 |
Read more carefully. You ignored half the quote by removing the part which spoke of salvation, and then claimed that salvation was not mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Taking a passage out of context and deliberately eliminating that which you think is at odds with your position is not dealing with what scripture has to say on the topic.
So are you in fact denying the Holy Spirit inspiration of the Holy Spirit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Or are you saying that the Holy Spirit cannot inspire without a trance?
Many seem to forget these days that God warns us against teaching or listening to what is NOT in His word the Bible.
Deut 4:2 - Moses instructs the Israelites to stick to God's laws, not to add or take away from them.
Joshua 1:7 - Joshua reminds God's people of what Moses told them concerning the law. "do not turn aside from it to the left or the right."
1 Kings 2:3 - “Only be courageous and very strong to take care to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn aside from it to the right or to the left, in order that you may act wisely everywhere you go."
Proverbs 30:6 - "Add nothing to his words, that he may not reprove you, and that you may not have to be proved a liar."
2 John 9 - "Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son."
... the teaching of Christ is found only in the Bible.
In light of the scriptures mentioned above and other similar ones, I personally will try and stick to the Bible as my guide. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Let’s see – scripture is good for INSTRUCTION. And how is INSTRUCTION accomplished? Today, as in antiquity, the instructor tells the student to read then the instructor will give a dissertation on the meaning of the scripture. In short he orally transmits knowledge. The instructor gives VERBAL instruction, he doesn’t allow his students to read the text and hold any fool thought that comes to mind. How many physics instructors do you know tell his students to open the book and derive the theory of relativity any which way they can? The answer is none, it’s simply not done. And would God be the harsh instructor saying, “Get it right, read the TEXT, the eternal disposition of your soul depends on it”?
Maybe that's it Tj, you couldn’t ever ‘get it right’.
So you are saying that the Bible is wrong and that scripture does not contain those instructions and is not adequate.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
I disagree. I accept what God says when He says that scripture is adequate.
It seems to me that what you do is to make God in your own image, i.e. scripture only interpreted in accordance with Tj’s standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Interesting. I didn't, in fact, claim "that salvation was not mentioned". I only pointed out that it tells us that Scripture is profitable (and "profitable" is not synonymous with "sufficient") for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction. Now these four things are said to fully equip one for good works. That's what the verse says. Now you seem to have got the notion that the fact that it says that Scripture, which is inspired by God, makes one "wise for salvation" just means that Scripture alone is sufficient, or that Scripture is the whole of God's revelation to his people. But, of course, it means neither of those things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
So why don't you show us a place where the Bible unambiguously states that the Bible alone is sufficient in matters of doctrine and discipline. The bit from 2Tim.3 that you have quoted affirms the importance of Scripture, to be sure, but this is something no one is denying. I am denying not the importance of Scripture but rather its sufficiency. You quoted 2Tim. In response to an earlier challenge of mine, to show us a place where Scripture unambiguously affirms the doctrine of sola scriptura. But as anyone can plainly see, 2Tim. Doesn't say anything of the kind. If I adopt your hermeneutic and say that the words mean what they say, well, they say that Scripture:
1. Is inspired by God.
2. Makes one "wise for salvation".
3. Is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.
And
4. That doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness fully equip one for good works.
Nothing about sola scriptura there. In fact, nothing that even hints at the notion that Scripture alone is sufficient in matters of doctrine and discipline.
If 2Tim.3.13-17 is your proof-text for sola scriptura then we can clearly see that that doctrine is unscriptural. Which makes sense in light of the fact that the NT frequently commands us to uphold and abide by oral teachings.
Notice that nothing that has been quoted on this thread affirms this claim. The word "only" is a bit of interpretation added to the actual words of Scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moparbyfar
You are wise to do so. What about the numerous places where the Bible commands us to uphold and abide by teachings that are transmitted orally? If we use the Bible as our guide, then surely we must not use the Bible as our only guide because it commands us not to.Quote:
In light of the scriptures mentioned above and other similar ones, I personally will try and stick to the Bible as my guide. :)
This scripture does it for me..Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
I would not question the worthyness of Christ Jesus, nor the value of HIS Word and revelation of HIS flesh (which is scripture being sufficient) in matters of doctrine and discipline. Who would ever doubt, and think "The WORD" was not sufficient unless they want to follow something other then Christ? (Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. )
Reality is knowing we remain watched over, and guided by the HOLY SPIRIT. And we can call upon HIM and HE will answer. (Jeremiah 33:3)
Isaish 26:3 Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.
