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

[JesusFan]

Pause for a sec...

I am not talking about the church fathers. I am talking about the parishioners of Jerusalem Church circa AD45. And that is what Acts 15 demonstrates. Consider the situation... the issue was all about the CHristian Jews acknowledging the Christian Gentiles as part of the people of God. If anyone was going to object to the way in which Scripture was used (or "abused" in your case), it would have been in Acts 15. But you have total unanimity. All acknowledged the figural use of the OT b/c it was part of their practice. Luke records Jesus doing the same thing in Lk 24. In fact, Luke records a lot of people doing the same thing. He develops a pattern. Whether he did so prescriptionally or descriptively is beyond the point. He did so, not as an apostle, and had good authority to do so... because he was taught this method by the apostles.

Beyond that, I don't think you could provide a verse that says that apostles would have a special hermeneutic that we would not have. So that then is an extra-biblical, philosophical argument that holds no water.[/QUOTE

]


Actually, the Apostles did NOT have to use the same way that we would biblical Hermneutics, as they had the HS to give them directly the :meaning/understanding" within the sacred texts!

So paul DID interprete the texts, but regardless of "how" he got to the final results...

AGAIN, even IF we used the proper hermeneutucs for the Bible, the HS enabled paul to "see" links to OT/NT we cannot see!

That is what is meant by revelation/inspiration!

 

[mandym]

AGAIN, even IF we used the proper hermeneutucs for the Bible, the HS enabled paul to "see" links to OT/NT we cannot see!

That is what is meant by revelation/inspiration!

Ok so show us where in scripture you got this.

 

[JesusFan]

Ok so show us where in scripture you got this.

The doctrines that the Apostle paul revealed to us were directly from God Himself...

NNE would have read the OT and see the "church age" in it, but the HS granted paul to be revealed the "hidden Mystery" that was oblious to those who wrote down the OT!

 

[mandym]

The doctrines that the Apostle paul revealed to us were directly from God Himself...

NNE would have read the OT and see the "church age" in it, but the HS granted paul to be revealed the "hidden Mystery" that was oblious to those who wrote down the OT!

Great, now where in scripture did you get that?

 

[Greektim]

Pause for a sec...

I am not talking about the church fathers. I am talking about the parishioners of Jerusalem Church circa AD45. And that is what Acts 15 demonstrates. Consider the situation... the issue was all about the CHristian Jews acknowledging the Christian Gentiles as part of the people of God. If anyone was going to object to the way in which Scripture was used (or "abused" in your case), it would have been in Acts 15. But you have total unanimity. All acknowledged the figural use of the OT b/c it was part of their practice. Luke records Jesus doing the same thing in Lk 24. In fact, Luke records a lot of people doing the same thing. He develops a pattern. Whether he did so prescriptionally or descriptively is beyond the point. He did so, not as an apostle, and had good authority to do so... because he was taught this method by the apostles.

]


Actually, the Apostles did NOT have to use the same way that we would biblical Hermneutics, as they had the HS to give them directly the :meaning/understanding" within the sacred texts!

So paul DID interprete the texts, but regardless of "how" he got to the final results...

AGAIN, even IF we used the proper hermeneutucs for the Bible, the HS enabled paul to "see" links to OT/NT we cannot see!

That is what is meant by revelation/inspiration!

But you keep avoiding the fact that the apostles taught the early church this method of Biblical interpretation. This was the common practice of the early church. And I'm not speaking of what the church fathers did. I'm talking about the early church we find in the book of Acts. So it must extend beyond an apostolic understanding and into the common faith (regula fidei). You keep ignoring this very important fact.

I get what you are saying... apostles were enabled by the HS to do things beyond the capability of non-apostles. But you do understand that more than the apostles participated in inspiration and revelation? Even women were prophesying!!! Early church meetings were much more participational than today. One of the practices was to read Scripture (something Paul tells Tim to keep doing). And their hermeneutic was established by the apostles to read messianically and missionally. That is what Jesus taught his disciples. That is not a supernatural gift from the HS that only special people get. That is simply the way Jesus said to interpret Scripture (cf. Luke 24:44ff.).

Lastly, mandym is valid in asking you to provide Scripture for your supposed Scriptural claims. That was the point of the other thread - prove from Scripture a literal hermeneutic. On Scriptural citations alone, I'd have to say that you are losing that battle merely b/c you have provided none.

 

[percho]

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

 

[JesusFan]

But you keep avoiding the fact that the apostles taught the early church this method of Biblical interpretation. This was the common practice of the early church. And I'm not speaking of what the church fathers did. I'm talking about the early church we find in the book of Acts. So it must extend beyond an apostolic understanding and into the common faith (regula fidei). You keep ignoring this very important fact.

That would ALL have been though under the direct guindance of the HS, in a fashion NOT available to us in the same fashion, as they had inspiration/revelation, we have illumination...



I

get what you are saying... apostles were enabled by the HS to do things beyond the capability of non-apostles. But you do understand that more than the apostles participated in inspiration and revelation? Even women were prophesying!!! Early church meetings were much more participational than today. One of the practices was to read Scripture (something Paul tells Tim to keep doing). And their hermeneutic was established by the apostles to read messianically and missionally. That is what Jesus taught his disciples. That is not a supernatural gift from the HS that only special people get. That is simply the way Jesus said to interpret Scripture (cf. Luke 24:44ff.).

the scriptures they were reading were either OT canon, or else espitles from/of the Apostles to them, again, HS inspired writtings...

