Interpreting Divine Scripture.

cows_chewing_grass · Feb 13, 2011

I think it's a good thing for Christians to to be able to listen to one another at the same time that they also each listen to the holy spirit. I see no reason why it needs to be a competition between the two.

Jesus talked about rebuking one another or agreeing together when praying. John taught that we don't need any human being to teach us because the holy spirit is able to teach us. Paul talked about working out your own salvation with fear and trembling at the same time he wrote lots of letters claiming to be teaching on behalf of God and that people should listen to him for that reason.

It seems like, looking at all the evidence available, the best line of reasoning is that we are able to (and should) offer godly counsel to one another, but that we should not believe someone just because they say something like "thus saith the lord". Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

Anyway, on the topic of interpretation I would like to suggest a fairly minor example of what I have found to be a fairly contentious piece of scripture.

In matthew 23 Jesus starts by addressing the multitudes, and he warns them about the hypocrisy of the scribes and pharisees. In verse 7 -10 he gives a list of special titles that the people should NOT use for themselves. The three titles listed in Matthew include Rabbi, father, and master.

I think the modern day interpretation for rabbi is teacher, isn't it? Father is fairly obvious but it also has a not so obvious equivalent, i.e. Sire. The word sire also means father, but we usually shorten to Sir, as in "yes sir" or "no sir".

Then there is master, which we use today in the shortened form of Mr., as in "Mr. Jones".

Based on what Jesus said i.e. "Do not be called by these titles" it looks like people who do use phrases like "yes sir" or "dad" (which is the same thing as father, just spelled differently) or "Here is that report Mr. Jones" are acting contrary to what Jesus instructed.

NOTE:I am assuming that the use of "dad" or "father" is okay for children who are still too young to understand the spiritual concepts behind not using special titles and that Jesus was addressing adults when he gave this command.

So how do others interpret this teaching?

PBUH · Feb 13, 2011

Scotth1960 said:

Dear PBUH, Like it or not, the people of all nations are going to have to learn one thing.
"Salvation is of the Jews". What does this mean? Salvation, the Saviour, is of the Jews.
Jesus was Jewish. Jews are blessed of God. Those who hate them are against God's will.
Those who hate anyone are going against God's will. If there is disagreement among religions, there should still be peace and no animosity and good will toward all. This is possible because Christ died on the cross to save sinners, of whom I am chief. There is salvation offered to all, because Christ rose from the dead. In America, Scott

Please provide proof supporting your position.

journey41 · Feb 13, 2011

cows_chewing_grass said:

I think it's a good thing for Christians to to be able to listen to one another at the same time that they also each listen to the holy spirit. I see no reason why it needs to be a competition between the two.

Jesus talked about rebuking one another or agreeing together when praying. John taught that we don't need any human being to teach us because the holy spirit is able to teach us. Paul talked about working out your own salvation with fear and trembling at the same time he wrote lots of letters claiming to be teaching on behalf of God and that people should listen to him for that reason.

It seems like, looking at all the evidence available, the best line of reasoning is that we are able to (and should) offer godly counsel to one another, but that we should not believe someone just because they say something like "thus saith the lord". Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

Anyway, on the topic of interpretation I would like to suggest a fairly minor example of what I have found to be a fairly contentious piece of scripture.

In matthew 23 Jesus starts by addressing the multitudes, and he warns them about the hypocrisy of the scribes and pharisees. In verse 7 -10 he gives a list of special titles that the people should NOT use for themselves. The three titles listed in Matthew include Rabbi, father, and master.

I think the modern day interpretation for rabbi is teacher, isn't it? Father is fairly obvious but it also has a not so obvious equivalent, i.e. Sire. The word sire also means father, but we usually shorten to Sir, as in "yes sir" or "no sir".

Then there is master, which we use today in the shortened form of Mr., as in "Mr. Jones".

Based on what Jesus said i.e. "Do not be called by these titles" it looks like people who do use phrases like "yes sir" or "dad" (which is the same thing as father, just spelled differently) or "Here is that report Mr. Jones" are acting contrary to what Jesus instructed.

NOTE:I am assuming that the use of "dad" or "father" is okay for children who are still too young to understand the spiritual concepts behind not using special titles and that Jesus was addressing adults when he gave this command.

So how do others interpret this teaching?

