Smellin Coffee says NT not inspired

[Smellin Coffee]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]

Seems Luke acknowledged that Matthias was a part of the Twelve: Acts 6:2

So The Book of Acts is inspired?

If so, Luke quotes Jesus on the Road to Damascus...which gives credence to Paul's apostleship.
Bummer!
[/quote]

That's not in any Bible I've ever read.

A light that claimed to be Jesus called Paul to be a "witness" (martys), not an "apostle". It was not Jesus in His physical body (as Jesus said His return to earth would be) appointing Paul to be an apostle. This makes the "inspiration" of Acts (or lack thereof) a moot point.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

And Tarheel, I would like to add I find it quite disconcerting that the light that claimed to be Jesus actually quoted the false god Dionysus in his statement to Paul. Why would Jesus have to quote a false god from literature and mythology AS HIS OWN STATEMENT in an effort to convince Paul of who He was? And why would I want to worship a god that had to "borrow" quotations from his enemies because he couldn't come up with something original?

No, the light was prophesied by Jesus as a warning to the disciples and it duped Paul.

Oh, and whenever was the real Jesus in the business of blinding folks? I thought He came to give sight to the blind, but maybe that part of the Bible isn't inspired either. Oh well.

 

[graceandtruth]

And Tarheel, I would like to add I find it quite disconcerting that the light that claimed to be Jesus actually quoted the false god Dionysus in his statement to Paul. Why would Jesus have to quote a false god from literature and mythology AS HIS OWN STATEMENT in an effort to convince Paul of who He was? And why would I want to worship a god that had to "borrow" quotations from his enemies because he couldn't come up with something original?

No, the light was prophesied by Jesus as a warning to the disciples and it duped Paul.

Oh, and whenever was the real Jesus in the business of blinding folks? I thought He came to give sight to the blind, but maybe that part of the Bible isn't inspired either. Oh well.

In your opinion is there a supernatural element to the NT or is it just the writings of men acting as news reporters?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

In your opinion is there a supernatural element to the NT or is it just the writings of men acting as news reporters?

Other than religious tradition, how can it be proven the New Testament contains more supernatural element than say Apocryphal works, some of which are quoted in the "inspired" 66-book canon?

 

[graceandtruth]

In your opinion is there a supernatural element to the NT or is it just the writings of men acting as news reporters?

Other than religious tradition, how can it be proven the New Testament contains more supernatural element than say Apocryphal works, some of which are quoted in the "inspired" 66-book canon?

So the NT is just a book like "A Tale of Two Cities".  I can't agree with that one.  Here's another question.  So where do we find the definitive, accurate, and completely trustworthy revelation of God and God's interaction with humanity considering both Paul and Luke were deceived by a light? 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

In your opinion is there a supernatural element to the NT or is it just the writings of men acting as news reporters?

Other than religious tradition, how can it be proven the New Testament contains more supernatural element than say Apocryphal works, some of which are quoted in the "inspired" 66-book canon?

So the NT is just a book like "A Tale of Two Cities".  I can't agree with that one.  Here's another question.  So where do we find the definitive, accurate, and completely trustworthy revelation of God and God's interaction with humanity considering both Paul and Luke were deceived by a light?

How can one affirmatively conclude the 66-book canon as the definitive, accurate, and completely trustworthy revelation of God and God's interaction with humanity?

 

[graceandtruth]

In your opinion is there a supernatural element to the NT or is it just the writings of men acting as news reporters?

Other than religious tradition, how can it be proven the New Testament contains more supernatural element than say Apocryphal works, some of which are quoted in the "inspired" 66-book canon?

So the NT is just a book like "A Tale of Two Cities".  I can't agree with that one.  Here's another question.  So where do we find the definitive, accurate, and completely trustworthy revelation of God and God's interaction with humanity considering both Paul and Luke were deceived by a light?

How can one affirmatively conclude the 66-book canon as the definitive, accurate, and completely trustworthy revelation of God and God's interaction with humanity?