Also, the church in Acts was under the time when there was a prophetic, revelatory aspect to the Gifts, so he was still 'giving" the means to interpretating scriptures from viewpoint of God...

Again, NOT same/fashion way for us today!

Lastly, mandym is valid in asking you to provide Scripture for your supposed Scriptural claims. That was the point of the other thread - prove from Scripture a literal hermeneutic. On Scriptural citations alone, I'd have to say that you are losing that battle merely b/c you have provided none.

EVERY time Apostle like paul/Peter/John read the OT and interprete it to us was by the revelation/inspiration from the HS!

This was per promise of jesus to Apostles, that the HS would come and bring to them FULL remembrance of ALL that Jesus said and did!

 

[Greektim]

EVERY time Apostle like paul/Peter/John read the OT and interprete it to us was by the revelation/inspiration from the HS!

This was per promise of jesus to Apostles, that the HS would come and bring to them FULL remembrance of ALL that Jesus said and did!

So basically, your dispensationalism enforces discontinuity so much that you not only separate the church from Israel but you separate the early church from the post-apostolic church? I would argue that you have no verse that differentiates between illumination and revelation. I would also argue that this is not a matter of inspiration but interpretation. Acts is the example where they were discussing the Gentiles coming to faith and that being allowed based on a figural reading of Amos. This was the practice of the church! It was during the time of the apostles. That continued afterwards.

I would further argue that Jesus taught this hermeneutic to others who were not apostles based on Luke 24. Specifically the disciple named Cleopas. The hermeneutic Jesus taught was a messianic one in vv. 25-27. The prophets are mentioned there but the phrase "all Scripture" clearly refers to the entire OT. This was a messianic/missional hermeneutic. It is figural indeed!

 

[JesusFan]

[

QUOTE=Greektim;1732138]

So basically, your dispensationalism enforces discontinuity so much that you not only separate the church from Israel but you separate the early church from the post-apostolic church? I would argue that you have no verse that differentiates between illumination and revelation. I would also argue that this is not a matter of inspiration but interpretation. Acts is the example where they were discussing the Gentiles coming to faith and that being allowed based on a figural reading of Amos. This was the practice of the church! It was during the time of the apostles. That continued after

isreal and the Church are seperate before the Lord...

isreal had the Old Covenant established with God, was to have their Kingdom established by coming Messiah, rejected Him, than was put on"hold" and the Church Age under new Covenant established..


The Church in Acts was a "transistion" period to establish the Gospel as being from the Lord, and the inspiration/revelation afforded them by the Holy Spirit to confirm the Truth of jesus was JUST to that period, NOT same as Illumination afforded to us today!




wards.

I would further argue that Jesus taught this hermeneutic to others who were not apostles based on Luke 24. Specifically the disciple named Cleopas. The hermeneutic Jesus taught was a messianic one in vv. 25-27. The prophets are mentioned there but the phrase "all Scripture" clearly refers to the entire OT. This was a messianic/missional hermeneutic. It is figural indeed!

Again, ALL of us would tend to see jesus/Messiah throughout the OT, as that was the main promise of God, that He would send forth the Messiah in the Future to reddem his people from their sins, and would establish the Kingdom of God upon the earth!

 

[percho]

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;

 

[Greektim]

isreal and the Church are seperate before the Lord...

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.

isreal had the Old Covenant established with God, was to have their Kingdom established by coming Messiah, rejected Him, than was put on"hold" and the Church Age under new Covenant established..

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.

The Church in Acts was a "transistion" period to establish the Gospel as being from the Lord, and the inspiration/revelation afforded them by the Holy Spirit to confirm the Truth of jesus was JUST to that period, NOT same as Illumination afforded to us today!

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.

Again, ALL of us would tend to see jesus/Messiah throughout the OT, as that was the main promise of God, that He would send forth the Messiah in the Future to reddem his people from their sins, and would establish the Kingdom of God upon the earth!

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.

 

[JesusFan]

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.

God has the "spiritual" aspects of the Kingdom for the Church, while he still ahs physical Kingdom aspects for national isreal, justthat we are NOW in Grace /Church Age, will usher in physical Kingdom on Earth at His second coming!

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.

The Kingdom is here/not here, as all who are saved by God enter into the spiritual kingdom, while those alive enter into the Physical Kingdom when he returns at end of this Age ...

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.

jesus Himself said the Apostles would have the HS inspire them, peter said paul was equal to OT scriptures in his Epistles, and Luke was quoted as being same as isaiah as scripture...

Also, the HS is said to be able to teach us/open up the Bible, as per Apostle John, ALL of us have that 'anoiting" from Him to know the truth...



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).

You seem to be falling into the "trap" of those who hold to us being in SAME relation with HS as the Acts church...

NONE of us today have same inspiration that the HS granted the Apostles of Christ, and since canon is closed, no more revelatory process going on now!

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).

Messiah was the central theme of the OT promise of God to mankind, but as another aspect of it, also was the promise to have Isreal received her glory under reign of Messiah....

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.

The Kingdom was in His person while upon the earth, all of us saved enter into His spiritual Kingdom, while the full manifasted physical Kingdom is still to come!

 

[percho]

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;

 

[Greektim]

The Kingdom was in His person while upon the earth, all of us saved enter into His spiritual Kingdom, while the full manifasted physical Kingdom is still to come!

You really need to learn how to use the quote function

 

[percho]

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.

 

[Greektim]

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

except start with the second one and end with the first one.

 

[percho]

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

and

except start with the second one and end with the first one.

Thanks

I'll save this and try it out.