spirit " He would probably have said so.
The point being that it was never prime doctrine taught by Paul to all Christians.
No, that is your belief that you are trying to impose onto me and everyone else.
Tell me, how was a gentile in Corinth or Rome (etc) supposed to access let alone read or understand Hebrew Scripture?
Your view is just impossible without the free translations and access to Scripture of modern day. Even in Medieval England it would have been impossible to accommodate your view of Scripture into Christianity. Biblical access was possible to the masses only since the invention of printing. Paul could not possibly have given those instructions to anyone other than a Jew.
Biblical inerrancy is a fallacy and it is time you realised it, likewise your insistance on Biblical knowledge.
You’re focusing on one verse. Elsewhere it is plainly stated that the Holy Spirit was behind it.
Besides which, all through the prior scriptures the breath of God was the Holy Spirit.
My view was held by the Fathers back in centuries where the people weren’t a lot more literate than in the middle ages. That the scriptures weren’t copied out and sitting on everyone’s dining table has nothing to do with their authority – the authority comes from the Holy Spirit.
Stop lying.
Or are you just confused? Try reading the thread again.
We have no other authoritative source of knowledge about God, and what we have later only has authority because it rests on the scriptures. This has been the Christian view all along.
