The Problem with Oral Traditions

When the contextual background is addressed there is not much more left to address. I included some of the historical background when I touched on what is it to treat a publican, and a heathen? One must stick to the context. That is where the meaning of the passage comes from.

 

Always? Then provide the correct interpretation and the historical context of Mt. 5:17 and 1 Cor. 15:29 from scripture alone.

 

The job of the interpreter is to determine the meaning of the passage and often that comes after one finds out the historical context. Historical context involves numerous things that shed light on the true meaning of what was said or written. For example how do we know the extent of the persecution and what happened if we do not know the history of the time and place when something was written.

 

The Scriptures are designed by God to accomplish God's purpose for giving them.

The Scriptures are sufficient in and of themselves to provide all that is necessary for doctrine, correction, instruction and reproof (2 Tim. 3:16).

They are sufficient for this alone because Paul says;

1. They are inspired by God - no personal opinions written
2. So the man of God may be "perfect" - telios - complete/sufficient
3. "throughly furnished" - completely furnished
4. "unto ALL good works" - not lacking for any good work.

 

How on earth can whatever "historical context" that you provide overturn the direct meaning of the verse found in the expositional verse by verse treatment of the passage--the very context in which it is found. No amount of history is going to change that.

 

1 Cor. 15:29 is impossible to completely understand the depth of what Paul teaches unless you know the historical background.

Matthew 18:20 is impossible to completely understand unless you know the history behind what Jesus said.

You are not able to understand what Jesus meant in Mt. 4:20 unless you know the historical context behind "immediately".

 

Is not the context about proving the resurrection? Does not the act of baptism declare belief in a resurrection if indeed by baptism we are "buried" and rise again up out of the water (Rom. 6:4-5)???? Does not immerion declare resurrection?

Hence, baptism is "eis" or in reference to the dead being raised up. Paul's question is a very contextually based argument for the resurrection of the dead. Why should anyone be baptized in reference to resurrection if they deny there is an resurrection???

Scripture interprets scripture!

 

I have understood the correct meaning of Mat.18:20 without any historical background (other than what a publican and a heathen was) for the last 30 years. And now you are telling me different? Something wrong here!

 

God's word has not and does not change, yet the opinions of the latest gurus are all over the place. It sure helps to know what disciples did so that you do discipleship the same way Jesus taught rather than following the latest guru and allow him to shape you by their changing opinion as the gurus change. Mt. 18:20 comes right out of a background of discipleship. What Jesus said in that one verse is packed with application if you understand the historical context behind it.

 

Jesus taught Mt. 18:20 as a direct connection to their background in Judaism. His disciples understood learning and discipleship before they became followers of him. The fact that He called his disciples has nothing to do with calvinism and election but rather it came right our of their cultural practice in Judaism.

 

What is wrong is that you missed the historical context by a mile. Go back and study Mt. 5:17 and then you will understand the importance of historical context and correct interpretation.

 

We have been repeating it over and over and over again to you and it is found in four words - "OVERALL AND IMMEDIATE CONTEXT" of the scriptures.

 

The overall and immediate context has a foundation of historical and literary context not proof text.

 

The passage is speaking of church discipline. There is no amount of historical context that is going to change that. Where two or three are gathered together (in the name of the local church) to make that decision, then the Lord is with them. You cannot get away from that meaning. It is clear and decisive. A chapter written 13 chapters earlier is not going to change the meaning here.

 

That is not the historical context. Many would debate the issue with you because Jesus did not start any church.

 

"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church."
Jesus did start church. He is the foundation of every church.

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:11)

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; (Ephesians 2:19-20)

Jesus Christ is the foundation, the chief cornerstone of every local church ever built.

 

Do you know what historical and literary context is?

You may want to take a look back into the OT and take a look at Mal. 3:16. It gives a glimpse of the historical background of the passage.

Often the NT writers quoted the OT and applied in a completely different context it in the NT. That is similar to what Jesus did in Mt. 18:20. So if you believe that scripture always interpret scripture you would have a hard time with OT quotes in the NT being applied in a radically different context.

Earlier you failed to give me the historical background of 1 Cor 15:29. Who believed in baptizing for the dead? The Mormons?

 

Do you know what the immediate and overall context of Biblical scripture is? That is all the context one needs to understand the words used in scripture.

The Hebrew and Greek languages are living languages today and their is abundant of lexigraphical materials available to note the changes in meanings of differnt terms at different points in time. There are multitude of lexicons.

The Holy Spirit's use of Biblical terms is often different than their contemporary literary use! It is often different then their cultural and historical use. Regardless if one knows anything about the contemporary literary or cutural meaning of a term, they need only know how it is used in the Biblical context - period!

Your very question is a presumption that you have correctly interpreted the Greek term "eis" correctly! I have shown an intepretation that fits the context perfectly. Why should I presume your interpretation of the Greek preposition is correct??? That is the necessary presumption to even entertain your theory!

 

Studying modern English does not equate to studying English in 1611. You have failed miserably to understand the difference between modern Hebrew and Greek and the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek of the day. So what you suggest completely disregards the study of historical context and how those words were actually used then.

Holy Spirit Greek never existed. Most of the time those words were used in secular society and not limited to usage in scripture only. If you had studied Greek usage in other documents of the day you would know that what you suggest has little truth. The same exists even today. Just recently on TV was a program talking about a document written last century at this time to interpret it correctly. They went back and took a look at other documents to see how particular words were used at that time.

Consider why in the same denomination the words "Lord's Supper" and "Communion" are used to mean the same thing in several of their churches. Why?

Your very question is a presumption that you have correctly interpreted the Greek term "eis" correctly! I have shown an interpretation that fits the context perfectly. Why should I presume your interpretation of the Greek preposition is correct??? That is the necessary presumption to even entertain your theory![/QUOTE]Eis has absolutely nothing to with the interpretation of that passage. One must go back to history at the time to properly understand that verse.

You might try the verse Acts 2:38 if you believe that historical context means nothing.

 

30 page limit.