Then they weren't new were they?
The Hebrew Bible had been around for several years before Paul.
Just because Christ had to explain the scriptures to Paul doesn't mean no one understood it.
ECT The NT theology core
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
- Status
Then they weren't new were they?
The Hebrew Bible had been around for several years before Paul.
Just because Christ had to explain the scriptures to Paul doesn't mean no one understood it.
You focus entirely on commentaries
RD's statement was that Paul learned by revelation, brand new information that nobody else knew. He wrote about it, silly
And the body is the church.
"And He is the head of the body, the church." (Colossians 1:18)
"Thou hast put everything in subjection under his feet. For this subjecting of the universe to man implies the leaving nothing not subject to him. But we do not as yet see the universe subject to him.
But Jesus — who was made a little inferior to the angels in order that through God's grace He might taste death for every human being — we already see wearing a crown of glory and honor because of His having suffered death." (Hebrews 2:8-9 Weymouth NT)
Yes, he did but not exclusively.
Paul also taught information that the ascended Lord in heaven revealed to him directly, things that were not in the OT Hebrew Bible, things that also were not revealed to the twelve.
Interplanner
Well-known member
But he always said it was embedded in the scriptures now seen in Christ. 2 cor 5:16 ; rom 16:26. it was in relation to what 1st century post-exile Judaism thought, which he grew up in.
hence the conflict when he preached. and when he explained things like Gal 3:17 in which Judaism had replaced the Promise with the Law. The RT problem.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Possibly things that that twelve did not quite grasp, but it definitely was what was in the OT. He says so in Eph 3 and in rom 16. He says that 2 things were a 'divine/royal order/decree': the unhiding of Christ in the OT and the incoming of the Gentiles. the things now revealed are made known through the prophetic writings.
You may be interested to know from a conservative Jew, Dennis Prager, that his view is that only the Torah was inspired. So the 'trinity' of Judaism is 'torah--yhwh--'eretz.' He does not really accept the prophetic writings as inspired. One of the reasons is the obvious messianic reference to Christ. What is interesting about this position for a NT believer is that Christ's power is shining through the OT, and so here is a fine, conservative Jew who would prefer to say only 'torah' is inspired, to evade the prophets.
Are there prophetic writings other than the OT?
"These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." (John 14:25-26)
Interplanner
Well-known member
'seated' is enthronement language
otherwise the word kingdom is there for all to see, except your club PJ. But tonight you will sleep with your D'ist commentaries again and complain that I have commentaries.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Ephesians 3:6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together "with Israel", members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
:rotfl:
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Oh IP... you crack me up!
Where do we disagree?
Not true. The Holy Spirit knew scripture.
It was new to Paul because he did not understand scripture and persecuted the church.
He suffered greatly for that and is buried with Peter in England.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Actually the whole counsel of God was the things from OT corrected so that they were not viewed as 1st century Judaism did.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I will after you rationally explain how the kingdom of God is not in powerful effect right now, Col 1:13.
Who was first in the Bible, prophets or apostles?
Why does Paul list apostles as being first in the BOC and prophets being second?
Yeah, I know all that.
Interplanner
Well-known member
On the prophets, I don't think he meant the OT prophets. There are several lists like this, and he meant contemporary people, like in Acts 11:27. But what do I know? I "disdain" the scriptures.
I don't subscribe to BOC so I can't agree to anything there. To the D club it is a mystery manifestation of believers, couched in legal terms that do not conflict with the other reality of the Bible (they say), which is Judaism and its land, which the Bible will 'go back to' after while.
It just doesn't happen to be that way in Rom 2, 8, I Cor 15, Heb 9, 2 Tim 2, I Jn 2, 4, Acts 17, 2 Peter 3 about the 2nd coming. There is nothing Judaic/Judean there.
How about?
Act 13:1* Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up withHerod the tetrarch, and Saul.*
Do you think that there was anything that GOD revealed to these prophets that was not previously revealed in the OT?
How about?
Act 26:16* But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
How about?
Gal 1:12* For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ
How about?
Eph 3:3* How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words
How about?
2Co 12:1* It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.*
Co 12:7* And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
Do you really believe that all these revelations to Paul from the ascended Lord are things that Paul could have just as well learned from the twelve or by reading the OT?
I don't either.
Paul was a prophet.
Paul's letters are 'prophetic writings'.
Yep, he did, people like himself.
Hmm, that's too bad.
Paul did.
Eph 1:22* And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,*
Eph 1:23* Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.*
Col 1:18* And he is the head of the body, the church:
What it says, man!
There's enough in the prophets to cover it more than adequately.
There are some references in the NT writings that pertain to the restoration of Israel under Messiah, but you either ignore them or have assigned them to allegory.
Yeppers.
- Status