Posted on 01/28/2014 7:27:17 PM PST by NKP_Vet
"If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!" That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant. This bedrock Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians. Diving deeper into its meaning to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism about twenty years ago, I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it.
What role does tradition play? How explicit does something have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? Does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How can we determine the canon using sola scriptura? All these questions and more pointed to the central question: Where is sola scriptura itself taught in the Bible?
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.com ...
Wow. When you come through, you do it.
And he did: 3.5 years during his ministry, and 3.5 years, as the Holy Spirit, in his disciples.
"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." (Mat 10:40 KJV)
The Messiah arrived at the beginning of the 70th week:
"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times." (Dan 9:25 KJV)
It says, "unto Messiah the Prince" shall be 69 weeks. Not 68, but 69. It took exactly 69 full weeks for Christ to arrive. Then he ministered for 3.5 years, or 1/2 week in the prophetic terms, beginning in the 70th week. Therefore, when he was crucified (cut off) it was mid-way through the 70th week. It is a simple word problem.
After Christ confirmed the covenant for 1/2 week (3.5 years,) by focusing exclusively on the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, he was cut-off, which is Hebrew for destroyed, or cut-down. In this context, he was cut-off from confirming the covenant.
From the beginning of their ministry, the disciples were confirming the covenant. This is an example:
"Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." (Acts 3:25-26 KJV)
Peter also confirmed the covenant with David in Acts 3. Stephen, in Acts 7 is another example of confirming the Covenant.
Covenant confirmation ceased about the time of the conversion of Cornelius the Gentile, when the tents of David were raised; that is, the promise to Abraham by the inclusion of the Gentiles (so that all nations would be blessed) was set in motion.
This is the key prophecy to end the confirmation of the old covenant, followed by some related prophecies. Recall that the tabernacle of David was a tent, not a temple:
"In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen [Gentiles,] which are called by my name, saith the Lord that doeth this." (Amos 9:11-12 KJV)
"And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious." (Isa 11:10 KJV)
"Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." (Isa 42:1 KJV)
"And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth." (Isa 49:6 KJV)
This "bringing in the Gentiles" was prophesied also by Moses.
>>>“And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.” ─Zechariah 12:3<<<
>>>Your claim is that “that day” happened in 70AD. Which people that came against Israel were “cut in pieces? Isn’t Israel more a “burdensome stone” now than it was back then?<<<
No. Back then the leadership of Israel had the children of Israel in the severe bondage, as Christ mentioned in his first speech in the temple, quoting Isaiah 61:1-2. The leadership had also corrupted the minds of many away from the law of Moses into the apostasy of the traditions of the Rabbis. Recall this:
"And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." (Mark 7:9 KJV)
Those that came against the children of Israel were of Israel: they were apostates. That is why Jesus is defined this way:
"Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken." (Isa 8:13-15 KJV)
The burdensome stone was Jesus. That is why so many prophecies that were fulfilled by Christ surrounded the verse about the burdensome stone, Zech 12:3. Also recall that, later, Jesus sent the Roman Armies after those apostates.
Philip
### Do you every consider layers when reading scriptures. Meaning you can read something and the event that takes place might be current at the time, but it also might mean unfinished business that will take place maybe even centuries later (our time). ###
No. I believe prophecy has a specific meaning. If it had multiple meanings, it would clearly say so and not rely on the imagination of men to reveal it.
***
I would not call spiritual things imaginations of men.
There are time you will read a passage and your eyes will only see or understand so much. Through life journey more will be added to ones awareness and when they should pass over that passage more clarity will be added.
The Lord only give us what we are able to receive, some will not even be able to receive.
This maybe how you understand things now as one grows they are added on to.
Isaiah 28
Woe to the drunkards of Ephraim!—Revelation comes line upon line and precept upon precept—Christ, the sure foundation, is promised.
9 ¶Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Wow! What a telling question! Are you implying that the destruction that occurs when God releases Satan’s angels who control leaders to the destruction that God does like in the flood for reconstructive purposes to be the same?
