Did The Apostles have "Special Interpretation" From the Holy Spirit?

Ok so show us where in scripture you got this.

 

Great, now where in scripture did you get that?

 

The thread, Random endtime thoughts,questions, the last post in the thread.

Am I totally off base seeing David speaking prophetically of Christ in the grave in Psalm 139? And his church yet unseen being in him also?

I can ask the same question about 2 Cor. 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; That comes from Psalm 116:10.

Is this David speaking for David or is this David being a prophet as in Acts 2 speaking of the Christ having faith in the Father God to raise him from the dead? BTW compare verse 3 in Palms 116 to Acts 2:24.


Iconoclast never did respond to that thread BTW

 

Greektim

Was Paul's interpretation here: (Romans 9:25-27 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, in the place where it was said unto them, Ye not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: ) different that what you would believe reading those passages in Hosea and Isaiah?

Maybe Paul isn't interpreting and we are.

The key words above being, As he saith also in. In other words what follows these words applies to, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Verse 24

Now because of interpretation we have bunched the house of Judah with the house of Israel together and called them Jews, we can not understand what Paul is saying. Read chapter one of Hosea. The house of Judah, the Jews are treated different than the house of Israel. The house of Judah will go into captivity for seventy years and many will return to be in the land so that the Messiah can come unto his own. The Lion of the tribe of Judah. It is the house of Israel that are called not my people. They even today are scattered among the Gentiles, yet in any generation from the beginning, there have always been according to the election of grace a remnant, that is a people God calls and uses for his purpose. This does not have to do with whether they go to heaven or hell when the die. When the house of Israel was broken off they departed from the law of God. They established feasts of their own at times not appointed by God and I also believe there is evidence they even changed the weekly sabbath. The Jews then called them The Uncircumcision a noun literally, foreskins, castaways. Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

The prodigal son is about these people and the "Jews" did not like Jesus telling them these people will be brought back in to the fold.

1 Cor. 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers (Jews and Gentiles) were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

 

The Bible never says that. In fact, I would argue that Hebrews 3:6 puts the church in the same "house" as Israel - i.e. the people of God.

You further need to prove that "kingdom" is the best translation of basileia. Because its primary meaning is simply reign or rulership. In this case, Jesus was pronouncing the re-establishment of the reign of God in the world. That finds its culmination in Rev. 21-22.

Again, there is little Scripture support for the concept of a "transition" period beyond the waning of the apostles presence on earth. Even more, you have yet to provide Scripture for your insistent claim that (1) the apostles worked under inspiration/revelation (not saying I disagree) & (2) that the NT distinguishes between illumination & revelation/inspiration.

I understand your interpretation of Scripture, being a former dispo myself (I was the uber-dispo). But one of my problems as a dispo was that I could only think in western/systematic terms instead of eastern/diachronic metanarrative theology (called biblical theology). You explained your systematic understanding of Scripture w/out providing Scripture. That is evangelical pontification (an oxymoron of sorts).

This has nothing to do with proving the point of a valid hermenuetic. Further this does not help in identifying a verse that validates a hermeneutic. From your answers, you appear to have your theology in place already and interpret Scripture through that grid. While I may not argue that is invalid, it should at least be acknowledged.

Actually, the Messiah in the OT was more than a promise. Only a narrow approach to the OT will allow an OT picture of Jesus through prophecies only. However, Jesus puts himself in every genre and portion of the OT (Luke 24:44ff). He is the goal of the OT (not just OT prophecies).

BTW... didn't Jesus say the rule of God (kingdom) was on earth b/c he was casting out demons (Matt. 12:28)??? So better language is to say he DID establish the rule of God on the earth. HOwever, it is awaiting consummation.

 

This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

1. Between about 4 BC to about 27 AD was Jesus going about as A. prophet, B. priest C. king D. 2 of 3 E. all? 2. What about from about 27 AD to about 33 AD. Same question? 3. And from resurrection until his return. Same question?

What I believe I can answer for sure.
1. A
2. B
3. C for sure but I believe E

Was Jesus brought forth by Mary flesh and blood?

Would not 1 Cor. 15:50 have not applied to Jesus? Must he have to die?
Must he have to be resurrected from the dead?

Opening and alleging, that the Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead;

 

You really need to learn how to use the quote function

 

I wish I knew how to use it. Like how to quote more than one in a post ect.
Tried to figure it out wasn't smart enough. Someone tells how I will print.

 

All you have to do is learn to write "quote" in square brackets [] and then end the quote with "/quote" in square brackets (minus the quotation marks of course). I would spell it out and show you except it would recognize it as if I were trying to quote something. Just remember [/quote] and

 

and

Thanks

I'll save this and try it out.