Smellin Coffee says NT not inspired

[rsc2a]

For what it's worth, I can identify with what you're saying, SC.  I definitely do NOT think that being suspicious of some of the NT is a movement toward apostasy.

I would agree that one can have questions (even doubts) and not be apostate. I would say that there comes a point where that suspicion would start a (changeable) trajectory towards apostasy.   

[quote author=Castor Muscular]That would make people like Martin Luther an apostate.  He questioned the inspiration of books of the NT, and didn't think James or Revelation (and maybe some others -- I forget) belonged in the canon.  (I think he eventually changed his mind about James.)  [/quote]

He did change his mind.

[quote author=Castor Muscular]I question the validity of some books and several individual passages in the NT.  For example, I seriously doubt Peter really referred to Paul's letters as scripture (he said, to paraphrase, they distort Paul's letters, like they do the OTHER scriptures).  I accept that it's POSSIBLE he said that.  But I doubt it.  [/quote]

This would be fair.

[quote author=Castor Muscular]There are other problems in the NT.  Jude, which is supposedly inspired, quotes the book of Enoch as inspired text.  Yet most people I know would freak out if I suggested the book of Enoch is inspired.  That contradiction makes no sense. [/quote]

I think this is largely a question of how one defines "inspired".

[quote author=Castor Muscular]Along with you, I prefer to be grounded in the Gospels, esp. the words of Jesus.  The rest of the NT, I measure by how well it harmonizes with the foundation set by Jesus and the OT. [/quote]

A very reasonable approach. I prefer to try to read the OT with the NT revelation as additional context, the NT with the OT as additional context, and everything as harmonious with the whole. Where that harmony starts to fall apart, I question my understanding.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

One of these is not like the others.

By what basis do you hold that "one" above similar writings also accepted by the Church universal?

On the same basis you hold the Church universal's acceptance of the whole - faith.

Actually, what you are quoting is the writings of a person who is allegedly quoting the words of Jesus. There is as much reason to reject these words as there are to reject the other writings in the NT. (And, for the record, I don't think we should reject them.)

It's a proof text. It's not the proof text. (And this is entirely separate from the historical reasons for accepting the NT writings.)

That is why I said "biggest". There is NO proof text that relates inspiration to the 66-book canon.

Non-sequitur..)

Sure. It has to apply to one and not the others. Which one?

Why do you assume that Koine Greek follows the same grammatical structure as English? (And, I say this acknowledging that Paul likely was speaking about the OT.)  You also just moved the "is". Is your new placement in the original languages or are you allowing for differing standards?

Moved or eliminated?

"The Law and the Prophets" was synonymous with the OT canon. It was an alternate name for the Jewish Scriptures.

To the Pharisees, yes. To the Sadducees, Samaritans, Jews of Alexandria and Egypt, etc. the Writings were not accepted as inspired.

Circular reasoning.

Ummm...OK...

You hold to what others recorded about what Jesus taught.

I agree.

As I stated at the beginning, logically you have no more reason to accept the Gospels as authoritative than you have to accept the other NT writings.

I don't have to accept them if they are not in alignment with what (is recorded that) Jesus taught.

 

[christundivided]

For what it's worth, I can identify with what you're saying, SC.  I definitely do NOT think that being suspicious of some of the NT is a movement toward apostasy.  That would make people like Martin Luther an apostate.  He questioned the inspiration of books of the NT, and didn't think James or Revelation (and maybe some others -- I forget) belonged in the canon.  (I think he eventually changed his mind about James.) 

I question the validity of some books and several individual passages in the NT.  For example, I seriously doubt Peter really referred to Paul's letters as scripture (he said, to paraphrase, they distort Paul's letters, like they do the OTHER scriptures).  I accept that it's POSSIBLE he said that.  But I doubt it. 

There are other problems in the NT.  Jude, which is supposedly inspired, quotes the book of Enoch as inspired text.  Yet most people I know would freak out if I suggested the book of Enoch is inspired.  That contradiction makes no sense.

Along with you, I prefer to be grounded in the Gospels, esp. the words of Jesus.  The rest of the NT, I measure by how well it harmonizes with the foundation set by Jesus and the OT.

