Rome and Finished Revelation

[Matt Black]

That's merely a repeat of the assertion! You remind me of Robespierre on July 27th 1794, having been shouted down in the National Convention for his speech, went to the Hotel de Ville of Paris and re-read the same speech to his supporters...

 

[Dr. Walter]

That's merely a repeat of the assertion! You remind me of Robespierre on July 27th 1794, having been shouted down in the National Convention for his speech, went to the Hotel de Ville of Paris and re-read the same speech to his supporters...

That is merely a repeat of inability to respond to the evidence provided.

 

[Matt Black]

Ummm... because you haven't provided any other than to repeatedly re-state your opinion and spin on the evidence provided.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No, I demonstrated you were in error as you said that Peter may have used "a word" but that does not make it a Messanic passage! First, I proved, demonstrated, that you were wrong. He used more than "a word" but used whole phrases and not merely from one verse in this passage but at least three verses in this passage. Furthermore, such quotations were not merely applied to Christ but applied directly to the apostles and the church (Isa. 8:18 with Heb. 2:12-13).

The real problem is that you are subjective in your evaluation because of the presumptive position you take in spite of the Biblical evidence against it.

Use a little common sense. God's written Word ALWAYS takes precedence over the traditions and words of men (Isa. 8:20). Isaiah 8:20 simply states a common sense timeless truth. God's written Word ALWAYS is the rule to judge any new prophecy or prophety by. Isaiah 8:20 simply states a common sense timeless truth.

I have demonstrated that your accusation that Peter and others only used a word is wrong. I have demonstrated that Isaiah 8:14-20 is Messanic prophecy proved by three writers in the New Testament (Peter, Paul, writer of hebrews) quoting whole phrases directly from it and applying it to Christ and His apostles.

I could go on and further demonstrate that Isaiah 8:16 and the very phrases "the law and the testimony" in a Messanic context means the Old and New Testaments as the Old Testament is commonly called "the law" whereas the very function of the apostolic office is to be "witnesses" or give "the testimony" (Rev. 1:3) of Jesus and that the entire New Testament is written either directly by Apostles or under their direct supervision for that very purpose. That the last book of the New Testament begins with the claim to be "the testimony" of Jesus (Rev. 1:3) and ends with what can only be descriptive of a "seal" binding up that testimony (Rev. 22:18-19).

I can demonstrate that in the upper room discourse that one apsect of the promise of the Spirit was to lead the apostles into "all truth" (Jn. 16:13) and that Jesus said it would be through "their word" that future generations would believe and that they were aware they were producing inspired scriptures as a consequence (2 Thes. 2:15; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:17-18; 1 Jn. 4:5-6; Rev. 1:3, 22:18-19).

I can demonstrate that Isaiah 8:16 is Messanic in nature as those called "my disciples" in verse 16 who are to "bind up and seal the law and the testimony" are the apostles as verse 18 is applied directly to the apostles (Heb.2:4,13) and the next revelation after binding and sealing the law and testimony "among my disciples" in Isaiah 8:16 is the revelation of Christ FROM HEAVEN (Isa. 8:17) just as John says after binding up and sealing the law and the testimony in Revelation 22:18-19 followed with these words:

Isa. 8:16 ¶ Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.
17 And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.


Rev. 1:3 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Rev. 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20 ¶ He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Most Messanic prophecy has a two-fold application (1) literal historical (2) Messanic. For example, there is much Messanic prophecy where David is the historical figure that is literally and historically the actual subject. Peter, Paul and Hebrews make Isaiah 8:14-18 not merely Messanic but APOSTOLIC as well as they define the speaker as Christ and "my disciples" as the APOSTLES. You cannot honestly deny either the Messanic or apostolic application unless you accuse Peter, Paul and Hebrews as deluded and deceived. This clear and explicit Messanic and Apostolic application cannot be denied if one accepts the inspiration of the New Testament Scriptures.



