Smellin Coffee says NT not inspired

[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...

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

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.[/quote]

You aren't talking about the words of Jesus. You are talking about Luke's words about the words of Jesus.

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]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.[/quote]

Jesus also clearly taught that one should pluck out their eyes if they couldn't stop checking out women. In other words, He spoke like a Jewish rabbi.

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]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.[/quote]

Yes. We've already determined that you are a hyper-literalist.

Question: How are you reading this since you've plucked out both of your eyes? How are you typing with no hands?

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]So which is illogical, to accept the entire 66-book canon is inspired to accept that much of it isn't?
[/quote]

Neither necessarily.

 

[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.

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?

Same way you believe the 66-book canon. Same way Catholics accept Apocryphal works. Same way Mormons accept Book of Mormon and Muslims the Qur'an. It is called "faith".

 

[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?

Same way you believe the 66-book canon. Same way Catholics accept Apocryphal works. Same way Mormons accept Book of Mormon and Muslims the Qur'an. It is called "faith".

Let me make it easy.  How do you know that Jesus said any words that are recorded as His words since you believe that the same writers were liars or misinformed or deceived when they pen something that you do not agree with?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

You aren't talking about the words of Jesus. You are talking about Luke's words about the words of Jesus.


Yep.

Jesus also clearly taught that one should pluck out their eyes if they couldn't stop checking out women. In other words, He spoke like a Jewish rabbi.

Yep.

Yes. We've already determined that you are a hyper-literalist.



Perhaps if literalism is based on the context.

Question: How are you reading this since you've plucked out both of your eyes? How are you typing with no hands?



Where did Jesus ever say that to do it once and one must maim himself? Never did. He said if it was "skandalon", an entrapment than it is better for one to remove the offending body part in an effort to be spared in heaven than to refuse to avoid temptation and go to hell. Kinda like a mouse biting off his own foot to get out of a trap. Nothing about violating it one time and one must self-mutilate. Again, literal IN CONTEXT.

Neither necessarily.

Either it all is inspired or it all isn't inspired or none of it is inspired. The first option is clearly illogical otherwise it would stand the test of self-inspection.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Let me make it easy.  How do you know that Jesus said any words that are recorded as His words since you believe that the same writers were liars or misinformed or deceived when they pen something that you do not agree with?

If God is true and every man a liar, how do you know that any portion of the Bible as recorded is inspired much less all of it (not to mention other portions that are not in the canon)?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]Perhaps if literalism is based on the context.[/quote]

You appear throughout this thread to be confusing pretext with context.

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]Either it all is inspired or it all isn't inspired or none of it is inspired.[/quote]

A tautology.

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]The first option is clearly illogical otherwise it would stand the test of self-inspection.[/quote]

First, it would kind of depend on what one meant when they said "inspired", wouldn't it?

Then...

So your personal interpretation of a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy of a letter or biography (although not in any modern sense) or historical account (again...not from a modern sense) written utilizing a language that has been dead for ~1700 years in a culture and time completely foreign to anyone living today reveals that it doesn't pass muster. Got it.

 

[graceandtruth]

Let me make it easy.  How do you know that Jesus said any words that are recorded as His words since you believe that the same writers were liars or misinformed or deceived when they pen something that you do not agree with?

If God is true and every man a liar, how do you know that any portion of the Bible as recorded is inspired much less all of it (not to mention other portions that are not in the canon)?

Do you always resort to rhetoric instead of just answering the question?  I am not asking you to defend your position because you don't have to.  I am just simply asking you to state your position without subterfuge.  You seem to just pick and choose what is applicable from Scripture based on your personal opinion and I am alright with that for you.  Unfortunately, I have more of a problem placing my faith in your writings than in the writings of Paul.

Now look at my last post.  Drop the rhetoric.  Answer the question.  Thanks.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Let me make it easy.  How do you know that Jesus said any words that are recorded as His words since you believe that the same writers were liars or misinformed or deceived when they pen something that you do not agree with?

If God is true and every man a liar, how do you know that any portion of the Bible as recorded is inspired much less all of it (not to mention other portions that are not in the canon)?

Do you always resort to rhetoric instead of just answering the question?  I am not asking you to defend your position because you don't have to.  I am just simply asking you to state your position without subterfuge.  You seem to just pick and choose what is applicable from Scripture based on your personal opinion and I am alright with that for you.  Unfortunately, I have more of a problem placing my faith in your writings than in the writings of Paul.