Trust in the LORD Forever for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength [B (Isaish 26:4)[/B]
There is no other way then ... The Relevation of Jesus Christ Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Scripture says there is no other way then the Revelation of Christ spoken of in scripture... HIS flesh is the WORD you are saying is not adequate for the purpose..not sufficient proof; not sufficient protection.
(Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. )
Your belief in man has taught you to follow their oral teachings. Those oral teaching are not what was written in scripture. They have added to what was written in their attempt to save you from death.. But it is not man that saves man.. We are saved by our Lord.
They also have told you, that you are sinners, and called you unclear. God said not to make what I have clean, unclean. Peter was told this by God for evident reason.
In Christ we are saved, free from sin, and no longer in bondage of sin... You can be righteousness and holy in Christ when you have FAITH in HIM... Abiding in HIM. But you must believe in HIM, and HIS worthyness . He stands at the door and knocks...
Will you answer? Will you seek HIM, will you find HIM?
So are you omitting the doctrine of salvation from "doctrine"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
You do not then attend a church where you listen to sermons that expound on the Bible messages, nor do you attend any kind of Bible study in which various povs and interpretations are brought in? You understand everything that's in the Bible only because you yourself have read it and figured it out without any outside explanation from someone else? All the stories and parables were crystal clear to you without outside intervention?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Taking the incarnate word as ‘His flesh’ would require that the Eucharist be a book; that we worship ‘book’, and that God only relates to man through the written page of a book. In Christ’s Kingdom, his Church, we are saved through the sacramental graces only the Church can give.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
The incarnate word is the revealed truth that in the one person of Christ there exists two natures, man and God, the hypostatic union of the divine nature and the human nature of Jesus in the divine person of Jesus Christ. The incarnate word is the Divine Person of Jesus Christ. It is the Human Nature of Jesus Christ. His Flesh is not the WORD, rather the living bread from heaven.
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. ..Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” John 6:50,53
Are you unaware that the doctrine of salvation isn't the same thing as (actual) salvation? One can be saved without knowing very much about the doctrine, just as one can know lots about the doctrine without actually being saved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The doctrine of salvation is surely a part of doctrine. And, as this Scripture clearly states, Scripture is profitable for doctrine. I have not claimed otherwise. Scripture absolutely is profitable. But, again, "profitable" isn't synonymous with "sufficient". In other words, I have affirmed that 2Tim.3.13-17 means what it says.
In any event, your post doesn't speak to the issue. 2Tim.3.13-17 states, quite clearly and unambiguously that:
1. Scripture is inspired by God.
2. Scripture makes one wise for salvation.
3. Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.
5. Doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness make one fully equipped for good works.
Nothing here to the effect that Scripture alone is sufficient. Nothing here disqualifies the claim that oral teaching is also profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.
2Tim.3.13-17 is the text that you chose as proving unambiguously that Scripture itself states that Scripture alone is sufficient--is our sole authority--in matters of doctrine and discipline. But as numbers 1-5 clearly illustrate, it says no such thing. Your adherence to the doctrine of sola scriptura is, therefore, unscriptural.
You are confused. The Word that was made flesh and dwelt among us was the incarnation of the second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. The Word was not a book or set of texts.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
There is nothing in what you write, or quote, here that so much as hints that Scripture alone is the sole authority in matters of doctrine and discipline. Why do you choose to ignore Scripture when it commands you to uphold and abide by oral teachings?
In any event, no one denies that Christ is the incarnate Word of God and that we are bound to him and by what he has taught. Now where in Scripture does it say that everything that he taught is contained in Scripture? Why does Scripture explicitly command us to uphold and abide by those teachings that have been transmitted orally. (Remember that orally transmitted doctrine is also verbal, i.e. it too is the word of God, no less than the written text of the Bible.)