The formation of the canon is something very few people even study, much less understand. I have spent years studying the canon process. I finally realized it had to do more with Truth than the actual "dirty process" we find in recognizing the "canon". Truth is Truth regardless of what source it comes from. A known reliable source may give more credence in discerning one work over another, but Truth it Truth. That is why I accept some of the things that are written in certain books while rejecting the overall books inclusion in the canon. I've been where you're at and been where Smelling Coffee is as well. I believe you're missing the "trees" because of the "forest"!!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

A couple things.

1. Christ gave the Apostles power/authority/rights. Paul even mentioned "authority/power" in

1Co 9:18  What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

Also, Paul talked of the "power" give to him by God to fully preach the Gospel with mighty signs and wonders.

Rom 15:19  Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

Luke talked of this in Acts 19:11

Act 19:11  And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: KJV

Act 19:11  And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, ESV.

Do you remember Paul's bold statement in

1Co 4:18  Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.
1Co 4:19  But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.
1Co 4:20  For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

Just such verses clearly indicate that Paul had power/authority. How could God use such a man and not give him authority? If you accept the narrative of the prophets based on the power given to them by God, why would you then reject what Paul wrote as being nothing greater than "edifying"?

Second, Paul did not say it as it was translated.

Yet, it is clear that the Law, The Prophets, the Psalms have been translated into the Old Greek OT. These were even used by the Apostles and quoted by Christ Himself. Not just the Hebrew/Aramaic texts.

Translated text carry with them some form of "derivative inspiration" when accurately translated. You believe the Law, Prophets and etc to be eternal and "alive". Are they simply dead when translated into other languages?

First of all, Jesus gave authority to CERTAIN apostles, not all of them. Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18.

And miracles are a sign of God's authority? 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

For what it's worth, I can identify with what you're saying, SC.  I definitely do NOT think that being suspicious of some of the NT is a movement toward apostasy.  That would make people like Martin Luther an apostate.  He questioned the inspiration of books of the NT, and didn't think James or Revelation (and maybe some others -- I forget) belonged in the canon.  (I think he eventually changed his mind about James.) 

I question the validity of some books and several individual passages in the NT.  For example, I seriously doubt Peter really referred to Paul's letters as scripture (he said, to paraphrase, they distort Paul's letters, like they do the OTHER scriptures).  I accept that it's POSSIBLE he said that.  But I doubt it. 

There are other problems in the NT.  Jude, which is supposedly inspired, quotes the book of Enoch as inspired text.  Yet most people I know would freak out if I suggested the book of Enoch is inspired.  That contradiction makes no sense.

Along with you, I prefer to be grounded in the Gospels, esp. the words of Jesus.  The rest of the NT, I measure by how well it harmonizes with the foundation set by Jesus and the OT.

Thanks, Castor. Concerning II Peter, even Calvin in his commentary casts doubt that Peter actually wrote II Peter.

One of the biggest arguments about accepting the canon as a whole is the assumption that God would never allow any corruption to be mixed with it. However, I would suggest otherwise. He created a perfect world and allowed sin to enter. He raised up false teachers in Israel to "test" the Israelites. Jesus suggests in His parable of the wheat and tares that they would grow together. So God's pattern is to allow corruption to test us for faithfulness to Him.

 

[christundivided]

First of all, Jesus gave authority to CERTAIN apostles, not all of them. Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18.

I am referencing the 12. Yet, I do believe the Peter made several mistakes and made choices that are not binding on anyone else. I can't say the same for Paul.

And miracles are a sign of God's authority? 

 

[Castor Muscular]

One of the biggest arguments about accepting the canon as a whole is the assumption that God would never allow any corruption to be mixed with it. However, I would suggest otherwise. He created a perfect world and allowed sin to enter. He raised up false teachers in Israel to "test" the Israelites. Jesus suggests in His parable of the wheat and tares that they would grow together. So God's pattern is to allow corruption to test us for faithfulness to Him.

I couldn't agree more.  I would even say some scripture is intentionally designed by God to be open to misinterpretation, perhaps even inviting misinterpretation. 

Also, we have the example of Jesus intentionally turning away a select group of people with his statements about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.  He could easily have been crystal clear about what he meant, but it wouldn't have had the desired effect if he was. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

First of all, Jesus gave authority to CERTAIN apostles, not all of them. Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18.

I am referencing the 12. Yet, I do believe the Peter made several mistakes and made choices that are not binding on anyone else. I can't say the same for Paul.  [/quote]

I would contend otherwise (not that Peter didn't make mistakes). There are reasons why Paul couldn't work with fellow-laborers without contention and the churches of Asia Minor abandoned him and his teachings.

