Believers should not have to be commanded to remember him any more than family members have to be commanded to remember their loved ones.
But family members very often do not remember their loved ones properly. It happens with many things from birthdays and anniversaries to not taking their feelings into account and saying hurtful things. We need reminding about that all the time too. Part of our nature is that we slack off. (Look at how long it took Peter to forget his pledge to never deny Christ.) God recognizes this and so there is much repetition in His word. That isn't by accident, He knows our weaknesses and helps us with reminders.
It's a good source of study, but of course it is not all that it's hyped to be. It would be good to debate it but on another thread.
Yes, that website is not the be all and end all. I just like it because it is so easy to use as a quick reference.
Neat, except Paul doesn't specify what constitutes scripture, by whose decision, and how. Jewish canon was not uniform. It varied greatly between the sectarian communities of Samaria, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Alexandrian Greek-speaking diaspora.
If scripture is the word of God, then God determined what it was. He informed us of what scripture was by communicating it through His Church (or members thereof). You're right that it didn't happen overnight, but we can be confident today that what we have contains the essence of what God wants us to know.
...1 Cor. 4:6-7 : 6 ...“Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another
Unless, of course, he is Paul!
Paul was chosen solely by God to be one of a handful of people to actually write down "what is written". Therefore, he did not go beyond it. He participated in creating it.
Supposedly being an observant Jew, it is strange that [Paul] would think so lowly of oral transmission of the faith, which, in Judaism, is actually considered higher than the written, and which was not reduced to writing until well into the Christian era otherwise known as the Talmud.
But Paul was a prodigious preacher. Weren't his epistles basically follow-ups to his earlier personal visits during which he transmitted the faith orally (preached)? With the Bereans, he told them to check the scriptures against what he SAID.
...Luke 1:1-4...it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
So, how did the people before Luke know with "certainty" what they have been taught before any of the NT (or for that matter any scripture) was written and widely read? Luke himself gathered what others told him, and not something he actually read!
That's right, before any scripture was written down its truth was transmitted orally. Sola Scriptura is fine with that. The Apostles taught orally with authority from Christ, and we can be sure that what later became scripture matched what they taught. So, as Luke's statement partly implies, if one did not have a reliable oral chain back to an Apostle, one could not be as sure as getting the information from what became scripture.
FK: We also have Jesus' example of handling every temptation of satan with scripture only.
Yeah, right, in the Greek, Zoroastrian-influenced dualistic sectarian storytelling. The Jews don't believe in the devil. How could an observant Jew?
I'm not sure what you mean. Jesus was an "observant Jew", and clearly believed in the existence of satan. The story of His temptation in the desert had to have come from Him since He was the only one there to report it. Therefore, other observant Jews who were followers of Jesus would have believed the same thing.
” Therefore, other observant Jews who were followers of Jesus would have believed the same thing.”
As the apostle John, Rev. 12:9. I would say Moses was an “observant Jew” also.
But family members very often do not remember their loved ones properly.
What difference does it make, FK, when you as a Calvinist believe the saved have been marked before they even existed. So, those destined to heaven are going to heaven whether they do it "in memory of him' or not.
If scripture is the word of God, then God determined what it was. He informed us of what scripture was by communicating it through His Church (or members thereof)
So why did it take theherarchichal clergy to figure out the puzzle (and still don't agree fully on it)?
You're right that it didn't happen overnight, but we can be confident today that what we have contains the essence of what God wants us to know.
Unless you are Jewish or Mormon or Muslim, or Hindu...
Paul was chosen solely by God to be one of a handful of people to actually write down "what is written". Therefore, he did not go beyond it. He participated in creating it.
Taking Paul, a man, for his word...
But Paul was a prodigious preacher. Weren't his epistles basically follow-ups to his earlier personal visits during which he transmitted the faith orally (preached)? With the Bereans, he told them to check the scriptures against what he SAID.
What exactly did they check? To find risen Christ (the only one Paul supposedly got to know) in the Old testament? Give me a break.
That's right, before any scripture was written down its truth was transmitted orally
Oh yeah? How, exactly, word for word, the same words every time? How do you know that?
Sola Scriptura is fine with that. The Apostles taught orally with authority from Christ
Who says?
and we can be sure that what later became scripture matched what they taught.
Really? Is that a fact?
So, as Luke's statement partly implies, if one did not have a reliable oral chain back to an Apostle, one could not be as sure as getting the information from what became scripture.
Only two New Testament authors (who are "known" only through legend) were actual eyewitnesses: Matthew and John. The other two were not eyewitnesses. Needless to say, their accounts differ like night and day. The rest of the Apostles we have no record of. We have no idea what they preached, where and how. We do know that the Church supposedly established by St. Thomas in India is somewhat different. So, none of what you said has any basis in fact.
Jesus was an "observant Jew", and clearly believed in the existence of satan
Judaism never believed in the devil. But Judaism also doesn't have a magisterium, and individual Jews can believe whatever they feel like. The only thing all Jews are in agreement of is that Jesus is not the Messiah. But the devil is not in the Torah, and nothing the Tanakh can only confirm what is in the Torah.
The story of His temptation in the desert had to have come from Him since He was the only one there to report it
Or form those who to it upon themselves to write in his stead.
Therefore, other observant Jews who were followers of Jesus would have believed the same thing.
Followers of Jesus created a very heterodox following. They all claimed the same source, but what they believed was not.