Not at all. I do not adhere to the man-made tradition of sola scriptura. Not only does Scripture nowhere affirm this doctrine, it explicitly commands us to uphold and abide by those teachings that are transmitted orally. So it is you, and your fellow sola-scripturists, who have chosen to put your own personal interpretations ahead of the word of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
Right, we are saved by the Lord. That is why I do as Scripture commands and abide by those teachings which have been transmitted orally. You choose to reject all that Christ has taught that was not written down and included in the NT. I have not added to Christ's Gospel; you have subtracted from it.Quote:
Those oral teaching are not what was written in scripture. They have added to what was written in their attempt to save you from death.. But it is not man that saves man.. We are saved by our Lord.
Actually, God said this. It is in Scripture.Quote:
They also have told you, that you are sinners,
So you are saying that you are without sin? You are sinless? And what does Scripture have to say about that?Quote:
In Christ we are saved, free from sin, and no longer in bondage of sin...
What makes you think that I haven't? Awfully presumptuous of you, don't you think? After all, it is you have chosen to reject him when you chose to adhere to the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura and to reject the fulness of his revelation to his people. I do not deny Christ by denying the fulness of his Gospel, contained in both the written and oral Tradition preserved by men and women of faith.Quote:
You can be righteousness and holy in Christ when you have FAITH in HIM... Abiding in HIM. But you must believe in HIM, and HIS worthyness . He stands at the door and knocks...
Will you answer? Will you seek HIM, will you find HIM?
2 Thess.2.15: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our epistle."
No one said anything of the sort. That argument is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
That is like saying that because we have TV and radio, it is not possible to read and a book or newspaper and understand it.
Neither do I. I adhere to the Biblical version of sola scriptura taught in the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Likewise, I do not hold to the error that we should add to the Bible through man's tradition, or that we need the erroneous private interpretation of men to know what the Bible says.
I oppose private interpretation of men, whether it be mine, yours, you denomination's, the pope's or any other church or church leader's private interpretation.Quote:
So it is you, and your fellow sola-scripturists, who have chosen to put your own personal interpretations ahead of the word of God.
If you don't get your doctrine from the God's word, Bible, where do you get it from?
First, are you trying to say that the doctrine of salvation presented in the Bible is not complete and does not tell us what we need to know to be saved, contrary to what Paul says?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
It is interesting that you think that a person can be saved without knowing what the doctrine of salvation (the gospel) is in it's essentials.
But you still have not explained away what 2 Timothy says. Your comments sound much like you are trying to place yourself and your beliefs as equal to Paul's writing in this passage. I also find it interesting that in each of your responses, you ignore one part of the passage or another. In your last post you seem to have missed the ord complete. In your first response you ignore a complete sentence about salvation. We need to look at the whole counsel of God, in context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Scripture is written as moral precepts given by the HOLY SPIRIT or spoken by GOD.
John denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.
(Revelation 10:1) gives us a picture of the bible (little book) John is being told what he can write. John is being shown whats is taking place on earth, what was, what is, and what will be the Revelation of Christ Jesus. In verse 10:8 John is being told to (eat it up) the little book known to be the Word of God/scripture. This is a poetic form in meaning the consumption of the strength of body and mind by strong emotions.
We worship God, in all HIS glory.
Christ gave us the sacramental grace.. It is done, complete.. We partake of sacramental grace in remembrance of Christ quoted in scripture. The cup is the new testment (Scripture) in HIS blood.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
1 Corinthians 11:24-25 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
John6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Second reference speaking of spiritual drink and spiritual meat.
1 Corinthians 10:3-4 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
This is a consumption of the strength of body and mind by strong emotions in remembrance of Christ who is the Word of God that was made flesh. HIS BODY and BLOOD given for us, setting us free from bondage of sin, and bolting out the sins of the world. We are only to eat and drink of sacramental grace in full awareness of HIS worthyness to grant us forgiveness, and acknoweldge we were set free from bondage of sin. "ONE FAITH" of HIS worthyness
You shall have no life in you because He will not dwell within you (John 6:56)Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Unless we seek Christ, and open that door in which He stands waiting, we will not find life.
