[Wondergirl]

I adhere to the Biblical version of sola scriptura taught in the Bible. 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.

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?

So you reject the oral traditions that eventually were written down and became a large part of the NT?

[Tj3]

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?

We've been through this before. Let scripture interpret scripture.

So you reject the oral traditions that eventually were written down and became a large part of the NT?

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.

[sndbay]

So you are saying that you are without sin? You are sinless? And what does Scripture have to say about that?

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).

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:

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.

Do you believe you are without sin by the body and blood of Christ Jesus in ONE FAITH?

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?

[Wondergirl]

We've been through this before. Let scripture interpret scripture.

So you are your own interpreter of Scripture.

[Tj3]

So you are your own interpreter of Scripture.

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

So please explain how you interpret, say, Jonah and the great fish story.

[Tj3]

So please explain how you interpret, say, Jonah and the great fish story.

I let scripture speak for itself, like I said.

[Wondergirl]

I let scripture speak for itself, like I said.

And that is how?

[Tj3]

And that is how?

Read.

[Wondergirl]

Read.

Is the story a true story or an allegory, do you believe?

[Tj3]

Is the story a true story or an allegory, do you believe?

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.

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?

[sndbay]

And that is how?

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.

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...

[Wondergirl]

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.

Pages and pages have already been "wasted" here with your discussion on Sola Scriptura. I was just wondering if you dare apply it.

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?

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."

And now tell us, what did Paul teach?

[Tj3]

Pages and pages have already been "wasted" here with your discussion on Sola Scriptura. I was just wondering if you dare apply it.

I did not bring up sola scriptura - Akoue did.

I apply it every day.

Who is your interpreter? How do YOU interpret scripture? Why don't you share that with us?

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."

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.

[Wondergirl]

I did not bring up sola scriptura - Akoue did.

But you did a host of contributing.

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.

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.

[Tj3]

But you did a host of contributing.

You mean responding to questions, as I did to your questions.

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?

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.

Really? You are not aware that the gospel is in the OT? Paul was:

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?

[sndbay]

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.

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.

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,

[Wondergirl]

You mean responding to questions, as I did to your questions.

You were asked who interprets scripture for you - why won't you answer?

You have not yet responded to this very question I asked you first.

You are not aware that the gospel is in the OT?

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.

Remember, you did say that this was from the OT.

I never said that. You are confused.

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.

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.

[Tj3]

You have not yet responded to this very question I asked you first.

Oh come on, don't play that game - all I have been doing is answering your questions.

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.

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.

I never said that. You are confused.

Okay - so you accept that 2 Tim 3:15-16 refers also to the NT?

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.

But you just agreed that the gospel (though without the fulfillment details) was found in the OT.

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?

[Wondergirl]

Oh come on, don't play that game - all I have been doing is answering your questions.

You're the game player, putting me on the defensive. You never responded to that one very important question I asked.

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.

The Gospel is woven throughout the OT, but 99.9% of the Jews did not, and still do not, understand its message.

Okay - so you accept that 2 Tim 3:15-16 refers also to the NT?

Sneaky, Tom. The reference to the Holy Scriptures in that verse is to the OT. There was no NT written at the time.

Further they were able to read the OT WITHOUT the need of having an interpretation of man.

Not until Paul came along to orally explain did the Bereans (Jews) understand exactly what those OT passages meant.