I think the most important commandment would be not to call anyone else our father, as in a religious figure. The other titles like Mr & Mrs are o.k. and show respect as there are no religious connotations involved, as for Master, I'm not sure what my stance is on this as I wouldn't use this title in a religious manner when addressing someone.

Sinnner · Feb 13, 2011

PBUH said:

Luckily I was ready for y relpy to sinnner not to come through.

No trace of the most documented person before the advent of print ? Voted the world most influencial person by Michael Hart ?

Hart asserted that Muhammad was "supremely successful" in both the religious and secular realms. He also believed that Muhammad's role in the development of Islam was far more influential than Jesus' collaboration in the development of Christianity. He attributes the development of Christianity to St. Paul, who played a pivotal role in its dissemination.

I went to his burial place in Madina last year. He is buried next to the first and second calpihate.

I think you need o question your source just a little bit. I would avoid sites like answering islam. They don't like to let facts cloud their judgement.

I figured you would respond like that. I respectfully have another question about Islam. Who, in Islam , died for the atonement of sins? How are Muslims forgiven of sins?

cows_chewing_grass · Feb 13, 2011

Here is the actual verse from Jesus which I got from blueletterbible online (KJV)

Mat 23:7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.
Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ.

I think it's fairly difficult to interpret Jesus as not meaning what he says here.

For example, I don't see anything in Jesus' instructions here, as they are written, about making exceptions for showing respect or because of religious purposes.

You say that you think it's NOT okay to use father, but that it is okay to use "Mr." but "Mr." means the exact same thing. Sure, it is not the same word letter for letter, but the meaning is the same.

As for the issue of respect, I think there are some fairly large holes in that reasoning. I know of many people who definitely DO NOT respect their employers, and yet they still use the title. Why?

I know of many people who definitely do respect their elders and those who are obviously more experienced than them without adding the title. Why?

I think this is not an issue of respect so much as it is an issue of fear. The reason employees call their bosses by the special title is because of fear. If they don't do it they will be fired. When a boss demands that kind of respect, it ceases to be respect.

But okay, let's say it really is all about respect from the point of view of the christian using the title. Look at what Jesus said. Don't do it BECAUSE you have only one father. So who is really meant to get the respect?

My understanding is that Jesus wants us to understand that we are all Christian brothers and sisters in Christ and God is our father. Even children, when they reach adulthood, should come to understand this. They are no longer children, but brothers and sisters in Christ, even with their biological parents. Sure, the blood relationship will always be there, but Jesus seemed to have something against that because it invariably takes the respect away from God.

So when it comes to interpretation, is it possible for Jesus to make a point blank statement (i.e. don't do it) even if it alienates our employers or family to obey him?

Scotth1960 · Feb 13, 2011

zone said:

do you mean the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Click to expand...

zone said:

What a joke Martin Luther's teachings sometimes are. No book of James, 1 Peter 1 John, 2 John, or Revelation in the NT! Why? SRH, Erie, PA

Dear friends, It is a joke to ignore such Scriptures as "love your enemies, do good to those who use you" and "love one another". We are to love all people, even those whom we disagree on religious principles. Some Protestants simply hate Roman Catholics, and this will not do. They hate Eastern Orthodox, too, who say "who proceeds from the Father" (cf. John 15:18-19, 26-27). I do not hate anyone, nor those who follow the Gospel according to Martin Luther and any one of the Protestant sects. I was a Protestant for many years, and learned much of what I know about the Bible from the Lutheran writings and teachers. I also learned some from Protestant sects like the Assemblies of God and the Presbyterian church. But I outgrew their theology, and I didn't believe in Calvinism at any time in my life. Thank God.
The Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were the same Church for 1,054 years, so it should not surprise us if they maintain relations to this day. What is sad is the Protestants who think they own the show and are the only ones who understand the Bible and follow the right teachings. They don't seem to understand there are other traditions and other ways of reading Scripture. They seem to think their way is the only possible one, and they don't question their theology at any point. Christ said "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free". But He also accepted people who prayed, "Lord, I believe, help Thou mine unbelief". Skepticism is also necessary, we must "search the Scriptures daily to (see) whether those things be so". We don't accept what a person says automatically just because they can quote the Bible. The Bible must be understood in context and not taken out of order or meaning; some things in Scripture are not easy-to-understand (2 Peter 3:16). Protestantism is only one way of reading Scripture. It is not "the way, the truth, and the life". Christ is the way. All Christians believe that. It is only a question of which theology is closest to the meaning of the NT: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington PS I don't know about the masonic handshake. How would you know that unless you have masonic knowledge yourself. They may be innocent of such thing. Even if they are, there are sinners and masons in every church, what is your point? There is no perfect church of people anywhere on earth. Even the Church Christ founded had St. Peter deny Christ, St. Thomas doubt Christ, and St. Paul consent to the stoning of St. Stephen. Take care!