There is nothing "hard" here at all! The very office of apostle was designed to give "TESTIMONY" to Jesus Christ. Every New Testament book was either written directly by these apostles or directly under their supervision. Peter acknowledges that scripture is "more sure" (2 Pet. 1:19) than his own verbal testimony of his personal witness of Christ on the mount of transfiguration, thus acknowledging that his own writing of this account is scripture (2 Pet. 1:20-21) just as "ALL" of Paul's epistles are to be recognized as "other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:15-16).

There is nothing "hard" in seeing that the LAST living Apostle writing the LAST apostolic book says that he bare record of "the Word of God AND The Testimony" ("the law...the testimony") and then sealed this record in Revelation 22:18-19 ("Bind up.....and seal"). There is nothing hard to see that Isaiah anticipated the next revelation after binding up and sealing "this word" (Isa. 8:20) to be Christ coming from heaven (Isa. 8:18) as did John (Rev. 22:20).
There is nothing "hard" to see that the book of Revelation takes you from the historical point in time of the Apostle John and churches in the first century (Rev. 1-3) unto the "new heaven and earth" (Rev. 21:1). There is nothing "hard" in seeing the last book reads as the natural conclusion to the first book and that all the books in between fit inbetween. There is nothing "hard" at all - nothing to "force."

There is nothing "hard" and nothing to "force" to see that this APOSTOLIC binding up and sealing "this word" is to be regarded as final in authority in Isaiah 8:20 as Isaiah 8:20 is a TIMELESS truth. It was true to the extent of the Biblical canon then. It was true to the extent of the Biblical canon at the birth of Christ. It is true in regard to the Biblical canon once bound and sealed with the Apostle John.

I've been out of this for awhile. I wanted to comment on your last part. What I've said is that you've included the term "testimony" as used in Isaiah to equate with gospel then you defend you forcing the two terms from two different context in two different era's to mean the same thing. Peter certainly testifies to the gospel. This however, isnt the use of the term in Isaiah. Isaiah's use of the word does not equate to the consept equating gospel message. This is why I feel that your forcing terms together which aren't intended to be done in such a manner.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I've been out of this for awhile. I wanted to comment on your last part. What I've said is that you've included the term "testimony" as used in Isaiah to equate with gospel then you defend you forcing the two terms from two different context in two different era's to mean the same thing. Peter certainly testifies to the gospel. This however, isnt the use of the term in Isaiah. Isaiah's use of the word does not equate to the consept equating gospel message. This is why I feel that your forcing terms together which aren't intended to be done in such a manner.

Consider that Isaiah uses the plural "my disciples" in both Isaiah 8:16 and 8:18. Isaiah 8:18 is quoted by and applied to ALL THE APOSTLES in hebrews 2:3-4, 13 not just to Peter.

Isaiah 8:16 ¶ Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.....
18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

Heb. 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?.....
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.


Consider that the whole design of the apostolic office is to give a TESTIMONY or WITNESS to Jesus Christ not merely by oral traditions but in written form. It is Peter that claims that his written form is "MORE SURE" than what he communicated orally to them (2 Pet. 1:15-19, 20-21). It is Peter who claims that "ALL" of Paul's epistles are to be treated as "other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3;15-16).

2 Pet. 1:15 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. 16 ¶ For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Pet. 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


Consider that Jesus explicitly told ALL the apostles that the Holy Spirit would not merely bring to their memory what Christ said and did but things that are yet to occur (prophecy) and that future generations would come to Christ "through their word" (Jn. 16:13; 17:20).

Jn. 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Jn. 15:26 ¶ But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

Jn. 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Jn. 17:20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;


Consider that the last living apostle authenticates his last written work with the combination "the Word and the Testimony" similar to "the Law...the Testimony" of Isaiah 8:16,20 and closes the last apostolic written work similar to "bind up the testimony, seal the law" with langauge that has been recognized as the final seal to scriptures in Revelation 22:18-19. Then consider that immediately after Isaiah commands such binding up and sealing that the very next words describe his looking for the coming of Christ from heaven exactly as John's very next words after sealing the testimony

Isa. 8:17 And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.