I know you're aware of

Joh 14:11  Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
Joh 14:12  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Why did you ignore it?

Not denying miraculous works at all. Even Peter's shadow was mentioned as a source of healing.

Satan can't cast out Satan.

Mat 12:24  But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
Mat 12:25  And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
Mat 12:26  And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
Mat 12:27  And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
Mat 12:28  But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

Those that claimed to have cast out devils in his name didn't casts out devils. They only had a pretense of religion. They believe their own lies.

Then when those who cast out demons in His name are not recognized by God, who was responsible for this?

FYI, there would be a time when the casting out demons WOULD be beneficial to Satanic work. For the sake of argument, suppose Paul were going about preaching a false gospel, his casting out of the demonic would have been beneficial to maintain his false teaching:

And it came to pass in our going on to prayer, a certain maid, having a spirit of Python, did meet us, who brought much employment to her masters by soothsaying, she having followed Paul and us, was crying, saying, `These men are servants of the Most High God, who declare to us a way of salvation;' and this she was doing for many days, but Paul having been grieved, and having turned, said to the spirit, `I command thee, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come forth from her;' and it came forth the same hour.

Here was a demon-possessed woman who supported the teachings of Paul, making it clear her proclamations of support. After a while, it must have annoyed Paul as it had to have worked against him, but it took him "many days" before rebuked the demon because it was helping until Paul realized that people would start wondering why demons were promoting Paul. So sometimes division is necessary for success. Besides,
there can always be warring factions within the same side, hence this forum.

Jesus' argument stood in support of His Gospel of the Kingdom. In Paul's case, he used the miraculous to "prove" his apostleship even though such miracles could be identifying properties of false prophets according to Jesus. Jesus did use the miraculous to "prove" His calling, but He also had eyewitnesses (at His baptism and Transfiguration). Paul had NO eyewitnesses to his calling and when he could have used a friend to support his call to apostleship to the churches, he did not refer Ananias nor any of the crowd with him on the Damascus road. None of them could have been credible eyewitnesses anyway.

Don't ignore the "special miracles" done by Paul. Do you reject the account given by Luke of Paul's actions?

I believe Luke recorded to the best of his knowledge. In his first letter to Theophilus, he admits to getting second-hand information:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Since Acts was also written to Theophilus (Acts 1:1), there is no reason he would not continue to record based on what he understood to be true whether he witnessed it or not.

 

[rsc2a]

One of these is not like the others.

By what basis do you hold that "one" above similar writings also accepted by the Church universal?

On the same basis you hold the Church universal's acceptance of the whole - faith.

Then I'd rather base my understanding on that in accordance with the community of faith vs my own individual, divergent one.

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]That is why I said "biggest". There is NO proof text that relates inspiration to the 66-book canon.[/quote]

The extent of the canon is a separate (although greatly related) issue. If you are basing your beliefs on the words of Christ, then you are basing your beliefs on the writings of men, often men who weren't even among the apostles. Furthermore, you are rejecting Acts which is written by the same author as one of the gospels you accept.

[quote author=Smellin Coffee][quote author=rsc2a]Non-sequitur..) [/quote]

Sure. It has to apply to one and not the others. Which one?[/quote]

No...if it applied to the smallest, it would apply to all...to the extent that they agree with the smallest. You act as if inspiration is an all-or-nothing thing. You also act as if there aren't differing degrees of inspiration.

[quote author=Smellin Coffee][quote author=rsc2a]Why do you assume that Koine Greek follows the same grammatical structure as English? (And, I say this acknowledging that Paul likely was speaking about the OT.)  You also just moved the "is". Is your new placement in the original languages or are you allowing for differing standards? [/quote]

Moved or eliminated?[/quote]

Moved. And this from the translations you provided. Eliminate it and the sentence makes no sense.

[quote author=Smellin Coffee][quote author=rsc2a]"The Law and the Prophets" was synonymous with the OT canon. It was an alternate name for the Jewish Scriptures. [/quote]

To the Pharisees, yes. To the Sadducees, Samaritans, Jews of Alexandria and Egypt, etc. the Writings were not accepted as inspired.[/quote]

Wrong historically.
Wrong Scripturally (even limiting it to the Gospels).
Wrong contextually.

[quote author=Smellin Coffee][quote author=rsc2a]Circular reasoning. [/quote]

Ummm...OK...[/quote]

Yes?