You must have missed my question.  You say the Bible is not that revelation so I am asking you what is that revelation.  If there isn't one then why bother with the God question at all?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

And Tarheel, I would like to add I find it quite disconcerting that the light that claimed to be Jesus actually quoted the false god Dionysus in his statement to Paul. Why would Jesus have to quote a false god from literature and mythology AS HIS OWN STATEMENT in an effort to convince Paul of who He was? And why would I want to worship a god that had to "borrow" quotations from his enemies because he couldn't come up with something original?

No, the light was prophesied by Jesus as a warning to the disciples and it duped Paul.

Oh, and whenever was the real Jesus in the business of blinding folks? I thought He came to give sight to the blind, but maybe that part of the Bible isn't inspired either. Oh well.

What are you talking about? Do you get this stuff from Marvel Comics?

Luke wrote Acts, which you dont accept....he also wrote Luke, which you accept.
God moves in mysterious ways and does as He pleases.
Sorry, but you are the one who has been duped, and I really am sorry....I think you're a good and gracious guy. But you are on a the wrong road (no pun intended) and I pray that Christ reveals Himself to you, like He did to Paul....and that you respond in like manner!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

In your opinion is there a supernatural element to the NT or is it just the writings of men acting as news reporters?

Other than religious tradition, how can it be proven the New Testament contains more supernatural element than say Apocryphal works, some of which are quoted in the "inspired" 66-book canon?

So the NT is just a book like "A Tale of Two Cities".  I can't agree with that one.  Here's another question.  So where do we find the definitive, accurate, and completely trustworthy revelation of God and God's interaction with humanity considering both Paul and Luke were deceived by a light?

How can one affirmatively conclude the 66-book canon as the definitive, accurate, and completely trustworthy revelation of God and God's interaction with humanity?

You must have missed my question.  You say the Bible is not that revelation so I am asking you what is that revelation.  If there isn't one then why bother with the God question at all?

Where was written "revelation" before the 66-book canon was assembled? Why did people before the canon was assembled bother with the God question at all?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

And Tarheel, I would like to add I find it quite disconcerting that the light that claimed to be Jesus actually quoted the false god Dionysus in his statement to Paul. Why would Jesus have to quote a false god from literature and mythology AS HIS OWN STATEMENT in an effort to convince Paul of who He was? And why would I want to worship a god that had to "borrow" quotations from his enemies because he couldn't come up with something original?

No, the light was prophesied by Jesus as a warning to the disciples and it duped Paul.

Oh, and whenever was the real Jesus in the business of blinding folks? I thought He came to give sight to the blind, but maybe that part of the Bible isn't inspired either. Oh well.

What are you talking about? Do you get this stuff from Marvel Comics?

Luke wrote Acts, which you dont accept....he also wrote Luke, which you accept.
God moves in mysterious ways and does as He pleases.
Sorry, but you are the one who has been duped, and I really am sorry....I think you're a good and gracious guy. But you are on a the wrong road (no pun intended) and I pray that Christ reveals Himself to you, like He did to Paul....and that you respond in like manner!

Who says I don't accept Acts any less than Luke? I have made it very clear on previous occasions that I believe Luke recorded to the best of his ability and knowledge. There is no evidence he was on the Damascus Road to give first-hand account and he does not admit to being there. The fact that he recorded Paul's conversion 3 different times with 3 different variables to the story (some of which appear to be contradictions) shows that he was honest in his writings, despite showing favor to Paul.

Jesus clearly said His return to earth would be in a physical body. He did not appear to Paul in a physical body. Jesus clearly said not to listen to the voice in the wilderness that said it was Christ. Paul listened to the voice in the wilderness that said it was Christ. Jesus clearly indicated that when He would return that "every eye" would see Him. Only one set of eyes AT THE SCENE saw the source of the light. Jesus saw Satan fall from heaven "like lightning". Even Paul admitted that Satan "masquerades as an angel of light". Jesus said that His sheep would recognize His voice. Paul did not recognize the voice of the light so he had to ask for confirmation.