Rev. 22:20 ¶ He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

If I am guilty of forcing such a conclusion as you claim, then it is one of the easiest forces that I have ever attempted. I have read many of your defenses of teachings which don't even come near supplying the Biblical evidence that I have with this position.

At the very minimum Isaiah 8:20 is a TIMELESS TRUTH that can be stated with certainty at every stage of development in written revelation including what binds up and seals final written revelation. It should be a no brainer that God's written word is final authority in determining the legitimacy of any new written revelation claiming to be God's Word (book of Mormon, etc.) and final authority in authenticating any oral traditions that claim to be God's Word. If not, then what objective standard can any church use to verify truth???? Even Catholic Tradition is now in written form yet filled with conflicting claims and contradictions galore! Subjective popular opinion? Subjective visions?? Can you really defend that Isaiah 8:20 has only limited application to the words of one prophet when Peter claims that the words of all prophets are "more sure" than oral apostolic tradition(2 Pet. 2:15-21) and Paul claims that "all scripture" is given by inspiration or God breathed and is God's provision to "throughly furnish" the man of God unto ALL that is recognized as "good" works????

I think, if you did not have the Roman Catholic background bias, you would not only see this clearly but would be defending it with zeal and claiming that those who are denying it can only be blinded by pure subjective reasonings.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Consider that Isaiah uses the plural "my disciples" in both Isaiah 8:16 and 8:18. Isaiah 8:18 is quoted by and applied to ALL THE APOSTLES in hebrews 2:3-4, 13 not just to Peter.

Note Isaiah 8 is specifically about the coming destruction of the Northern Kingdom and eventually both North and Southern Kingdoms. I give you that certain text can be understood to have multiple senses to them. And in Isaiah 8 has been viewed as a foreshadow of Christ. So disciples (plural) in the text is specifically the followers of YHWH. Especially, for the north due to its leadership attempting to replace the covenant worship with pagan worship. True followers were thus persecuted and many moved South Especially the Levites. This is the text of the passage. The passage that got the interest of the Early Writers were the use of these terms

but for both houses of Israel he will be
a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.
And for the people of Jerusalem he will be
a trap and a snare.

Contextually, the initial recepients of this prophesy would have understood this to mean that God himself because of the covenant (ie the Law) which the Isrealites failed to fulfill would suffer the consequences of not following the Law. The early Christian writers of this text would see how Jesus would correlate with this because of his afrontery in his nature and the people could not accept him. In much the same manner their ancestor would not participate in the law of the covenant. This passage

Bind up the testimony
and seal up the law among my disciples.

which follows initial intent of the term testimony is the prophesy of coming destruction. Sealing up the Law among his disciples were those that were faithful to the covenant requirements of YHWH. To take this term "testimony" and mean something entirely different "Salvation by Grace" or the Gospel goes against the rules of dual prophetic meanings. Rather I think Destruction of Judaism in AD 70 and the Judaic offerings is more appropriate. And binding the law upon the heart of his disciples I believe as in Isaiah would extend to all believers in the New Covenant. To take a term and have an opposite connotation works against the "messianic prophetic" words which are presented by the prophets. It would certainly confuse the Jews.

The next two texts you quote here:

18 Here am I, and the children the LORD has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the LORD Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion.

Heb. 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?.....
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

I find it hard to correlate these two passages in the manner you have. Isaiah, would have meant those faithful to YHWH. That they themselves are the signs and wonders by which He has shown himself. Then to equate that with what the writer of Hebrews is saying. The signs and wonders used by the writer of Hebrews is more closely related to the connotation of Pslam 95

do not harden your hearts as you did at Meribah, [a]
as you did that day at Massah in the desert,

9 where your fathers tested and tried me,
though they had seen what I did.

Where the wonders were not enough for the people to place their trust in God.

Consider that the whole design of the apostolic office is to give a TESTIMONY or WITNESS to Jesus Christ not merely by oral traditions but in written form. It is Peter that claims that his written form is "MORE SURE" than what he communicated orally to them (2 Pet. 1:15-19, 20-21). It is Peter who claims that "ALL" of Paul's epistles are to be treated as "other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3;15-16).

