What do you mean?

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Zach said:

I call "foul"! I posted actual verses and verse references to support my position, and you counter with this? Where does Luke quote the phrase we are discussing from Jesus? Furthermore, if Jesus spoke these words he was quoting Torah. Like I said; however you want to cut the pie it comes out the same: 1Timothy 5:18 is quoting Torah.

Yes, he is quoting Torah AND he He is quoting Jesus in Luke and both are being called "Scripture."  It really is that simple.   What doctrine of Scripture is violated if Paul refers to Luke as Scripture?   Does that create a theological problem for you?

[Zach]

7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Yes, he is quoting Torah AND he He is quoting Jesus in Luke and both are being called "Scripture."  It really is that simple.   What doctrine of Scripture is violated if Paul refers to Luke as Scripture?   Does that create a theological problem for you?

Just so we're clear; you want to make all of the New Testament "Scripture" equal to Torah because Jesus quoted a verse in Torah, Luke quoted Jesus and Paul quoted Luke?

If you're fine with that, be happy. I'm just saying the logic is suspect.

What is violated? Deuteronomy 4:2 for starters

[Sing40King]

Why do I get the idea that ruck1b  and Zach are the same person? Writing style and arguementive spirit are identical.

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, Zach said:

Just so we're clear; you want to make all of the New Testament "Scripture" equal to Torah because Jesus quoted a verse in Torah, Luke quoted Jesus and Paul quoted Luke?

No, because as has been stated repeatedly, Paul's letters have been called Scripture by Peter.   Paul's inclusion of Luke as Scripture indicates that Luke's source material (Matthew and Mark) were in circulation, as well (despite your claim that none of the NT was in circulation).

Do you not view the NT as equal to the Torah?  I say that that Torah includes all 66 books of the Bible because all of it is profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction in righteousness. I think we have enough light given to us today to make that declaration.
 

Quote

 

If you're fine with that, be happy. I'm just saying the logic is suspect.

What is violated? Deuteronomy 4:2 for starters

 

How does including Luke as Scripture violate that?  Apparently, you don't understand what Moses meant. 

Do you reject the New Testament as Scripture?

 

[Zach]

7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, because as has been stated repeatedly, Paul's letters have been called Scripture by Peter.   Paul's inclusion of Luke as Scripture indicates that Luke's source material (Matthew and Mark) were in circulation, as well (despite your claim that none of the NT was in circulation).

Do you not view the NT as equal to the Torah?  I say that that Torah includes all 66 books of the Bible because all of it is profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction in righteousness. I think we have enough light given to us today to make that declaration.
 

How does including Luke as Scripture violate that?  Apparently, you don't understand what Moses meant. 

Do you reject the New Testament as Scripture?

 

I reject the concept all 66 books are equal, Yet I accept it is all "profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction in righteousness."

[Guest shiloh357]

11 minutes ago, Zach said:

I reject the concept all 66 books are equal, Yet I accept it is all "profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction in righteousness."

That is completely illogical and self-contradicting.   You cannot reject it as Scripture when Paul says that Scripture is profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction in righteousness.

[coheir]

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

That is completely illogical and self-contradicting.   You cannot reject it as Scripture when Paul says that Scripture is profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction in righteousness.

He is saying the NT is added on to the OT so it is wrong because it can not be added according to Deu 4:2 say no one can add to it OT.

[Ezra]

16 minutes ago, Zach said:

I reject the concept all 66 books are equal, Yet I accept it is all "profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction in righteousness."

Obviously all 66 books cannot be "equal" (some have one chapter and others have dozens), but they are all equally Scripture, and none can be dismissed as irrelevant.

[Zach]

25 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

That is completely illogical and self-contradicting.   You cannot reject it as Scripture when Paul says that Scripture is profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction in righteousness.

All the word "scripture" means is 'writings'. In my estimation you've failed to prove to me it should be considered equal with Torah. Yet I still value it and treat it as Holy is not illogical. The Jews have protected the Tanakh for 3500 years just fine WITHOUT considering it all equally Holy.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Zach

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, Zach said:

All the word "scripture" means is 'writings'. In my estimation you've failed to prove to me it should be considered equal with Torah. Yet I still value it and treat it as Holy is not illogical. The Jews have protected the Tanakh for 3500 years just fine WITHOUT considering it all equally Holy.

Well the Jews are not our plumline for determining truth.   Most Messianic Jews view the New Testament as Torah.  I agree with them. 

   If the NT is not Scripture, then it is not inspired and as such it's accuracy cannot be guaranteed and neither can any of it claims.   It cannot be relied upon, we would have no guarantee that the words of Jesus are truthfully recorded.  We would have no guarantee that any of the events purported in the Gospels and Acts are historical or actually happened.   And the ultimate end result of that is that we have no assurance of salvation, and no hope for the future.  There is no hope for a future return of Jesus or a millennial Kingdom or a New Heaven or New Earth.

If we take your approach, the NT is just a bunch of letters or writings and not much else.   There is nothing in it we could anchor our hearts to and nothing authoritative. 

If I take your approach, I have nothing to hope for, and nothing to really believe in because the New Testament would have no more value than an Alfred Hitchcock novel or a cookbook or fictional novel.  Why would I want what you have, or rather what you don't have?  

I reject your unchristian, unbiblical approach and I believe an affirm the New Testament as Scripture.  It has all of the same earmarks of Scripture that the OT has.   I choose to believe God.