>>>It’s pretty easy really. Each of the churches were representative of error that can creep in other than the church at Philadelphia which remained true. Of course with all prophesy there are levels of fulfillment as was explained to you upthread.<<<
LOL. That is pure fiction. The seven churches in Asia were exactly what they are called: “the seven churches in Asia!” They actually existed at that time, and John’s mission was partly to comfort them, and to warn them of the upcoming war with the Romans.
A literalist should know that; but you are not really a literalist, but a selective-literalist. In other words, there is no foundation to dispensational doctrine: it is based on selective interpretation.
Philip
Did Jesus eat meat or not? Can you prove what type of body Christ had? Can you prove what kind of bodies we will have? I do know they will be perfected but show me from scripture that they are not perfected flesh and blood as opposed to corrupted flesh and blood by sin. Was Adam flesh and blood prior to sinning?
God calls for different purposes doesn’t He? Are you telling us that our calling isn’t legitimate?
As I see it anyone who preaches something the apostles didn’t it’s considered another gospel.
No, I am implying that your selective-literalism doesn't wash. Show me where these angels are Satan's angels:
"And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads." (Rev 7:1-3 KJV)
There were these angels of Satan, but notice they were only allowed to hurt men, not the earth:
"And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. . . And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon." (Rev 9:11 KJV)
I could have misread. It is a very complicated book, loaded with imagery.
Philip
... I really do enjoy reading all the things you have gotten into and share them here.
It is a regular LOVE fest!
***
Too bad many more did due diligence in their studies instead of acting like the class clown.
Why did He destroy the world with a flood. Wasn’t it to give it another chance? Didn’t He also promise a “new heaven and a new earth” since this world has fallen away from Him to a great extent? >>And would he not be making David a liar?<<
How naïve. “Who bears up” (aka foundation) the world?
Hebrews 1:3 who being the brightness of the glory, and the impress of His subsistence, bearing up also the all things by the saying of his might -- through himself having made a cleansing of our sins, sat down at the right hand of the greatness in the highest,
>>>Did Jesus eat meat or not?<<<
Of course he did. He also had openings in his body from the crucifixion that Philip was able to thrust his hand into. Was there any blood in his body? Did he not give it up for the New Testament?
>>>Can you prove what type of body Christ had?<<<
No, no one can.
>>>Can you prove what kind of bodies we will have?<<<
No, but neither can you. Under your assumptions, will they be the bodies we had when we die? When we were 16? What about those like my friend, who was born without a hand and part of his forearm: will he spend eternity that way?
>>> I do know they will be perfected but show me from scripture that they are not perfected flesh and blood as opposed to corrupted flesh and blood by sin.<<<
Show me where it is.
>>>Was Adam flesh and blood prior to sinning?<<<
I don’t know. You tell us.
Philip
These were done on BYUTV on your regular I know that ATT and Direct TV carry this program these programs have been playing on TV for sense the early 2000 who ever wants to watch and also on BYU-TV on the internet.
I’m sure they’ll get around to MORMON writings; some day...
***
They do....
There are even playing the Joseph Smith Papers (series)Sunday 2:30 p.m. on http://www.byutv.org
>>>Why did He destroy the world with a flood. Wasn’t it to give it another chance? Didn’t He also promise a “new heaven and a new earth” since this world has fallen away from Him to a great extent? <<<
Did he send his son in vain? Did he send him to save the world, only to turn around and destroy it?
>>>How naïve. “Who bears up” (aka foundation) the world?<<<
I will assume you are referring to the passage I quoted by David, since you provided little clue. What lexicon are you using. Mine translates David’s words exactly as he said them.
Laid: yaw-sad’; to set (literally or figuratively); intensively, to found; reflexively, to sit down together, i.e. settle, consult: — appoint, take counsel, establish, (lay the, lay for a) found(-ation), instruct, lay, ordain, set, X sure.
Foundation: maw-kone’; properly, a fixture, i.e. a basis; generally a place, especially as an abode: — foundation, habitation, (dwelling-, settled) place.
