Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That is not what Acts 17 says. It says that the Jews in Beroea "were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they welcomed the word very readily; every day they studied the scriptures to check whether it was true." It is patently obvious that the scriptures did not tell them about the teaching of Christ. What they were able to check was the old testament prophecies that saint Paul linked to Jesus. They could verify that saint Paul quoted accurately and did not mislead them.my point was that since the Old Testament was needed to verify the new teachings
I read the holy scriptures for all sorts of reasons and chief among them is to listen to God as he speaks in them. But I do not search through the bible to find this and that verse or fragment of a verse to construct a doctrine. Doctrine ought to be arrived at by the whole Church and debated until the whole Church is convinced that it is right and true. The idea of bible study to create doctrine all by one's self would have been abhorrent to the early magisterial protestant reformers. It may be a norm among some evangelical and independent groups but it is not what any of the ancient Churches teach nor - as far as I can tell - is it what the major and older Protestant denominations teach.search the scripture of both old and new to ascertain truth rather than believing w/o evidence or worse yet to not know what the bible as a whole is saying.
Romans 16:26Whoa! There's the problem. You don't think the prophets wrote about Jesus.
You don't know your Justin Martyr for example. Here's a couple of his comments:
“Moreover, in the book of Exodus we have also perceived that the name of God Himself which, He says, was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob, was Jesus, and was declared mysteriously through Moses.
Or:
“What I mean is this. Jesus (Joshua), as I have now frequently remarked, who was called Oshea, when he was sent to spy out the land of Canaan, was named by Moses Jesus (Joshua). Why he did this you neither ask, nor are at a loss about it, nor make strict inquiries. Therefore Christ has escaped your notice; and though you read, you understand not; and even now, though you hear that Jesus is our Christ, you consider not that the name was bestowed on Him not purposelessly nor by chance.
Many of us understand that RC preaches messages not in holy scripture. That has nothing to do with the point.The point is this. Saint Paul preached a message that was not in holy scripture. He preached Christ and the new testament was not yet written. Acts 17 is not a testimony to SS no matter how hard one tries to force it to be.
The prophets wrote about the messiah and the Lord Jesus Christ is that messiah but the prophets never named the Messiah by the name Jesus. If you think that they did then show us the passage in the old testament that names the messiah as Jesus.
Beautiful understanding of SS for the OT. Now all you have to do is apply the same concept to us in the NT. Keep in mind the written "built on foundation of prophets (that you understand) and apostles (that you might understand).Yes, interesting verse; many people use it while often disagreeing, on the meaning of Scripture, with others likewise using it. And one significant point is that, independent of Scripture there existed, at that time, a new body of beliefs, held and professed by this new church made up of Jesus's disciples, based on the revelation He had given them. These beliefs didn't come from Scripture, rather they were held in common by a group of people, and were checked against Scripture. While the OT writings were considered to be the standard by which to test the veracity of these new teachings and claims, these teachings and claims had an existence apart from any written source until later when writings were penned by disciples and associates and later yet assembled into the canon we know as the New Testament. In any case the church continued to hold, teach, and practice this new faith which the Bereans were looking into before and after anything was written about it.
Not at all. It is written by Paul himself.Pure speculation and supposition. You may think it was so but you need more than your hunches and speculations to establish it as true.
Perfect. They used scripture as the authority. IOW, Paul wasn't the authority. Tradition wasn't the authority. Rather, as you admit, it was the written scripture.They (meaning the Jews of Beroea) used the old testament to check what Paul said about the old testament passages that pointed to messiah.
The problem is that differing interpretations of Scripture already means different norms with which to check any given belief or truth claim against. This is why Philip, already in possession of the truth because it had been relayed to him by the church and understood as one called out by God for the purpose of handing it on, was able to grant understanding to the Eunuch, who failed to understand Scripture without the light Phillip was able to shed on it. This is the role of the church.Beautiful understanding of SS for the OT. Now all you have to do is apply the same concept to us in the NT. Keep in mind the written "built on foundation of prophets (that you understand) and apostles (that you might understand).
The apostles had the OT and preached the NT. The NT checked against the OT. We now may check opinions against the NT.
PS. Your "objection" about interpretation has nothing to do with SS. It is simply, to boil it down, "checking claims against Scripture".