What does this have to do with the above discussion about the forced use of Testimony in Isaiah to equate with Gospel? Also you misuse Peter's statement of "More Sure". The Context is

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty...19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain

In otherwords the Prophets prophesy or word has made their eyewitness account more certain which btw was communicated orally to them. Its not used in the context you wish it to be such as "the writen word is more sure than the oral" No what he saying is "not only do you have our eyewitness account of this but it matches what the prophets said." Two different connotations. Verses 20-21 just assures the reader that scriptures were not man made singularily but that God's very hand was apart thus their prophesies were not invented. This is the context of Peter. As far as Chapter 3 it says

14So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Which you ignore the bold section here. And the context of which does not say all his letters are scripture but that Paul is consistent in all his letters which God gave him the wisdom to write with regard to salvation and that many people tend to distort him. Like Marcion who wanted to do away with all other documents. So again you're inserting into the passage something that is not meant. This is why I think you've forced the Term Testimony into a context not meant.

 

[Dr. Walter]

What you have passed over is the fact that verse 18 is directly applied to all the apostles in Hebrews 2:3-4,12-13 and not merely to Christ. You ignore the fact that the very office of Apostle is all about giving such a TESTIMONY in oral and finally in written condition.

You admit that a text can have more than one application but then continue to make an argument that denies another application. I can accept both and do accept both but you carefully word your following arguments to exclude a secondary prophetic interpretation that is patently obvious by New Testament writers.

Note Isaiah 8 is specifically about the coming destruction of the Northern Kingdom and eventually both North and Southern Kingdoms. I give you that certain text can be understood to have multiple senses to them. And in Isaiah 8 has been viewed as a foreshadow of Christ. So disciples (plural) in the text is specifically the followers of YHWH. Especially, for the north due to its leadership attempting to replace the covenant worship with pagan worship. True followers were thus persecuted and many moved South Especially the Levites. This is the text of the passage. The passage that got the interest of the Early Writers were the use of these terms Contextually, the initial recepients of this prophesy would have understood this to mean that God himself because of the covenant (ie the Law) which the Isrealites failed to fulfill would suffer the consequences of not following the Law. The early Christian writers of this text would see how Jesus would correlate with this because of his afrontery in his nature and the people could not accept him. In much the same manner their ancestor would not participate in the law of the covenant. This passage which follows initial intent of the term testimony is the prophesy of coming destruction. Sealing up the Law among his disciples were those that were faithful to the covenant requirements of YHWH. To take this term "testimony" and mean something entirely different "Salvation by Grace" or the Gospel goes against the rules of dual prophetic meanings. Rather I think Destruction of Judaism in AD 70 and the Judaic offerings is more appropriate. And binding the law upon the heart of his disciples I believe as in Isaiah would extend to all believers in the New Covenant. To take a term and have an opposite connotation works against the "messianic prophetic" words which are presented by the prophets. It would certainly confuse the Jews.

The next two texts you quote here:

I find it hard to correlate these two passages in the manner you have. Isaiah, would have meant those faithful to YHWH. That they themselves are the signs and wonders by which He has shown himself. Then to equate that with what the writer of Hebrews is saying. The signs and wonders used by the writer of Hebrews is more closely related to the connotation of Pslam 95 Where the wonders were not enough for the people to place their trust in God.

I do not equate what the writer of Hebews is saying with Isaiah 8:18! It is the writer of Hebrews who quotes it and quotes in his own context of signs and wonders performed by them (Heb. 2:3-4,12-13) in regard to the church. You are simply correcting and rebuking the writer of Hebrews! I am simply noting the obvious to anyone with on open mind.

What does this have to do with the above discussion about the forced use of Testimony in Isaiah to equate with Gospel?

So why are we having this discussion? No objective mind at all ("forced")! You have made up your mind and drawn your conclusions in spite of such obvious evidence against your interpretations. That is amazing blindness!

Also you misuse Peter's statement of "More Sure". The Context is In otherwords the Prophets prophesy or word has made their eyewitness account more certain which btw was communicated orally to them. Its not used in the context you wish it to be such as "the writen word is more sure than the oral" No what he saying is "not only do you have our eyewitness account of this but it matches what the prophets said."