[quote author=Smellin Coffee][quote author=rsc2a]
As I stated at the beginning, logically you have no more reason to accept the Gospels as authoritative than you have to accept the other NT writings.
[/quote]

I don't have to accept them if they are not in alignment with what (is recorded that) Jesus taught.
[/quote]

To use one example, in what way is 1 Cor 13 not in alignment with what Jesus taught?

Again, this is completely ignoring the cognitive dissonance required to accept the Gospels and reject the other writings since there is no basis in reason for doing such a thing.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]I would contend otherwise (not that Peter didn't make mistakes). There are reasons why Paul couldn't work with fellow-laborers without contention and the churches of Asia Minor abandoned him and his teachings.[/quote]

So you think that Gentiles and Jews shouldn't socialize?

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]Then when those who cast out demons in His name are not recognized by God, who was responsible for this?

FYI, there would be a time when the casting out demons WOULD be beneficial to Satanic work. For the sake of argument, suppose Paul were going about preaching a false gospel, his casting out of the demonic would have been beneficial to maintain his false teaching:

And it came to pass in our going on to prayer, a certain maid, having a spirit of Python, did meet us, who brought much employment to her masters by soothsaying, she having followed Paul and us, was crying, saying, `These men are servants of the Most High God, who declare to us a way of salvation;' and this she was doing for many days, but Paul having been grieved, and having turned, said to the spirit, `I command thee, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come forth from her;' and it came forth the same hour.

Here was a demon-possessed woman who supported the teachings of Paul, making it clear her proclamations of support. After a while, it must have annoyed Paul as it had to have worked against him, but it took him "many days" before rebuked the demon because it was helping until Paul realized that people would start wondering why demons were promoting Paul. So sometimes division is necessary for success. Besides, there can always be warring factions within the same side, hence this forum. [/quote]

Of course there is this:

John said to him,

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Then I'd rather base my understanding on that in accordance with the community of faith vs my own individual, divergent one.

Kinda like the Pharisees based their Oral Laws on the tradititions of their fathers.

The extent of the canon is a separate (although greatly related) issue. If you are basing your beliefs on the words of Christ, then you are basing your beliefs on the writings of men, often men who weren't even among the apostles.

And I have not denied such.

Furthermore, you are rejecting Acts which is written by the same author as one of the gospels you accept.

Rejecting Acts as "God-breathed"? Yes. Rejecting as true or reliable text? Not necessarily.

No...if it applied to the smallest, it would apply to all...to the extent that they agree with the smallest. You act as if inspiration is an all-or-nothing thing. You also act as if there aren't differing degrees of inspiration. 

So if I contend that only a portion of the 66-book canon is inspired and you contend that it all is inspired, why am I the one who sees it as "all-or-nothing"?

What are the differing degrees of inspiration? I've never heard of that. Would like to know more.

Wrong historically.
Wrong Scripturally (even limiting it to the Gospels).
Wrong contextually.

I'm listening.

To use one example, in what way is 1 Cor 13 not in alignment with what Jesus taught?

Setting up a strawman here. I never said that everything else was contradictory. I believe that there were things that Paul wrote that were edifying and right but I also believe that there was much that was wrong. Take for example, his teaching about response to loving enemies. I think Paul was right. On the flip side look at His quoting Jesus. He rarely did it (which is not necessarily a problem in itself) but when he did, he changed the teachings of Jesus.

Again, this is completely ignoring the cognitive dissonance required to accept the Gospels and reject the other writings since there is no basis in reason for doing such a thing.

And there is no basis for accepting "additional revelation" from the recorded teaching of a man who got his material, not from the Master Himself, but from "visions" and "many revelations", specifically when it is contrary to the teachings of Christ.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

So you think that Gentiles and Jews shouldn't socialize?

What does that have to do with the tea in China?

Of course there is this:

John said to him,

 

[rsc2a]

Then I'd rather base my understanding on that in accordance with the community of faith vs my own individual, divergent one.

Kinda like the Pharisees based their Oral Laws on the tradititions of their fathers.

Funny thing...Jesus didn't condemn the Pharisees for upholding the traditions of their fathers. He condemned them for upholding the traditions of their fathers while ignoring the needs of others.

[quote author=Smellin Coffee][quote author=rsc2a] Furthermore, you are rejecting Acts which is written by the same author as one of the gospels you accept. [/quote]

Rejecting Acts as "God-breathed"? Yes. Rejecting as true or reliable text? Not necessarily.[/quote]

Yup...completely arbitrary.