And concerning "mysterious ways", would the same jealous God who abhorred the worship of false gods quote from a pagan source spoken by a "false god" to get Paul's attention? IMHO, I believe this is why when Paul quoted this statement from Euripides (The Bacchae) that Festus considered Paul crazy. The one, holy, jealous God who abhors all other gods would quote one in His "evangelistic line" to Paul. If Festus had seen the Euripedes play and recognized that line, no wonder he didn't accept Paul's testimony. And the light would quote the line from the Greek play in the Hebrew tongue in the "lived out" version of the scene of the play. Strange indeed.

So this light which by Jesus' warnings could not be Jesus, blinds a man instead of heals him, quotes pagan literature and appears in a form contrary to how Jesus said He would next appear on earth. No names of the eyewitnesses. Discrepancies in testimony. Nobody else to corroborate the story when told. Just look at the facts AS RECORDED rather than traditional teaching. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

And Tarheel, I would like to add I find it quite disconcerting that the light that claimed to be Jesus actually quoted the false god Dionysus in his statement to Paul. Why would Jesus have to quote a false god from literature and mythology AS HIS OWN STATEMENT in an effort to convince Paul of who He was? And why would I want to worship a god that had to "borrow" quotations from his enemies because he couldn't come up with something original?

No, the light was prophesied by Jesus as a warning to the disciples and it duped Paul.

Oh, and whenever was the real Jesus in the business of blinding folks? I thought He came to give sight to the blind, but maybe that part of the Bible isn't inspired either. Oh well.

What are you talking about? Do you get this stuff from Marvel Comics?

Luke wrote Acts, which you dont accept....he also wrote Luke, which you accept.
God moves in mysterious ways and does as He pleases.
Sorry, but you are the one who has been duped, and I really am sorry....I think you're a good and gracious guy. But you are on a the wrong road (no pun intended) and I pray that Christ reveals Himself to you, like He did to Paul....and that you respond in like manner!

Who says I don't accept Acts any less than Luke? I have made it very clear on previous occasions that I believe Luke recorded to the best of his ability and knowledge. There is no evidence he was on the Damascus Road to give first-hand account and he does not admit to being there. The fact that he recorded Paul's conversion 3 different times with 3 different variables to the story (some of which appear to be contradictions) shows that he was honest in his writings, despite showing favor to Paul.

Jesus clearly said His return to earth would be in a physical body. He did not appear to Paul in a physical body. Jesus clearly said not to listen to the voice in the wilderness that said it was Christ. Paul listened to the voice in the wilderness that said it was Christ. Jesus clearly indicated that when He would return that "every eye" would see Him. Only one set of eyes AT THE SCENE saw the source of the light. Jesus saw Satan fall from heaven "like lightning". Even Paul admitted that Satan "masquerades as an angel of light". Jesus said that His sheep would recognize His voice. Paul did not recognize the voice of the light so he had to ask for confirmation.

And concerning "mysterious ways", would the same jealous God who abhorred the worship of false gods quote from a pagan source spoken by a "false god" to get Paul's attention? IMHO, I believe this is why when Paul quoted this statement from Euripides (The Bacchae) that Festus considered Paul crazy. The one, holy, jealous God who abhors all other gods would quote one in His "evangelistic line" to Paul. If Festus had seen the Euripedes play and recognized that line, no wonder he didn't accept Paul's testimony. And the light would quote the line from the Greek play in the Hebrew tongue in the "lived out" version of the scene of the play. Strange indeed.

So this light which by Jesus' warnings could not be Jesus, blinds a man instead of heals him, quotes pagan literature and appears in a form contrary to how Jesus said He would next appear on earth. No names of the eyewitnesses. Discrepancies in testimony. Nobody else to corroborate the story when told. Just look at the facts AS RECORDED rather than traditional teaching.

Thus say-eth Marvel Comics, Series 1234 Edition 4567?


