Do you believe that all scripture really "God breathed&

[polonius]

2 Timothy 3:16-17New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

If scripture is indeed authored by God, does God make occasional errors?

A Biblical fundamentalist will frequently try to prove what they want someone to believe by quoting (at least their interpretation) of a scripture passage, and hence not consider the fact that that scripture itself may be in error.

But don't scriptural contradictions prove that not all scripture is divinely inspired (or God-breathed)?:?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 3 by McCulloch]

"You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

There are two items in this scripture. #1 Things Timothy learned knowing who he learned them from, Paul and the apostles who in turn teach according to teachings of Jesus and #2 the sacred writings. So he would have been aware of both. Yet the NT as we know it was still being written but that doesn't make Timothy ignorant of what the NT was going to be teaching us later. The letters sent to the congregation by Paul, John, Peter etc were copied and passed around even during Timothy's time. He might not have known that these letters would later be added to the Bible but that doesn't mean he didn't read at least some of what was to become the NT.

The sacred writings in this passage are what he knew from childhood. This passage can only be used to show that the New Testament writers believed that the Old Testament was sacred. There is no passage in the New Testament claiming divine inspiration for the entire New Testament.

RESPONSE: Sorry to bump your theory, but it is now recognized that Paul didn't write either Timothy or Titus.



The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy, usually referred to simply as First Timothy and often written 1 Timothy, is one of three letters in the New Testament of the Bible often grouped together as the Pastoral Epistles, along with Second Timothy and Titus. The letter, traditionally attributed to the Apostle Paul, consists mainly of counsels to his younger colleague and delegate Timothy regarding his ministry in Ephesus (1:3). These counsels include instructions on the organization of the Church and the responsibilities resting on certain groups of leaders therein as well as exhortations to faithfulness in maintaining the truth amid surrounding errors. Most scholars now consider the letter pseudepigraphical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy

In other words, we have seven letters certainly from the historical Paul (Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon), three others probably not from him (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians) and a final three certainly not from him (1-2 Timothy, Titus).Jul 5, 2011

The Search for the Historical Paul: Which Letters Did He Really Write ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/john-dominic-cro ... 90387.html

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 61 by polonius.advice]

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope,

To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

If this is inspired by the God of Truth, then the writer was Paul.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 61 by polonius.advice]

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope,

To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

If this is inspired by the God of Truth, then the writer was Paul.

RESPONSE: But unfortunately it wasn't. Paul didn't write it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorshi ... e_epistles

The Pauline epistles are the fourteen books in the New Testament traditionally attributed to Paul the Apostle, although many dispute the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews as being a Pauline epistle.[1][2][3]

There is nearly universal consensus in modern New Testament scholarship on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Several additional letters bearing Paul's name are disputed among scholars, namely Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether or not Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are genuine letters of Paul. The remaining four contested epistles-- Ephesians, as well as the three known as the Pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus)–- have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars

REFERENCES:

1. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sben0056/pauline ... eintro.htm

2. Stanley E. Porter, “Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for Canon,� Bulletin for Biblical Research 5 (1995): 105-123. https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bbr/ ... porter.pdf

3. The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament by David E. Aune ISBN 1405108258 page 9 "While seven of the letters attributed to Paul are almost universally accepted as authentic (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon), four are just as widely judged to be pseudepigraphical, i.e. written by unknown authors under Paul's name: Ephesians and the Pastorals (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus).

[JehovahsWitness]

Note what Matthew wrote: "...they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them.Matthew 21:6-7)

Or from the koine Greek "And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set [him] thereon."

from http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... /mat21.pdf (see 21.7)

Evidently then that the "them" refers not to the donkeys but to THEIR CLOTHES. It seems the disciples made a make shift saddle out of their cloakes and Jesus sat on "them" ie the (plural) clothes. This is much more reasonable reading than to conclude Jesus attempted to spread his legs across the bodies of two donkeys simultanteously which is a ridiculous reading.

OBJECTION: But since Jesus sent for two animals wouldn't that lend to the reading that he meant to attempt to sit on both of them spread eagle at the same time and ride them simultaneously?

No. It would have been most unusual to separate the colt from it's mother but having them both at his service doesn't impose simultaneous riding.


OBJECTION: But doesn't preparing both animals impose both will be ridden atthe sametime?

If the disciples spread their garments on both animals it simply indicates they did not know which animal would be used or if they would be used consecutively, it certainly does not impose the illogical reading of simultaneous riding.

OBJECTION: But doesn't the fact that the disciples fetched both animals imply Jesus sat them both at the same time?

Keeping the two animals together would not impose the circus contortions that would have would have been necessary to ride them both simultaneously. Having two things doesn't impose using them both at the same time; one might obtain a plane ticket to New York and a ticket to a cruise to Eygpt on the same occassion but it would STILL be illogical for someone to conclude both tickets will be used simultaneously.

"They set him thereon—i.e., on the garments which served as a saddle. Our Lord rode on the colt, and the ass followed, or went along by His side. St. Mark and St. Luke mention the colt only." - Elicott's Commentary for English Readers

"And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their {c} clothes, and they set him {d} thereon.
(c) Their uppermost garment.
(d) Upon their garments, not upon the ass and the colt" - Geneva Study Bible

"No one contends that Christ kept the mother ass in hand while mounted on the colt. The pronoun is more suitably referred to the garments, which formed a saddle for the Saviour"- Pulpit Commentary

JW



RELATED POSTS

"Them" the clothes or the donkeys?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 704#867704

Did Jesus attempt to sit (spead eagle) across two donkeys, riding them both at the same time?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 297#837297

How many donkeys during Jesus ride into Jerusalem?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 416#778416

Is an omission the same as a contradiction?(One or Two Donkeys)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 939#866939

Would Jesus have had a donkey [interesting facts]
viewtopic.php?p=1026563#p1026563

Did the Prophet Jeremiah prophecy about Jesus' triumphant ride? (Tim)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 114#867114

[polonius]

Note what Matthew wrote: "...they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them.Matthew 21:6-7)

Or from the koine Greek "And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set [him] thereon."

from http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... /mat21.pdf (see 21.7)

Evidently then that the "them" refers not to the donkeys but to THEIR CLOTHES. It seems the disciples made a make shift saddle out of their cloakes and Jesus sat on "them" ie the (plural) clothes. This is much more reasonable reading than to conclude Jesus attempted to spread his legs across the bodies of two donkeys simultanteously. In any case there is nothing in the text which negates the "them" referring to the clothes.


JW

RESPONSE:

Evidently

??????

First of all, let us recall that the original issue is Matthew's "inspired" gospel report of two animals involved and Mark's, Luke's, and John's "inspired" gospels contradicting Matthew and reporting only one animal, not two were used.

Secondly,

In any case there is nothing in the text which negates the "them" referring to the clothes.

Except for common sense.

Jesus sent for two animal to ride on them.

Matthew 21Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
7 And they brought the ass and the colt, and laid their garments upon them, and made him sit thereon.

Thus at the very least, Jesus was sitting on clothes placed on two animals, hence riding two animals.

Please observe prophecy that Matthew is claiming was fulfilled:

“Say to the daughter of Zion,
‘Behold, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on a donkey,
on a colt,[a] the foal of a beast of burden.’�

That’s where Matthew got his two animals from.

This is much more reasonable reading than to conclude Jesus attempted to spread his legs across the bodies of two donkeys simultaneously

Thirdly, this is supposedly a divinely inspired writing. So even it is unreasonable, it's still the word of God, right?