[quote author=Smellin Coffee][quote author=rsc2a]No...if it applied to the smallest, it would apply to all...to the extent that they agree with the smallest. You act as if inspiration is an all-or-nothing thing. You also act as if there aren't differing degrees of inspiration.  [/quote]

So if I contend that only a portion of the 66-book canon is inspired and you contend that it all is inspired, why am I the one who sees it as "all-or-nothing"? [/quote]

I don't base my argument for canonicity on Scripture alone (or even predominately). I base it on logic and reason. You know...things like not accepting Luke's writings in one place and rejecting them in another. I also base in on what the Church has historically accepted because I believe God has given us a community of faith to assist us in thing called the Kingdom of God. If my views are wildly divergent from theirs, there is a problem.

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]What are the differing degrees of inspiration? I've never heard of that. Would like to know more.[/quote]

Do I believe John Newton was inspired when he wrote Amazing Grace? Absolutely. Would I elevate Amazing Grace to Scripture? No.

Like I mentioned, a lot of it has to do with how one defines "inspired" (among other words).

[quote author=Smellin Coffee][quote author=rsc2a]Wrong historically.
Wrong Scripturally (even limiting it to the Gospels).
Wrong contextually. [/quote]

I'm listening.[/quote]

Historical
Alexandrian Jews and Essenes (among others) had a larger canon.
Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch.
Samaritans only accepted (their version of) the Pentateuch.

Scriptural
The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him. And he said to them,

 

[christundivided]

First of all, Jesus gave authority to CERTAIN apostles, not all of them. Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18.

I am referencing the 12. Yet, I do believe the Peter made several mistakes and made choices that are not binding on anyone else. I can't say the same for Paul.

I would contend otherwise (not that Peter didn't make mistakes). There are reasons why Paul couldn't work with fellow-laborers without contention and the churches of Asia Minor abandoned him and his teachings.

I've meet a few people before that believed this way. They were pretty much a extreme form of Messianic Judaism. Do you fall into that category?

Provide evidence. Not conjecture.

Not denying miraculous works at all. Even Peter's shadow was mentioned as a source of healing.

No your ignoring that Christ himself spoke of how marvelous works would reveal who are HIS and who are not. Christ Himself appeal to the Jews of His day to believe Him because of the miracles he preformed. Do you acknowledge this?

Then when those who cast out demons in His name are not recognized by God, who was responsible for this?

I don't understand your question. Your Own Master said that Satan can not cast out Satan. Accept or deny it. If you deny it, then you deny the words of your Master.

FYI, there would be a time when the casting out demons WOULD be beneficial to Satanic work. For the sake of argument, suppose Paul were going about preaching a false gospel, his casting out of the demonic would have been beneficial to maintain his false teaching:

Yet, you have no evidence that Satan casts out Satan. On the contrary, you are simply using conjecture to make your point. Here. I'll post the Words of your Master again. Maybe you will believe them this time.

Mat 12:25  And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
Mat 12:26  And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
Mat 12:27  And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
Mat 12:28  But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Mat 12:29  Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

And it came to pass in our going on to prayer, a certain maid, having a spirit of Python, did meet us, who brought much employment to her masters by soothsaying, she having followed Paul and us, was crying, saying, `These men are servants of the Most High God, who declare to us a way of salvation;' and this she was doing for many days, but Paul having been grieved, and having turned, said to the spirit, `I command thee, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come forth from her;' and it came forth the same hour.

Here was a demon-possessed woman who supported the teachings of Paul, making it clear her proclamations of support. After a while, it must have annoyed Paul as it had to have worked against him, but it took him "many days" before rebuked the demon because it was helping until Paul realized that people would start wondering why demons were promoting Paul. So sometimes division is necessary for success. Besides,
there can always be warring factions within the same side, hence this forum.

You're not actually trying to understand what happened. You have manufactured a position that contrary to what your own Master taught. The Jews during Christ's day accused Him of the same things. They said that He cast demons by the power Satan. So Paul was in good company with Christ and you're on the wrong side of history.

She was obviously mocking the teachings of Paul. Satan is not divided against Satan. Satan does not cast out Satan. Its only in your imagination. You really haven't thought this through.