Scotth1960 · Feb 13, 2011

[quote=journey41;383406]I think the most important commandment would be not to call anyone else our father, as in a religious figure. The other titles like Mr & Mrs are o.k. and show respect as there are no religious connotations involved, as for Master, I'm not sure what my stance is on this as I wouldn't use this title in a religious manner when addressing someone.[/quote]

Dear journey4, Have you read every NT Scripture that uses the term father? Does Christ forbid people to call their own fathers "father"? Not at all. Does St. Paul say, "I became your father through the Gospel"? Yes. Are the patriarchs of the Bible referred to as fathers? Yes. Is Abraham called "father"? Yes. Is it a sin to call some man father? No. What Christ was saying is that God alone is our Father in Heaven, not that it is wrong to use the term "father" for anyone other than God. We must not read legalism into Christ's words. The NT also uses the word "father" in St. Paul's writing, and we would not assume St. Paul is disobeying Christ when he said, "I became your father through the Gospel". In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

Scotth1960 · Feb 13, 2011

Sinnner said:

I figured you would respond like that. I respectfully have another question about Islam. Who, in Islam , died for the atonement of sins? How are Muslims forgiven of sins?

Click to expand...

Dear "Sinner", Islam misunderstands the NT, and some Christians misunderstand the NT! Even St. Peter himself had problems understanding St. Paul (2 Pet. 3:16)! So we should not be surprised if Muslims don't understand Who the Holy Spirit is. They misinterpret the word "Comforter" or "Paraclate" as referring to a man, a prophet, or to Muhammad. That is all wrong.
Jesus Christ said: "I have spoken these things to you, abiding with you; but the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My name, that One shall teach you all things, and shall remind you of what I said to you." John 14:25-26 ONT
"But whenever that One, the Spirit of truth, should come, He will guide you into all the truth; fr He shall not speak from Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear He shall speak; and He shall announce the coming things to you. That One shall glorify Me, for He shall receive of Mine and shall announce it to you". John 16:13-14 ONT The Spirit comes to glorify Christ, to bring men and women and children to Christ, to bring the truth of Christ, to bring people and souls to Christ, the way, the truth, and the life. Not to brings people to Muhammad, to Islam. Islam is a later prophecy. It is good that Muslims believe there is only one God and they eschew idolatry. But they make an idol of our Muhammad, and don't realize no prophecy of Muhammad exists in the NT. Only God Himself is prophesied, not another book besides the NT. The book for all Christians is the OT together with the NT. No future prophecy, once Revelation chapter 22 was completed, was prophesied. At the end of Revelation 22, God stopped breathing words into writing. Any comment on the NT must rightly interpret the inspired NT. The NT alone is directly inspired by the All Holy Spirit of God. No Quran is needed or prophesied. In America, Scott

Sinnner · Feb 13, 2011

I'm aware of all that. I'm just trying to figure out how Muslims believe they way to heaven is? How sins of a Muslim are forgiven, or if that is not something nessasary for their beliefs.

Scotth1960 · Feb 13, 2011

zone said:

Dear friend, Christ says to love our enemies. Jews are blessed when they believe in God. But we are not to curse those who disbelieve in Jesus. Some day, God will save them (Romans 11). Until them, they come under "Love your enemies". God wants to save all people (2 Peter. 3:9). But according to John chapter 3, those who accept Christ are blessed; those who reject Him are condemned. But there is always the possibility for those who once rejected Christ to come to Him in faith. God gave His Son for the sins of all, especially the sins of them that believe in Christ (1 John 2:2). In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington PS Anti-semitism is not justified, just because the majority of Jews do not confess or believe in Christ. Love the enemies. Christ commanded this, and hatred is not an option. Even toward those who persist in unbelief. If they are going to be won to the love of Christ, they must be loved by Christians. Christians are commanded to love other Christians. Christians are commanded to love non-Christians, too. It's all about God's love (1 Cor. 13:13). Love is the greatest thing, greater than faith.

PBUH · Feb 13, 2011

Sinnner said:

The concept of dying for sins deals with original sin.