Now look at my last post.  Drop the rhetoric.  Answer the question.  Thanks.

The same principle that applies to my position applies to yours. Only difference is the amount of documents in what is accepted by the faith of each of us. I "pick and choose" portions and you "pick and choose" 66 books, portions of what text was originally translated into English. Besides, I've already explained my position based on the recorded words of Jesus as to what He deemed eternal: His words, Law, Prophets and Psalms. Is the acceptance of those words taken on faith? Yes. Likewise the acceptance you put in the 66-book canon is also taken on faith.

I sure hope you don't take my words as "inspiration of God". They are far from it. My claims are similar to Paul's in that they should be investigated to see if they are true. If not, toss what I say like I toss much of what Paul says (that counters what Jesus taught and accepted).

 

[graceandtruth]

Let me make it easy.  How do you know that Jesus said any words that are recorded as His words since you believe that the same writers were liars or misinformed or deceived when they pen something that you do not agree with?

If God is true and every man a liar, how do you know that any portion of the Bible as recorded is inspired much less all of it (not to mention other portions that are not in the canon)?

Do you always resort to rhetoric instead of just answering the question?  I am not asking you to defend your position because you don't have to.  I am just simply asking you to state your position without subterfuge.  You seem to just pick and choose what is applicable from Scripture based on your personal opinion and I am alright with that for you.  Unfortunately, I have more of a problem placing my faith in your writings than in the writings of Paul.

Now look at my last post.  Drop the rhetoric.  Answer the question.  Thanks.

The same principle that applies to my position applies to yours. Only difference is the amount of documents in what is accepted by the faith of each of us. I "pick and choose" portions and you "pick and choose" 66 books, portions of what text was originally translated into English. Besides, I've already explained my position based on the recorded words of Jesus as to what He deemed eternal: His words, Law, Prophets and Psalms. Is the acceptance of those words taken on faith? Yes. Likewise the acceptance you put in the 66-book canon is also taken on faith.

I sure hope you don't take my words as "inspiration of God". They are far from it. My claims are similar to Paul's in that they should be investigated to see if they are true. If not, toss what I say like I toss much of what Paul says (that counters what Jesus taught and accepted).

Still having trouble figuring out how you know what Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John said Jesus said is true but what Paul said Jesus said is not.  I would like to know the truth as well if you can enlighten me on how you evaluate Scripture to extract truth from it without eisegesis.  I am also interested in how you know that Luke, Matthew, and John  wrote accurately Jesus words but were duped by Paul along with the rest of the apostles.  It seems that if they would have used your methods we would not be holding this conversation.

 

[Torrent v.2]

You aren't talking about the words of Jesus. You are talking about Luke's words about the words of Jesus.


Yep.

Jesus also clearly taught that one should pluck out their eyes if they couldn't stop checking out women. In other words, He spoke like a Jewish rabbi.

Yep.

Yes. We've already determined that you are a hyper-literalist.



Perhaps if literalism is based on the context.

Question: How are you reading this since you've plucked out both of your eyes? How are you typing with no hands?



Where did Jesus ever say that to do it once and one must maim himself? Never did. He said if it was "skandalon", an entrapment than it is better for one to remove the offending body part in an effort to be spared in heaven than to refuse to avoid temptation and go to hell. Kinda like a mouse biting off his own foot to get out of a trap. Nothing about violating it one time and one must self-mutilate. Again, literal IN CONTEXT.

Neither necessarily.

Either it all is inspired or it all isn't inspired or none of it is inspired. The first option is clearly illogical otherwise it would stand the test of self-inspection.

Typical liberal. Dancing around the central issue.  Your views are heterodox and represent a very little teeny tiny sliver of what might in some ways be called Christendom.

 

[Patebald]

I'd like to bring the focus to something I think has been lost in this whole convo: the way we view inspiration today has been redefined by the King James Only movement. Scholars, for centuries prior, had no trouble discussing the validity of certain epistles, letters, phrases or doctrinal positions given by the NT writers/apostles. Some claimed Paul wrote 4 letters to Corinth. Some claim Peter didn't write 2. No one really knows who wrote Hebrews. But those discussions never shook the foundation of their core belief system. They all claimed the doctrines of Christology and believed the core message of the gospel as given first by Jesus Himself.

The subject of inspiration today is so radically different that it leads us to asking the wrong questions. Not only that, if you start to challenge some very obvious contradictions in the Apostles writings people absolutely freak out. 