It is the written in scripture/The Word, and the cup of the New Testament in life. ONE GOD.. ONE FAITH... ONE BAPTISM..
Faith in all that Christ was sent to do.. We are "A new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15)And "according to the image/righteousness of HIM that created him" (Col. 3:10).
So if you do not understand a passage or a verse, what do you do to figure out what it means? Whose understanding of it rules the day?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
So you reject the oral traditions that eventually were written down and became a large part of the NT?
We've been through this before. Let scripture interpret scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I never said that, did? I. In fact I said quite the opposite. All of the inspired oral traditions were written down in scripture, which is why any oral traditions today which are in addition to, or contradiction to scripture must be ignored as additions of men.Quote:
So you reject the oral traditions that eventually were written down and became a large part of the NT?
So you are your own interpreter of Scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The New Man (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). This is opposite to "the old man". This New Man, being entirely in the likenss of Christ, is called "a new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). And "according to the image/righteousness of HIM that created him" (Col. 3:10).Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Eph 4:21-24 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
Do you believe you are without sin by the body and blood of Christ Jesus in ONE FAITH?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Do you believe there is but ONE GOD and ONE ROCK of salvation?
Do you believe Christ dwells with in you and you in HIM by gift of the HOLY SPIRIT in ONE BAPTISM thus buried in Christ?
Please be honest about what I said. What I said was the exact opposite to that. In fact in an earlier response, I said that I oppose any man being an interpreter of scripture. If you cannot deal with what I actually said, we are not likely to go anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
So please explain how you interpret, say, Jonah and the great fish story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I let scripture speak for itself, like I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
And that is how?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Is the story a true story or an allegory, do you believe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
This thread is not about a specific story. If we start getting into that, we could discuss any of several thousand verses in scripture and waste huge amounts of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Let me ask you something now - do you think that Paul erred in commending the men of Berea for taking the initiative to read what scripture said to test whether Paul's teachings were sound? Were they wrong to simply read it? If Paul was an authority, why did they not simply accept his oral teaching without testing by scripture? Why did they not seek his interpretation as being the standard?
Those who are able to read scripture are gifted in accordance to God's will. It is the Holy Spirit within that offers the revealed truth of God's Word and God's will to be known.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
An individual that is born of the spirit and walks in Christ Jesus, is called the new man (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). This New Man, being entirely in the likenss of Christ, is called "a new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). And "according to the image/righteousness of HIM that created him" (Col. 3:10).
ONE GOD... ONE FAITH... ONE BAPTISM...
Pages and pages have already been "wasted" here with your discussion on Sola Scriptura. I was just wondering if you dare apply it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The very fact that the men of Berea listened to Paul teach proves that oral tradition was important. Paul didn't hand them the OT and say, "Figure it out yourselves."Quote:
Let me ask you something now - do you think that Paul erred in commending the men of Berea for taking the initiatve to read what scripture said to test whether Paul's teachings were sound?
And now tell us, what did Paul teach?
I did not bring up sola scriptura - Akoue did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I apply it every day.
Who is your interpreter? How do YOU interpret scripture? Why don't you share that with us?
It does not in any way prove anything about oral tradition. By the fact that the men of Berea were able to go to scripture to check what he was saying shows that what he said was from scripture.Quote:
The very fact that the men of Berea listened to Paul teach proves that oral tradition was important. Paul didn't hand them the OT and say, "Figure it out yourselves."
But you did a host of contributing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Of course it does! The Scriptures that the Bereans consulted and studied and pored over was the OT. Paul preached sin and Christ crucified. The Christ crucified part was totally oral.Quote:
It does not in any way prove anything about oral tradition. By the fact that the men of Berea were able to go to scripture to check what he was saying shows that what he said was from scripture.
You mean responding to questions, as I did to your questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Once again, you seem to have a habit of wanting to point fingers at people. You were asked who interprets scripture for you - why won't you answer?
Really? You are not aware that the gospel is in the OT? Paul was:Quote:
Of course it does! The Scriptures that the Bereans consulted and studied and pored over was the OT. Paul preached sin and Christ crucified. The Christ crucified part was totally oral.
2 Tim 3:13-15
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, whichh are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
NKJV
Remember, you did say that this was from the OT.