What did Jesus pbuh say about original sin ?

PBUH · Feb 13, 2011

Sinnner said:

Sorry aware of what ? I lost the thread.

Sinnner · Feb 13, 2011

PBUH said:

I copy before I post. If it doesn't come up go in and edit it and it will usually post.

VW · Feb 13, 2011

Scripture is not Devine. If it is, then maybe you should pray to your bible.

God the Father is Devine. Jesus the Son is Devine. The Holy Spirit is Devine. Worship them.

cows_chewing_grass · Feb 14, 2011

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your comments on how you interpret the verses from Matthew 23. However, I feel that there may be something missing in ho you've interpreted what Jesus is recorded as having said.

For example, you say:

This idea if "what Jesus was trying to say was..." intrigues me, because it seems to me that he was actually quite clear in what he was trying to say. I'll post the relevent verse for the sake of clarity.

Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

He says, "call no man on Earth father". See where he says "no man on Earth"?

To me, when I read that, I think "hmm, it looks like Jesus is saying not to call any man on Earth father". I'm not quite sure how you interpret it to mean the opposite, i.e. that it IS okay to call any man on Earth father.

Could you clarify that for me? Thanks.

BTW, I definitely think there is a difference between someone being a father and someone being addressed by the title of father.

For example "this is my father, John". No problem. It is a fact that John is a father. However if we say it like this, "this is father John" then the word father is being used as a title.

Do you see the difference?

journey41 · Feb 14, 2011

cows_chewing_grass said:

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your comments on how you interpret the verses from Matthew 23. However, I feel that there may be something missing in ho you've interpreted what Jesus is recorded as having said.

For example, you say:

This idea if "what Jesus was trying to say was..." intrigues me, because it seems to me that he was actually quite clear in what he was trying to say. I'll post the relevent verse for the sake of clarity.

Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

He says, "call no man on Earth father". See where he says "no man on Earth"?

To me, when I read that, I think "hmm, it looks like Jesus is saying not to call any man on Earth father". I'm not quite sure how you interpret it to mean the opposite, i.e. that it IS okay to call any man on Earth father.

Could you clarify that for me? Thanks.

Hi, Do not call man Father who is a spiritual leader, priest, or pastor. Man can not take the place of God, this title is blashemous. Man does not have the keys of death and hell? God is telling us to put him first and this title belongs to him because he's earned it and all belongs to him.

I first started reading the bible at the age of 12. My parents were catholic. When I read this verse, the first thing that jumped out at me was WOW the priests are giving themselves the very title that God instructed them not to do... I ran and told my parents that this was wrong and showed it to them as they had never actually read the bible.

And when I read verse 23:5 where it says that they make the borders of their garments long, I pictured the long black dresses they would wear. I understood clearly at that young age that a christian is not determined as what he appears on the outside, but what is on the inside and if he is following Gods instructions.

Now I dont want to start a catholic debate here. This is how I interpreted it from the eyes of a child. I know that Jesus is talking to the Jews here, but it also applies to the gentiles as the whole message of NT was intended for us.

BTW, I definitely think there is a difference between someone being a father and someone being addressed by the title of father.

For example "this is my father, John". No problem. It is a fact that John is a father. However if we say it like this, "this is father John" then the word father is being used as a title. Yes I agree.

Scotth1960 · Feb 14, 2011

PBUH said:

Please provide proof supporting your position.

Click to expand...

The Scripture is all the proof for sound doctrine. But one will not understand Scripture unless one reads it in context. One needs a teacher one can trust. Certainly, the Holy Spirit is trustworthy, and He dwells in every Christian. He is God. We should not expect there will be any one of us who are infallible. But even fallible creatures (men and women and children) can understand the Gospel. It is simple. Christ died to save sinners. He rose from the dead. Jesus was Jewish. The Scriptures prove this. The 49 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament are all the written, inspired word of God. There is no other Revelation from God. All other books (cf. John 21) must agree with Scripture. We should not look to Saudi Arabia 570-632 AD to find a new prophet. There were already Christians in Arabia, and they were the true witnesses for God. Apparently really never understood what Christians believed. He distorted the teachings of the Scriptures, and apparently could not read the Christian documents. What he learned must have been largely hearsay, as in his hearing from a heretical sect that taught that "god" was the Father, Jesus, and the Virgin Mary. That is blasphemy. As holy as she is, the Virgin Mary is not a part of the Godhead. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

Scotth1960 · Feb 14, 2011

cows_chewing_grass said:

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your comments on how you interpret the verses from Matthew 23. However, I feel that there may be something missing in ho you've interpreted what Jesus is recorded as having said.