Jesus' argument stood in support of His Gospel of the Kingdom. In Paul's case, he used the miraculous to "prove" his apostleship even though such miracles could be identifying properties of false prophets according to Jesus. Jesus did use the miraculous to "prove" His calling, but He also had eyewitnesses (at His baptism and Transfiguration). Paul had NO eyewitnesses to his calling and when he could have used a friend to support his call to apostleship to the churches, he did not refer Ananias nor any of the crowd with him on the Damascus road. None of them could have been credible eyewitnesses anyway.

Regardless of the REASON why Christ said what HE said. He still said it and its still true. You have based your belief solely on a fabricated ideal of "WHY" Christ did what HE did and ignored what Christ actually said. Satan can not cast out Satan. Satan/Demons are not that STUPID.

Your beliefs in Paul are really very silly. I don't know why you choose to believe such. What is your motive? Does Paul's teachings get under your sin? Do you feel as if Paul tainted Judaism?

Do you desire to keep the Torah? Is that this is all about?

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Yet, Luke wrote his Gospel for a reason. You know the reason. The very fact you mention this tells me that you've at least studied canonical issues before.

Luk 1:1  Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things

You know there were many attempting to have their say about Christ. Luke wrote His Gospel to give a perfect account of what he experienced first hand. You conveniently left out Luke's words following what you quoted.

"having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first"

Since Acts was also written to Theophilus (Acts 1:1), there is no reason he would not continue to record based on what he understood to be true whether he witnessed it or not.

Luke was more than just a narrator. He was friend of Paul. A companion. Obviously you believe Luke must have been perverted by Paul's teachings since Luke write so fondly of Paul.

If you so adamantly reject Paul, then why not reject Luke?

Would you remove Luke from you canon?

Personally, I'd remove Matthew and Mark before I'd touch one thing Luke had to say. Matthew was obviously tainted by Judaizers. We don't even know if Matthew was written first in Hebrew or Greek and who knows what to say about Mark.

Did that hurt your feelings? Obviously you have a fondness for Peter, Matthew, and Mark. I bet you're really fond of James the brother of our Lord?

Its been a long while since I had the privileged of discussing such things with someone that appears to know a little bit of what they are talking about.

 

[rsc2a]

So you think that Gentiles and Jews shouldn't socialize?

What does that have to do with the tea in China?

We have one recorded reason for contention between Paul and Peter. Do you remember what it was?

[quote author=rsc2a]Of course there is this:

John said to him,

 

[Castor Muscular]

What does that have to do with the tea in China?

It's "What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?" 

-- Your friendly neighborhood grammar, spelling, and quote nazi. 

 

[cave_dweller]

Wow! It must take some serious faith place your eternal well being in something that has errors or flaws

 

[Castor Muscular]

Wow! It must take some serious faith place your eternal well being in something that has errors or flaws

What if we're right?  Then you are placing your faith in the falsehood that every word in the NT is God-breathed and believing errors to be the truth. 

I would rather place my faith on what I believe to be a sure and firm foundation and measure the questionable material against it. 

Like I said, I seriously doubt that 2 Peter was written by Peter, and I seriously doubt anyone said Paul's letters were considered scripture, especially at the time Peter supposedly wrote that letter.  If I'm right that this is really an apocryphal book, that casts doubt upon every other epistle that is considered canonical.  There are more reasons to suspect errors, but one is enough to make you start thinking. 

 

[cave_dweller]

Wow! It must take some serious faith place your eternal well being in something that has errors or flaws

What if we're right?  Then you are placing your faith in the falsehood that every word in the NT is God-breathed and believing errors to be the truth. 

I would rather place my faith on what I believe to be a sure and firm foundation and measure the questionable material against it. 

Like I said, I seriously doubt that 2 Peter was written by Peter, and I seriously doubt anyone said Paul's letters were considered scripture, especially at the time Peter supposedly wrote that letter.  If I'm right that this is really an apocryphal book, that casts doubt upon every other epistle that is considered canonical.  There are more reasons to suspect errors, but one is enough to make you start thinking.

And what if you are wrong? what point are you trying to make? if there is not an every word Bible then who is to say what is right and what is wrong?? who gets to play God and choose to accept what portions of scripture are relevent and which sections are just as inspired as people magazine? then you start to formulate in your head what you believe and not what God has deemed to be perfect and righteouss. like a said it must take a lot of faith to put your eternal well being in something that has a cracked and flawed foundation.

 

[Mathew Ward]

who gets to play God and choose to accept what portions of scripture are relevent and which sections are just as inspired as people magazine?

Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.