Removed: mote; to waver; by implication, to slip, shake, fall: — be carried, cast, be out of course, be fallen in decay, X exceedingly, fall(-ing down), be (re-) moved, be ready, shake, slide, slip.
You reply is hard to follow. Will you clarify? I am in no hurry for a reply, so please take your time.
Philip
Wow..what a reach!
You said...God did not have sex with Mary it is not our doctrine it was an opinion of some but it is not doctrine of the Lord’s Church.
Can you tell me who's opinion that might be?
Would it be Smith or Young???????
Say what? The apostles only ministered for 3.5 years after Christ’s ascension? Surely you should know that’s provably wrong. By all accounts Paul wrote to the church in Rome in the winter of 57AD. He didn’t end his ministry until at least after 63AD.
You say that the tribulation of Revelation was the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in AD70 which was approximately 33 years after Christ’s crucifixion and ascension. Yet you also say that the seven last years of Daniel’s prophecy started when Christ started His ministry and then ended seven years later which would be approximately 38AD. Your timelines do not add up to either Daniel’s prophecy or other prophesies including the accounts in Revelation as to what happens at the end of the Tribulation week.
>>After Christ confirmed the covenant for 1/2 week<<
Christ confirmed the covenant with Israel? So you say that the new covenant of the New Testament was only for 3.5 years?
>>The burdensome stone was Jesus.<<
“And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.” ─Zechariah 12:3
Your credibility is taking a huge hit here.
Who said they were not? I certainly didn’t. I simply said they were representative (aka examples) of what error can creep into churches and what needs done to correct. Surly your reading comprehension is better than what I see here.
>>In other words, there is no foundation to dispensational doctrine: it is based on selective interpretation.<<
Poor reading comprehension on your part does not make for error on my part.
"God, who… spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who… upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." (Heb 1:1-4 KJV)
When did Christ speak to us? In the last days.
What is he upholding by the word of his power? All things, which I assume, includes the earth.
It would be a misinterpretation or misdirection to claim that passage was not verifying this passage by David:
"Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God,… Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." (Ps 104:1, 5 KJV)
The "last days" in the Hebrews passage is referring to the last days of the Mosaic or Old Covenant Age. Nothing else. All "last day" or "last days" or "latter days" references are referring to the end of that age, which ended in its entirety at the end of the Jewish-Roman war in AD70. That was also the fulfillment of this:
"And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months." (Rev 11:1-2 KJV)
And this:
"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." (Luke 21:24 KJV)
The Gentile Roman armies tread the old-covenant holy city for forty and two months, or 3.5 years, ending in 70AD.
It was also the fulfillment of this:
"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." (Rom 11:25 KJV)
Philip
I understand and wholly agree with your sentiment, just trying to explain the mormon “perspective” on what “is” another gospel...when debating or discussing, I have found that one must take this into account.
The mormons don’t believe they are preaching “another” gospel...thus your premise and arguments to that effect are null and void...from their perspective, they are preaching the “restored” gospel.
What that is, well, that’s the trick now, isn’t it?
I suggest you take time to read my posts, which you clearly did not do this time. You took the first sentence, and pretended you understood the rest.
>>>You say that the tribulation of Revelation was the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in AD70 which was approximately 33 years after Christ’s crucifixion and ascension. Yet you also say that the seven last years of Daniel’s prophecy started when Christ started His ministry and then ended seven years later which would be approximately 38AD. Your timelines do not add up to either Daniel’s prophecy or other prophesies including the accounts in Revelation as to what happens at the end of the Tribulation week.<<<
Where does it say the punishment phase was decreed to fall within the 70 weeks? This is a simple word problem. It is not that hard to solve.
>>>Christ confirmed the covenant with Israel? So you say that the new covenant of the New Testament was only for 3.5 years?<<<
Now you clearly demonstrate you did not read my post, in your haste to respond. I was referring to the last days of the Old Covenant, and if you took the time to read my posts, you would know that.
>>Your credibility is taking a huge hit here.<<<
Prove it. All we have is your opinion, which so far has revealed little of substance.
Philip
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.