Click to expand...

cows_chewing_grass said:

Do you read the Scripture? What about Paul saying he became their father through the Gospel? Christ said call no man father. Of course, we call no man God. God alone is Father in this sense. The fact is, if we want to know what this means, we should read what the early fathers of the church said about this. Why bother those who protest and say we should not call priests father, because it would be against Christ's words. They protest against this, and then they go on to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, in defiance of the literal meaning of John 15:26. Why they insist on taking this saying of Christ at literal value, and then they distort the plain teaching on the Holy Spirit. I don't know. It seems to me because of how they interpret the other Scriptures, we can also trust the Orthodox Christians to correctly interpret this Scripture of Christ, since they also interpreted John 15:26 correctly. See Fr. Jack N. Sparks. Call No Man Father. Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington PS "At Issue Is Interpretation "Some interpreters inside Protestantism are sure Jesus was warning against addressing church leaders as father. They, of course, are interpreting "father" in this Scripture to mean spiritual father. Therefore, they refuse to call their clergymen father, preferring instead such titles as pastor, reverend, or perhaps even brother.
"At the outset, let me point out that "spiritual father' is an interpretation of the Lord's statement rather than what He actually said. Mind you, I am not denying the need for interpretation of Scripture. Instead, I am pointing out that the Lord said "father", not "spiritual father."
"What is at issue here? Simply this: taken at face value, Jesus' warning against calling any man father would not only seem to rule out calling a clergyman father, it would also keep us from using that title for earthly fathers and grandfathers, ancient Church fathers, or even city fathers, would it not? For in reality, the Lord's statement, as it appears in the text, is that only one Person is ever to be called father, namely, our Father who is in heaven.
"But was Christ saying to be taken at face value as we had generally done? Were we not to call Orthodox pastors father? If so, several other passages in the Bible were immediately in trouble, including some statements by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. To the church at Corinth the Apostle wrote, "For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." (1 Corinthians 4:15, NASB). Does not Paul claim to be the spiritual father f the Corinthians -- "Father Paul", if you please?
"Furthermore, he boldly refers to his spiritual ancestry as "our fathers." And he did address earthly fathers in Colossae: "Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged" (Colosssians 3:21). It would appear the Apostle Paul certainly did not interpret the Lord Jesus Christ to say only One was to be called father, that is, the heavenly Father.
"In addition to this, when the rich man saw Abraham in heaven with Lazarus in his bosom and addressed him as "Father Abraham", Abraham's response was not, "Do you not realize that only God the Father is to be called Father?" Rather, he replied, "Son, remember" (Luke 16:20-31).
"Other Titles
"But let us not stop here. For in addition to saying "only One is your Father," Jesus also declared, "Do not be called "Rabbi", for One is your Teacher, the Christ" (Matthew 23:8). Yet Jesus Christ Himself acknowledged Nicodemus as the "teacher of Israel" (John 3:10). And in the church at Antioch certain men were called "prophets and teachers" (Acts 13:1)." Fr. Peter E. Gillquist. Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith. Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers; pp. 98-99.].

chachoguapo · Feb 14, 2011

hello scott
could you explain what did Jesus meant when he said that he will not drink from the fruit of the vine until the day when i drink it with you new in the kingdom of my father .
Matthew 26:29

Scotth1960 · Feb 14, 2011

trust_in_the_name said:

An excerpt:

II. APPEAL TO TRADITION

When it comes to a proper understanding of the Word of God, the Holy Spirit is all the believer needs (1 John 2:27). The believer does not need the "church fathers," or the supposed great men of God in the past, or church history, or commentaries, or Bible scholars, or some particular man, etc.. Any appeal otherwise is an appeal to the tradition of men. In Colossians 2:8 Paul warned,

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

We do not need the "teaching of the ages" (the tradition of men) to understand the Word of God. The Holy Spirit is all we need to understand the Word of God. 1 John 2:26-27 says,

These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

Do we need to have the "oaring" or the anchor of church tradition to keep us from wandering from the truth? No. We need the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.