And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should and disputations rise among you. Moroni 8:4

 

[graceandtruth]

In your opinion is there a supernatural element to the NT or is it just the writings of men acting as news reporters?

Other than religious tradition, how can it be proven the New Testament contains more supernatural element than say Apocryphal works, some of which are quoted in the "inspired" 66-book canon?

So the NT is just a book like "A Tale of Two Cities".  I can't agree with that one.  Here's another question.  So where do we find the definitive, accurate, and completely trustworthy revelation of God and God's interaction with humanity considering both Paul and Luke were deceived by a light?

How can one affirmatively conclude the 66-book canon as the definitive, accurate, and completely trustworthy revelation of God and God's interaction with humanity?

You must have missed my question.  You say the Bible is not that revelation so I am asking you what is that revelation.  If there isn't one then why bother with the God question at all?

Where was written "revelation" before the 66-book canon was assembled? Why did people before the canon was assembled bother with the God question at all?

Quit avoiding the question Smelling and just answer.  What is your definitive revelation of God and His interaction with humanity.  If you don't have any but your own heart just say so.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

In your opinion is there a supernatural element to the NT or is it just the writings of men acting as news reporters?

Other than religious tradition, how can it be proven the New Testament contains more supernatural element than say Apocryphal works, some of which are quoted in the "inspired" 66-book canon?

So the NT is just a book like "A Tale of Two Cities".  I can't agree with that one.  Here's another question.  So where do we find the definitive, accurate, and completely trustworthy revelation of God and God's interaction with humanity considering both Paul and Luke were deceived by a light?

How can one affirmatively conclude the 66-book canon as the definitive, accurate, and completely trustworthy revelation of God and God's interaction with humanity?

You must have missed my question.  You say the Bible is not that revelation so I am asking you what is that revelation.  If there isn't one then why bother with the God question at all?

Where was written "revelation" before the 66-book canon was assembled? Why did people before the canon was assembled bother with the God question at all?

Quit avoiding the question Smelling and just answer.  What is your definitive revelation of God and His interaction with humanity.  If you don't have any but your own heart just say so.

Just like you are avoiding the answer that your description fits only the 66-book canon.

 

[graceandtruth]

In your opinion is there a supernatural element to the NT or is it just the writings of men acting as news reporters?

Other than religious tradition, how can it be proven the New Testament contains more supernatural element than say Apocryphal works, some of which are quoted in the "inspired" 66-book canon?

So the NT is just a book like "A Tale of Two Cities".  I can't agree with that one.  Here's another question.  So where do we find the definitive, accurate, and completely trustworthy revelation of God and God's interaction with humanity considering both Paul and Luke were deceived by a light?

How can one affirmatively conclude the 66-book canon as the definitive, accurate, and completely trustworthy revelation of God and God's interaction with humanity?

You must have missed my question.  You say the Bible is not that revelation so I am asking you what is that revelation.  If there isn't one then why bother with the God question at all?

Where was written "revelation" before the 66-book canon was assembled? Why did people before the canon was assembled bother with the God question at all?

Quit avoiding the question Smelling and just answer.  What is your definitive revelation of God and His interaction with humanity.  If you don't have any but your own heart just say so.

Just like you are avoiding the answer that your description fits only the 66-book canon.

I believe the 66 Book Canon, commonly known as the Bible, to be the definitive, trustworthy, accurate revelation of God and His interaction with humanity.  Now it is your turn. 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

And Tarheel, I would like to add I find it quite disconcerting that the light that claimed to be Jesus actually quoted the false god Dionysus in his statement to Paul. Why would Jesus have to quote a false god from literature and mythology AS HIS OWN STATEMENT in an effort to convince Paul of who He was? And why would I want to worship a god that had to "borrow" quotations from his enemies because he couldn't come up with something original?

No, the light was prophesied by Jesus as a warning to the disciples and it duped Paul.