Moses knew about the gospel
Heb 11:24-26
24 By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 25 choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, 26 esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward.
NKJV
Job knew about the coming of Christ:
Job 19:25
25 For I know that my Redeemer lives,
And He shall stand at last on the earth;
NKJV
And I could go on. Now as for Paul preaching, yes that was oral, but God did not leave the gospel details found in the NT as oral - it was written down.
So your point falls.
Now, how about answering the questions that I asked:
1) Who is your interpreter? How do YOU interpret scripture? Why don't you share that with us?
2) Do you think that Paul erred in commending the men of Berea for taking the initiative to read what scripture said to test whether Paul's teachings were sound?
3) Were they wrong to simply read it?
4) If Paul was an authority, why did they not simply accept his oral teaching without testing by scripture?
5) Why did they not seek his interpretation as being the standard?
Remember who reveals truth... No matter who speaks of scripture unless God reveals as He has shown throughtout scripture, people are left blind. They remain in their own delusion I feel, because of what they are not able to give up that is of their own pride rather then to follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Adding to scripture today is not anything other then man doctrine. And what was taught by oral communication in scripture is exactly what God inspired at that time.
Paul teaches in the spirit of Christ...
Example: 1 Corinthains 3:10-11 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
You have not yet responded to this very question I asked you first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Of course it is, but it is veiled. Paul's teaching is what opened the windows and let in the light for the Bereans. Had Paul not taught, they would have remained clueless in their Jewish beliefs.Quote:
You are not aware that the gospel is in the OT?
I never said that. You are confused.Quote:
Remember, you did say that this was from the OT.
Not for the Bereans. They searched their Jewish Scriptures to find out if Paul's oral teaching had any merit. The Gospels weren't written down until years and years later. In fact, if it weren't for Paul's missionary journeys and for the missionary work of the apostles (i.e. oral tradition), the Gospel message might well have been lost over time.Quote:
Now as for Paul preaching, yes that was oral, but God did not leave the gospel details found in the NT as oral - it was written down.
Oh come on, don't play that game - all I have been doing is answering your questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
So the fact that Paul was preaching salvation through Christ (the gospel) does not mean that he was preaching something not found in the OT.Quote:
Of course it is, but it is veiled. Paul's teaching is what opened the windows and let in the light for the Bereans. Had Paul not taught, they would have remained clueless in their Jewish beliefs.
Okay - so you accept that 2 Tim 3:15-16 refers also to the NT?Quote:
I never said that. You are confused.
But you just agreed that the gospel (though without the fulfillment details) was found in the OT.Quote:
Not for the Bereans. They searched their Jewish Scriptures to find out if Paul's oral teaching had any merit. The Gospels weren't written down until years and years later.
Further they were able to read the OT WITHOUT the need of having an interpretation of man. More importantly, they were commended for applying the interpretation that they received from scripture to determine whether what Paul was teaching was true.
Therefore what they received from scripture, without interpretation of man was held to thye level of the standard of what was true.
Let's see which questions you still have not answered:
1) Who is your interpreter? How do YOU interpret scripture? Why don't you share that with us?
2) Do you think that Paul erred in commending the men of Berea for taking the initiative to read what scripture said to test whether Paul's teachings were sound?
3) Were they wrong to simply read it?
4) If Paul was an authority, why did they not simply accept his oral teaching without testing by scripture?
5) Why did they not seek his interpretation as being the standard?
You're the game player, putting me on the defensive. You never responded to that one very important question I asked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The Gospel is woven throughout the OT, but 99.9% of the Jews did not, and still do not, understand its message.Quote:
So the fact that Paul was preaching salvation through Christ (the gospel) does not mean that he was preaching something not found in the OT.
Sneaky, Tom. The reference to the Holy Scriptures in that verse is to the OT. There was no NT written at the time.Quote:
Okay - so you accept that 2 Tim 3:15-16 refers also to the NT?
Not until Paul came along to orally explain did the Bereans (Jews) understand exactly what those OT passages meant.Quote:
Further they were able to read the OT WITHOUT the need of having an interpretation of man.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:26 AM. |