Replies

You wrote:

“Sure it is!”

No, it is not. When Jesus said He was the sheep gate did He mean that He was really a sheep gate? Think about it. Can you?

“When a bunch of words are spun to say that ALL does not mean ALL; then the CLAIM IS MADE that the Book is in Error.”

Not at all and I think you know that Jesus is not a sheep gate, but according to your reasoning if you say He isn’t a sheep gate then you’re saying John 10 is in error. Your idea is simply nonsensical.

“Word games and sematic differences ain’t getting the job done.”

So Jesus is a sheep gate? Jesus really is a vine? Gee, and here all this time I thought those were metaphors! But no, to say they are metaphors or anything else than just literal readings is to say the Bible is in error - that’s what you’re saying.

“The Bereans’s did NOT refer to what other folks thought about what Paul was teaching; they looked it up in SCRIPTURE for themselves.’

No. That is a common misconception Protestants have. The Bereans checked out what Paul was saying and compared as best they could to what scriptures they had. They had, however, only the Old Testament. They did not have a single New Testament book - for then they would be Christians already if they possessed it for why else would they possess it? Thus, how did they compare what Paul was saying to the Old Testament when the Old Testament taken literally would mean that the Messiah would have been thought of differently than Jesus actually was (i.e. a warrior king who freed Israel from foreign pagan enemies rather than a carpenter’s son who died on the cross but was really the Son of God)? It was Jewish oral tradition that saved the day because it was used to aid the Bereans’ understanding of the Old Testament to where they could see the metaphors and allegories and spiritual understandings that make Jesus an obvious candidate for Messiah.

Today, when you approach Jews, who have lost most of those old extra textual oral teachings about the Old Testament in regard to the Messiah you get many fewer conversions. This whole thing is reflected in the New Testament itself. Want proof? Look at Matthew 2:23. Show me where in the Old Testament it says that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene. You can’t do it because it shows up no where in the Old Testament. NO WHERE. There are two possible explanations that can be used from scripture but both of them are tenuous at best. The most obvious explanation is simply that there was a strong inter-testamental oral tradition that the Messiah would be from Nazareth. That’s the sort of thing Paul could explain to Bereans until he was blue in the face, but unless they had that oral tradition to guide their understanding he would have gotten no where.

“I do the same.”

I see no evidence of that at all. You seem to pick and choose what you believe and how you believe it based on feelings or what you’ve been taught elsewhere. Jesus says He gives us His flesh to eat, but you deny it. And now you’re stuck with the idea that Jesus is a sheep gate!

“Sorry; but I am not buying your private interpretation of it.”

It isn’t my private interpretation of it. I never present my private interpretation of scriptures. It’s not worth my time.

“And neither does the REST of Protestantism.”

Not true. There are Anglicans and even some Lutherans who believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary or at least her cleansing within the womb. More Protestants than you think have historically believed Mary was born sinless. Again, you are simply wrong.

“Study to show thyself approved; RIGHTLY dividing the Word of God.”

I have no reason to believe you study with any great effectiveness. Is Jesus a sheep gate? Did He give us His flesh to eat? If you say no to either of those questions are you claiming scripture is in error or are you interpreting it?