Oh, and whenever was the real Jesus in the business of blinding folks? I thought He came to give sight to the blind, but maybe that part of the Bible isn't inspired either. Oh well.

What are you talking about? Do you get this stuff from Marvel Comics?

Luke wrote Acts, which you dont accept....he also wrote Luke, which you accept.
God moves in mysterious ways and does as He pleases.
Sorry, but you are the one who has been duped, and I really am sorry....I think you're a good and gracious guy. But you are on a the wrong road (no pun intended) and I pray that Christ reveals Himself to you, like He did to Paul....and that you respond in like manner!

Who says I don't accept Acts any less than Luke? I have made it very clear on previous occasions that I believe Luke recorded to the best of his ability and knowledge. There is no evidence he was on the Damascus Road to give first-hand account and he does not admit to being there. The fact that he recorded Paul's conversion 3 different times with 3 different variables to the story (some of which appear to be contradictions) shows that he was honest in his writings, despite showing favor to Paul.

Jesus clearly said His return to earth would be in a physical body. He did not appear to Paul in a physical body. Jesus clearly said not to listen to the voice in the wilderness that said it was Christ. Paul listened to the voice in the wilderness that said it was Christ. Jesus clearly indicated that when He would return that "every eye" would see Him. Only one set of eyes AT THE SCENE saw the source of the light. Jesus saw Satan fall from heaven "like lightning". Even Paul admitted that Satan "masquerades as an angel of light". Jesus said that His sheep would recognize His voice. Paul did not recognize the voice of the light so he had to ask for confirmation.

And concerning "mysterious ways", would the same jealous God who abhorred the worship of false gods quote from a pagan source spoken by a "false god" to get Paul's attention? IMHO, I believe this is why when Paul quoted this statement from Euripides (The Bacchae) that Festus considered Paul crazy. The one, holy, jealous God who abhors all other gods would quote one in His "evangelistic line" to Paul. If Festus had seen the Euripedes play and recognized that line, no wonder he didn't accept Paul's testimony. And the light would quote the line from the Greek play in the Hebrew tongue in the "lived out" version of the scene of the play. Strange indeed.

So this light which by Jesus' warnings could not be Jesus, blinds a man instead of heals him, quotes pagan literature and appears in a form contrary to how Jesus said He would next appear on earth. No names of the eyewitnesses. Discrepancies in testimony. Nobody else to corroborate the story when told. Just look at the facts AS RECORDED rather than traditional teaching.

Thus say-eth Marvel Comics, Series 1234 Edition 4567?


And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should and disputations rise among you. Moroni 8:4

Exactly.

"Study the Bible extensively but accept only Pastor's and history's interpretation."

So, do you teach your people that the inspiration of the 66-book canon is absolute  truth or do you confess to them that you accept it as such based solely on man-made traditions passed down through the centuries? Are you honest with them or do you hide the truth from them?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

In your opinion is there a supernatural element to the NT or is it just the writings of men acting as news reporters?

Other than religious tradition, how can it be proven the New Testament contains more supernatural element than say Apocryphal works, some of which are quoted in the "inspired" 66-book canon?

So the NT is just a book like "A Tale of Two Cities".  I can't agree with that one.  Here's another question.  So where do we find the definitive, accurate, and completely trustworthy revelation of God and God's interaction with humanity considering both Paul and Luke were deceived by a light?

How can one affirmatively conclude the 66-book canon as the definitive, accurate, and completely trustworthy revelation of God and God's interaction with humanity?

You must have missed my question.  You say the Bible is not that revelation so I am asking you what is that revelation.  If there isn't one then why bother with the God question at all?

Where was written "revelation" before the 66-book canon was assembled? Why did people before the canon was assembled bother with the God question at all?

Quit avoiding the question Smelling and just answer.  What is your definitive revelation of God and His interaction with humanity.  If you don't have any but your own heart just say so.

Just like you are avoiding the answer that your description fits only the 66-book canon.

I believe the 66 Book Canon, commonly known as the Bible, to be the definitive, trustworthy, accurate revelation of God and His interaction with humanity.  Now it is your turn.