 

[christundivided]

I'd like to bring the focus to something I think has been lost in this whole convo: the way we view inspiration today has been redefined by the King James Only movement. Scholars, for centuries prior, had no trouble discussing the validity of certain epistles, letters, phrases or doctrinal positions given by the NT writers/apostles. Some claimed Paul wrote 4 letters to Corinth. Some claim Peter didn't write 2. No one really knows who wrote Hebrews. But those discussions never shook the foundation of their core belief system. They all claimed the doctrines of Christology and believed the core message of the gospel as given first by Jesus Himself.

The subject of inspiration today is so radically different that it leads us to asking the wrong questions. Not only that, if you start to challenge some very obvious contradictions in the Apostles writings people absolutely freak out.

While I agree wholeheartedly..... Smelling Coffee is rejecting the entire apostolic nature of Paul's ministry. He's doing so entirely as means to reject Paul's teachings.

I do believe that Paul wrote 4 epistles to Corinth. I do believe that 2 Peter is Pseudepigraphical, I believe Apollos wrote Hebrews and I doubt very serious that John the Beloved wrote The book of Revelation. I even believe that the Book of James was written to oppose the teachings of Paul and is certainly not apostolic in nature. However, I do not reject the clearly inspirational and necessary teaching of Paul's writings. Such is entirely nonsensical and clearly heretical. I don't throw that word around lightly and I can't remember the last time I ever used it. Yet, to reject Paul's ministry is an affront to orthodox Christianity. His writings are the very foundation of Modern Apologetics. SM knows this. It is the reason he rejects everything to do with Paul. He clearly believes in a different means of Salvation that what is taught by Paul. He believes if you take away Paul's writings, then you have "true Christianity". 

On a personal note... I can't see how anyone can come to such an conclusion and not have their conscience trouble them. I hope SM is having problems believing such nonsense.

 

[Castor Muscular]

I do believe that Paul wrote 4 epistles to Corinth. I do believe that 2 Peter is Pseudepigraphical, I believe Apollos wrote Hebrews and I doubt very serious that John the Beloved wrote The book of Revelation. I even believe that the Book of James was written to oppose the teachings of Paul and is certainly not apostolic in nature.

FWIW, I think Barnabas wrote Hebrews, and I'm not convinced John didn't write Revelation.  Otherwise I'm pretty much in agreement with you on these things.

 

[Patebald]

Hmmm - I'm not sure what he's trying to figure out. I know Dan and he has been on a journey for quite a while. I agree to reject it, if indeed that is what he is doing, is foolish.

 

[prophet]

Fwiw the AV used to come with the words: "written by Timotheus at Rome", at the end of Hebrews.

Anishinabe

 

[Castor Muscular]

Fwiw the AV used to come with the words: "written by Timotheus at Rome", at the end of Hebrews.

Anishinabe

Hmmm... that must have been Barnabas' last name. 

[just kidding]

 

[Torrent v.2]

I'd like to bring the focus to something I think has been lost in this whole convo: the way we view inspiration today has been redefined by the King James Only movement. Scholars, for centuries prior, had no trouble discussing the validity of certain epistles, letters, phrases or doctrinal positions given by the NT writers/apostles. Some claimed Paul wrote 4 letters to Corinth. Some claim Peter didn't write 2. No one really knows who wrote Hebrews. But those discussions never shook the foundation of their core belief system. They all claimed the doctrines of Christology and believed the core message of the gospel as given first by Jesus Himself.

The subject of inspiration today is so radically different that it leads us to asking the wrong questions. Not only that, if you start to challenge some very obvious contradictions in the Apostles writings people absolutely freak out.

While I agree wholeheartedly..... Smelling Coffee is rejecting the entire apostolic nature of Paul's ministry. He's doing so entirely as means to reject Paul's teachings.

I do believe that Paul wrote 4 epistles to Corinth. I do believe that 2 Peter is Pseudepigraphical, I believe Apollos wrote Hebrews and I doubt very serious that John the Beloved wrote The book of Revelation. I even believe that the Book of James was written to oppose the teachings of Paul and is certainly not apostolic in nature. However, I do not reject the clearly inspirational and necessary teaching of Paul's writings. Such is entirely nonsensical and clearly heretical. I don't throw that word around lightly and I can't remember the last time I ever used it. Yet, to reject Paul's ministry is an affront to orthodox Christianity. His writings are the very foundation of Modern Apologetics. SM knows this. It is the reason he rejects everything to do with Paul. He clearly believes in a different means of Salvation that what is taught by Paul. He believes if you take away Paul's writings, then you have "true Christianity". 

