Scripture (Jesus, gospel, contradiction, beliefs, doctrine)

[reyjamiei]

Christians say that the Bible is scripture inspired of God
Mormons say that The Book of Mormon is scripture inspired of God
Muslims say that The Holy Qur'an is scripture inspired of God

2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:"

Christians may argue that Paul was writing about the scriptures known at the time but if Paul was writing under inspiration from God, then there's only one way to take what he says and that is that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. Scriptures of the past, present and future. Therefore, the Bible, The Book of Mormon, and The Quran are the inspired word of God because the Bible tells us so.

[Original Freak]

Originally Posted by reyjamiei

Christians say that the Bible is scripture inspired of God
Mormons say that The Book of Mormon is scripture inspired of God
Muslims say that The Holy Qur'an is scripture inspired of God

2 Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:"

Christians may argue that Paul was writing about the scriptures known at the time but if Paul was writing under inspiration from God, then there's only one way to take what he says and that is that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. Scriptures of the past, present and future. Therefore, the Bible, The Book of Mormon, and The Quran are the inspired word of God because the Bible tells us so.

So if they are all inspired by god...how do you explain the contradiction between each book and some of those religions fundamental differences?

[reyjamiei]

Originally Posted by Original Freak

So if they are all inspired by god...how do you explain the contradiction between each book and some of those religions fundamental differences?

I don't need to explain it. There's enough contradictions between each book contained in the Bible that it really doesn't matter. The writers of the four Gospels teach the story of Jesus' ministry, crucifiction and resurrection differently, each one with different beliefs as to what happened and how it happend. Matthew and Luke are essentially rewritten and revised versions of Mark because they didn't agree with Marks theology, they changed it. Of the 661 verses in Mark about 600 appear in Matthew, usually rewritten to correct what Matthew thought was Mark's erroneous theology.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by reyjamiei

Christians may argue that Paul was writing about the scriptures known at the time but if Paul was writing under inspiration from God, then there's only one way to take what he says and that is that all scripture is given by inspiration of God.

That sentence makes absolutely no sense.

[reyjamiei]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

That sentence makes absolutely no sense.

What about it makes no sense?

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

That sentence makes absolutely no sense.

Only that sentence? You give em too much credit.

[reyjamiei]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Only that sentence? You give em too much credit.

If someone would like to tell me what about my post makes no sense, I'd like to hear it. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion and interpretation of the Bible. I don't expect anyone to agree with me but I would like some feedback other than 'That makes no sense.' Why doesn't it make sense?

[Original Freak]

Originally Posted by reyjamiei

I don't need to explain it. There's enough contradictions between each book contained in the Bible that it really doesn't matter. The writers of the four Gospels teach the story of Jesus' ministry, crucifiction and resurrection differently, each one with different beliefs as to what happened and how it happend. Matthew and Luke are essentially rewritten and revised versions of Mark because they didn't agree with Marks theology, they changed it. Of the 661 verses in Mark about 600 appear in Matthew, usually rewritten to correct what Matthew thought was Mark's erroneous theology.

But you do need to explain it. If you say all these works are works of god then you need to explain why one god would tell different people to worship in different ways and give different rules for living your life.

If you accept the fact the bible is flawed then you can no longer use the bible as a basis for an argument as everthing in it is now questionable as to its validity (which should be the way anyway).

[reyjamiei]

Originally Posted by Original Freak

But you do need to explain it. If you say all these works are works of god then you need to explain why one god would tell different people to worship in different ways and give different rules for living your life.

If you accept the fact the bible is flawed then you can no longer use the bible as a basis for an argument as everthing in it is now questionable as to its validity (which should be the way anyway).

In my opinion the Bible has always been questionable but there are people who consider it to be the infallible word of God and they use it to say that what they believe is right and everyone else is wrong. The apostle Paul apparently writing under inspiration of God, wrote that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. He didn't say "our scriptures" or "the scriptures that we know" but "all scripture." Why would God tell different people to worship in different ways and give different rules for living your life? Because it fits his need. He told people to worship him in different ways in the Bible and gave different rules for living.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by reyjamiei

I don't expect anyone to agree with me but I would like some feedback other than 'That makes no sense.' Why doesn't it make sense?

We all occassionally fall victim to false expectations. I, for example, expect claims to be cogent and syllogisms coherent.

Let us make two assumptions solely for the sake of argument: a) that Paul authored the Pastorals, and b) that he was inspired by God when doing so. There is absolutely nothing in such assumptions that constrains Paul to use language in personal communication that is timeless and universal. The text addresses the continuation of study. The reader would have known what was intended by 'scripture'. It is simply inane to suggest that 'Paul' write something like: "Continue your studies. All Scripture is inspired by God except for the stuff that some other people, about whom you haven't a clue, might someday and somewhere label scripture, which, of course, is not God-inspired, but don't worry too much about it because you'll never read it anyway."

Your presumed definition of inspiration is dumb as rocks and your conclusions follow suit.