I believe that Jesus taught the eternal authority of the Law, Prophets and Psalms and the authority and preservation of His personal words He spoke while on earth.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

First quote by Tarheel:

Sorry, but you are the one who has been duped, and I really am sorry....I think you're a good and gracious guy. But you are on a the wrong road (no pun intended) and I pray that Christ reveals Himself to you, like He did to Paul....and that you respond in like manner!

Next quote by Tarheel:

Thus say-eth Marvel Comics, Series 1234 Edition 4567?

And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should and disputations rise among you. Moroni 8:4

A sympathetic mocker. Boy, I attract them all!

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]Who says I don't accept Acts any less than Luke? I have made it very clear on previous occasions that I believe Luke recorded to the best of his ability and knowledge...[/quote]

Actually, you said that. It is a significant part of the reason I said your position is illogical. See, you just did it again:

I believe that Jesus taught the eternal authority of the Law, Prophets and Psalms and the authority and preservation of His personal words He spoke while on earth. - Smellin Coffee

 

[Smellin Coffee]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]Who says I don't accept Acts any less than Luke? I have made it very clear on previous occasions that I believe Luke recorded to the best of his ability and knowledge...

Actually, you said that. It is a significant part of the reason I said your position is illogical. See, you just did it again:

I believe that Jesus taught the eternal authority of the Law, Prophets and Psalms and the authority and preservation of His personal words He spoke while on earth. - Smellin Coffee
[/quote]

I see nothing illogical about it. Luke recorded to the best of his knowledge in both accounts. Jesus said that His words would last forever. Apart from the beginning of Acts, Luke didn't record Jesus' words.

What I do see as illogical is the acceptance of Pauline teaching as authoritative as Christ's teaching. The servant is not greater than his master. Jesus clearly taught that no one should be called "Rabbi" or "Teacher". He claimed there is only one shepherd whereas Paul says that there are many given to the church.

To accept the 66-book canon, nothing more, nothing less as inspired is illogical. There were times when Paul stated things were his opinion and they were "not from the Lord". Well, if he told the truth, he is denying a portion of the 66-book canon is inspired. If that part IS inspired, then the Lord is saying that it is not "of the Lord" which makes God a liar.

So which is illogical, to accept the entire 66-book canon is inspired to accept that much of it isn't?

 

[graceandtruth]

In your opinion is there a supernatural element to the NT or is it just the writings of men acting as news reporters?

Other than religious tradition, how can it be proven the New Testament contains more supernatural element than say Apocryphal works, some of which are quoted in the "inspired" 66-book canon?

So the NT is just a book like "A Tale of Two Cities".  I can't agree with that one.  Here's another question.  So where do we find the definitive, accurate, and completely trustworthy revelation of God and God's interaction with humanity considering both Paul and Luke were deceived by a light?

How can one affirmatively conclude the 66-book canon as the definitive, accurate, and completely trustworthy revelation of God and God's interaction with humanity?

You must have missed my question.  You say the Bible is not that revelation so I am asking you what is that revelation.  If there isn't one then why bother with the God question at all?

Where was written "revelation" before the 66-book canon was assembled? Why did people before the canon was assembled bother with the God question at all?

Quit avoiding the question Smelling and just answer.  What is your definitive revelation of God and His interaction with humanity.  If you don't have any but your own heart just say so.

Just like you are avoiding the answer that your description fits only the 66-book canon.

I believe the 66 Book Canon, commonly known as the Bible, to be the definitive, trustworthy, accurate revelation of God and His interaction with humanity.  Now it is your turn.

I believe that Jesus taught the eternal authority of the Law, Prophets and Psalms and the authority and preservation of His personal words He spoke while on earth.

How do you know what Jesus' Personal words are since He did not record any of His words?  If you believe what someone else said Jesus' words were is accurate then how do you determine which person who says, "This is what Jesus said." you will believe is accurate?