On a personal note... I can't see how anyone can come to such an conclusion and not have their conscience trouble them. I hope SM is having problems believing such nonsense.

My question is, can Smellin be truly a believer and not believe in the inspiration of Scripture, or do you believe that only a false brother moves to that unorthodox of a position?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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!

You confuse sympathy and pity....

 

[christundivided]

I'd like to bring the focus to something I think has been lost in this whole convo: the way we view inspiration today has been redefined by the King James Only movement. Scholars, for centuries prior, had no trouble discussing the validity of certain epistles, letters, phrases or doctrinal positions given by the NT writers/apostles. Some claimed Paul wrote 4 letters to Corinth. Some claim Peter didn't write 2. No one really knows who wrote Hebrews. But those discussions never shook the foundation of their core belief system. They all claimed the doctrines of Christology and believed the core message of the gospel as given first by Jesus Himself.

The subject of inspiration today is so radically different that it leads us to asking the wrong questions. Not only that, if you start to challenge some very obvious contradictions in the Apostles writings people absolutely freak out.

While I agree wholeheartedly..... Smelling Coffee is rejecting the entire apostolic nature of Paul's ministry. He's doing so entirely as means to reject Paul's teachings.

I do believe that Paul wrote 4 epistles to Corinth. I do believe that 2 Peter is Pseudepigraphical, I believe Apollos wrote Hebrews and I doubt very serious that John the Beloved wrote The book of Revelation. I even believe that the Book of James was written to oppose the teachings of Paul and is certainly not apostolic in nature. However, I do not reject the clearly inspirational and necessary teaching of Paul's writings. Such is entirely nonsensical and clearly heretical. I don't throw that word around lightly and I can't remember the last time I ever used it. Yet, to reject Paul's ministry is an affront to orthodox Christianity. His writings are the very foundation of Modern Apologetics. SM knows this. It is the reason he rejects everything to do with Paul. He clearly believes in a different means of Salvation that what is taught by Paul. He believes if you take away Paul's writings, then you have "true Christianity". 

On a personal note... I can't see how anyone can come to such an conclusion and not have their conscience trouble them. I hope SM is having problems believing such nonsense.

My question is, can Smellin be truly a believer and not believe in the inspiration of Scripture, or do you believe that only a false brother moves to that unorthodox of a position?

I'm not the judge of any man. I have no problem with believers questioning anything.... and I do mean anything. Questions are good. Doubt is bad. I've had good friends that have questioned my position in Christ over what I believe. I try not to do the same to others.

I will say, that I think SM has made a bad choice. I am sure he has many questions. We all do. No one knows everything and one must become comfortable with their own theology. Its a sign of maturity in Christ Jesus. I question whether he actually believes what he has written or he is just exploring possibilities. Its a dangerous thing to reject the Gospel of Paul. I don't see him doing this. I think he is just fight a battle with systematically establishing what he believes.

 

[Castor Muscular]

I will say, that I think SM has made a bad choice. I am sure he has many questions. We all do. No one knows everything and one must become comfortable with their own theology. Its a sign of maturity in Christ Jesus. I question whether he actually believes what he has written or he is just exploring possibilities. Its a dangerous thing to reject the Gospel of Paul. I don't see him doing this. I think he is just fight a battle with systematically establishing what he believes.

I don't go nearly to the extreme that SC seems to go, but I sympathize with SC.  I have a lot of trouble with some of the NT epistles. 

Hebrews, in some places, is a horrid mess.  To paraphrase, "If you fall away from salvation, there's no way to be restored because it's like crucifying Christ all over again.  But I am confident of better things of you, things that accompany salvation (which, by the way, you can fall away from permanently, so there really is no distinction here for "better things of you")." 

That makes no sense.  And I don't think it's a matter of the writer saying something profound and difficult to understand.  I think the writer himself was confused and didn't really know what he was saying. 

Some of the writing is so bad I even wonder if his reference to Isaac being the only begotten son of Abraham is just a stupid mistake, and not a meaningful symbol of Christ. 

James seems little more than "a bunch of sayings I heard my brother say", with additional "works is required in salvation" BS added.  I can unravel James to see the point that salvation produces works, but he says it so badly. 

2 Peter is highly suspect in several regards. 

And so on.  I used to think my faith would be shattered if I didn't believe every word of the NT was inspired and God-breathed, but that's not at all how I feel.  I am confident of most of the NT.  But some of it seems like it doesn't belong there.