It's the role of the Holy Spirit in a person to communicate life to an individual. No amount of preaching from the church will effect anything w/o the anointing upon the person giving the message. While Philip was most likely in possession of the truth because of association with those who were of the new church that is not what gave him the ability or the understanding. The light came from the Holy Spirit, and thru the rebirth that came from hearing the word of God. The role of the church is to communicate truth, but if the one giving the message does not have the HS they can in no way communicate life.The problem is that differing interpretations of Scripture already means different norms with which to check any given belief or truth claim against. This is why Philip, already in possession of the truth because it had been relayed to him by the church and understood as one called out by God for the purpose of handing it on, was able to grant understanding to the Eunuch, who failed to understand Scripture without the light Phillip was able to shed on it. This is the role of the church.
I like the Bereans. I could have been one of them ehehe:That is not what Acts 17 says. It says that the Jews in Beroea "were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they welcomed the word very readily; every day they studied the scriptures to check whether it was true." It is patently obvious that the scriptures did not tell them about the teaching of Christ.
What they were able to check was the old testament prophecies that saint Paul linked to Jesus. They could verify that saint Paul quoted accurately and did not mislead them.
Acts17:[10] And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Sola Scriptura is simply searching the scriptures to see if whatever you hear from wherever is true (within context). This passage also shows how the NT gospel Paul was telling them could be verified by the types & shadows as well as the prophecies in the OT scriptures.
Certainly wouldn't -and didn't- disagree with that, which was my meaning in saying he was "called out". But even then, yes, the association with God's church was an important part of it all-we aren't meant to be lone rangers. Phillip heard the word conveyed to him at some point, and was changed by it. He passed it on.It's the role of the Holy Spirit in a person to communicate life to an individual. No amount of preaching from the church will effect anything w/o the anointing upon the person giving the message. While Philip was most likely in possession of the truth because of association with those who were of the new church that is not what gave him the ability or the understanding. The light came from the Holy Spirit, and thru the rebirth that came from hearing the word of God. The role of the church is to communicate truth, but if the one giving the message does not have the HS they can in no way communicate life.
Acts 8:29
And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.”
John 6:63
"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
another "meh". If you keep ignoring the holy scriptures in my posts you'll end up with an entirely ignored bible before long.Many of us understand that RC preaches messages not in holy scripture. That has nothing to do with the point.
Saint Justin the martyr isn't an author of holy scripture. So "meh" for this one too.Come out of parochialism. Did you skip your Justin Martyr? Here's more info for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_(name)
They (the Jews in Beroea) were Jews not Christians so if they chose to read the old testament to test the gospel I say "meh what's new?" that they were commended for not ridiculing saint Paul and chasing him out of town is noted in the passage but those among them who rejected the gospel were every bit as reprehensible as any other group that rejects the gospel preferring their own opinions over it.Perfect. They used scripture as the authority. IOW, Paul wasn't the authority. Tradition wasn't the authority. Rather, as you admit, it was the written scripture.
So, we're in agreement that in the time of Acts, they used SS to test the claims.
SS doesn't pretend to solve the problem of whose interpretation will one believe. It merely states the authority under which interpretation will succumb.The problem is that differing interpretations of Scripture already means different norms with which to check any given belief or truth claim against. This is why Philip, already in possession of the truth because it had been relayed to him by the church and understood as one called out by God for the purpose of handing it on, was able to grant understanding to the Eunuch, who failed to understand Scripture without the light Phillip was able to shed on it. This is the role of the church.
Jesus is in the OT. You simply failed to know it.Saint Justin the martyr isn't an author of holy scripture. So "meh" for this one too.
They (the Jews in Beroea) were Jews not Christians so if they chose to read the old testament to test the gospel I say "meh what's new?" that they were commended for not ridiculing saint Paul and chasing him out of town is noted in the passage but those among them who rejected the gospel were every bit as reprehensible as any other group that rejects the gospel preferring their own opinions over it.
Hello? You haven't answered post #1875.I've counted five responses from you today and not one of them offers any holy scripture passage that teaches SS but you try mocking my comments (which is quite remniscient of the hostility shown to saint Paul by some of the Jews in Thessalonica) of course I do not compare posts in CF to saint Paul's preaching but it is notable how attitudes to holy scripture (such as the sermon on the mount from which I quoted at length and Acts 17 from which I also quoted at some length) haven't changed if the passages unsettle one's favoured doctrines.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?