But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. (1 John 2:20-21)

Found in the context of these verses (1 John 2:20-21, 26-27) are verses about antichrists (1 John 2:18-19). 1 John 4:1-6 says,

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Likewise, 2 John 7 says,

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

What is it to "not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh"? Basically, it is to deny the truth of 2 Peter 1:3 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17, or to deny what is seen in 1 John 2:26-27 - that all you need is Christ, His Word and His Spirit. If someone comes along and says you need the traditions of men to properly understand the Word of God and/or to live this life as we ought - that is antichrist. If someone comes along with empty deceit, swaying you away from following the Word of Christ - that is antichrist. If someone persuades you toward philosophy or pragmatism (basic principles of the world) - that is antichrist.

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. [Why?] For [because] in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. (Colossians 2:8-10)

In other words, you don't need philosophy. You don't need the tradition of men. You don't need basic principles that work in this world. You need Christ, and Him alone. Because "in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily". In other words, God is in the flesh in Christ. God, Jesus Christ, has come in the flesh. Believers are complete in Christ and need nothing else for living out this life in godliness, holiness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23; Hebrews 2:14-18; 4:14-16). You don't need psychology, or traditions (handed down teachings other than the Word of God) or "what works" (basic principles of the world), etc.. 2 Peter. 1:2-3 says,

. . . as His divine power has given to us all things [we are not lacking anything] that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue,

The believer has all things that pertain to life and godliness through the knowledge of Christ (the Word, Revelation 19:13; Hebrews 4:12-13). We don't need anything else. To say we do is to deny Christ has come in the flesh, and is antichrist (against Christ). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says,

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The Word of God is all you need to make you "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." When teachers or anyone comes along and says, "You need commentaries or the early church fathers or the understanding of the studies of the supposed men of God of the past, in order to properly understand the Word of God," this is antichrist. Some may refer you to "the historic Christian faith" or "Orthodox Christianity." These terms point to the traditions of men (Colossians 2:8). This appeal is antichrist. What is the true standard for truth? It is the Word of God, not "historic Christianity." Such an appeal to tradition exposes a man to be a false teacher, whose trust is not in God, who is in the flesh (Jesus Christ, John 1:14, Colossians 2:9), but rather in the tradition of men (Colossians 2:8-10; 2 John 7). Dear Trust in the Name, You are appealing to your own tradition and your own private interpretation of the NT. We cannot pretend that 2000 years of Church history did not happen. We cannot pretend that all people interpret the NT in the same way. The people in Protestantism pick up the Bible and interpret it out of context. They refer to the traditions of the Church as "the traditions of men", and refer to their own tradition of men as the tradition of God. Martin Luther did the same thing, when he rejected James, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, and Revelation, and he inserted the non-scriptural word "alone" into the text of ROMANS 3:28, in GERMAN, "allein durch den Glauben", "through faith alone" making St. Paul CONTRADICT St. James in James 2:24, which is said to be "not by faith alone". Your predecessor in private interpretation is Martin Luther, and people like him, like John Wycliffe a few centuries earlier, and John Calvin, John Wesley, etc. Why should we not state facts as they are. These are men. These are traditions of men. The early Church fathers received their teachings directly from the early bishops of the church, from 100 to 200 AD, the early bishops, who were the succesors of the 12 apostles, who lived with Christ from 30 AD, and remained alive sometime between 30 AD and 70 AD, and St. John may have lasted until 90 or 95 AD. Maybe. The exact date of the death of St. John is not known. Anyway, does your interpretation of Scripture agree with the early writings after the NT? Does it agree with the oral, unwritten traditions of the early church from 70 AD to 200 AD? That was the early Church period. The early Church period really ended in 381 AD with the First Council of Constantople of 318 Orthodox bishops. The faith "once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) is stated in written form in no other Creed but this ORIGINAL CREED OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH in Asia Minor in 381 AD. This is the FAITH FOR ALL TRUE CHRISTIANS. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

Interpreting Divine Scripture.

cows_chewing_grass

Guest

PBUH

Banned

journey41

Banned

Sinnner

Guest

cows_chewing_grass

Guest

Scotth1960

Guest

Scotth1960

Guest

Scotth1960

Guest

Sinnner

Guest

Scotth1960

Guest

PBUH

Banned

PBUH

Banned

Sinnner

Guest

VW

Banned

cows_chewing_grass

Guest

journey41

Banned

Scotth1960

Guest

Scotth1960

Guest

chachoguapo

Guest

Scotth1960

Guest