Wow! The contextual development is so easy to follow and yet you miss it completely! In verses 15-16 it is his wish that they remember what he ORALLY related to them about a particular experience that is nowhere else recorded by anyone but Matthew and now in written form by this epistles. Hence, if "it matches what the prophets said" then he can only be referrring to Matthew as there is no account in the Old Testament of the transfiguration and the voice of God in regard to His Son.

He wants them to keep in memory AFTER HIS DEATH what he was a EYE WITNESS to and therefore he is committing it to writing and it is the WRITTEN accounts that are "more sure" and thus preserve it (vv. 19-21) as they are not personal or private interpretations of the prophet but the written opinions of God Himself and that is why it is "more sure" because it is not the personal opinions of men.

As far as Chapter 3 it says Which you ignore the bold section here. And the context of which does not say all his letters are scripture but that Paul is consistent in all his letters which God gave him the wisdom to write with regard to salvation and that many people tend to distort him. Like Marcion who wanted to do away with all other documents. So again you're inserting into the passage something that is not meant. This is why I think you've forced the Term Testimony into a context not meant.

Peter equates "all of his epistles" to be on the same level as "other scriptures." The subject is "salvation" which is completed with the second coming of Christ (vv. 3-14). He is particularly defending why the Lord is holding back His return so that His work of salvation will be finished (vv. 8-14). Salvation has to do with Jesus Christ and the apostolic office was designed to be THE TESTIMONY of Jesus Christ and of His salvation in its fullest or broadest sense (past, present, future aspects). What this text proves is that one apostle is confirming the epistles of another apostles to be on the same level as "other scriptures." Thus they are being used by God to provide additional scriptures to that of the Old Testament prophets. Hence, they understood what they were writing was inspired (2 Pet. 1:19-21) and "more sure" than previous ORAL communications (2 Pet. 1:16) especially in regard as a more effective means to remember (2 Pet. 1:13-15).

Marcion was an Agnostic. You are a perfect illustration of the Catholic monks who villify a person or a whole movement based upon an inappropriate comparison. Marcion attempted to edit and remove all scriptures that did not fit his dualistic view. I am not attempting to remove any scriptures or edit them but rather demonstrate that the apostles perceived each other's epistles as "other scriptures" and therefore understood and believed they were providing inspired scriptures in addition to the Law.

We are not going to accomplish anything so let's drop the argument as there is not an objective bone in your body. You first admit that there can be more than one application of Isaiah 8:14-20 and then you proceed to categorically deny any such application in the New Testament. You totally ignore the fact that it is "my disciples" who are also described in verse 18 which the writer of hebrews (not I) directly quotes and directly applies in context to the apostles and their signs and wonders (Heb. 2:3-4,12-13). How much more clear can it be and yet you will have nothing to do with it and make unfounded and silly charges that it is "forced" when in fact it is as natural as honey in a bee hive.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What you have passed over is the fact that verse 18 is directly applied to all the apostles in Hebrews 2:3-4,12-13 and not merely to Christ. You ignore the fact that the very office of Apostle is all about giving such a TESTIMONY in oral and finally in written condition.

I haven't ignored anything. What I have done is explain the original context and how it would have been seen from an apostolic context.

You admit that a text can have more than one application but then continue to make an argument that denies another application. I can accept both and do accept both but you carefully word your following arguments to exclude a secondary prophetic interpretation that is patently obvious by New Testament writers.

I admit a text can have more than one application but that does not mean I take a text or a word in the text and give it the opposit connotation that it has in the original sense. Prophetic messages or Messianic Messages uses the same words with the same context to site two different periods. For instance Isaiah

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

The word Virgin can mean virgin or young woman. It cannot be taken to mean old harlot in the future context. In both the current context and the future context there verbage has the same meaning applied.


I

do not equate what the writer of Hebews is saying with Isaiah 8:18! It is the writer of Hebrews who quotes it and quotes in his own context of signs and wonders performed by them (Heb. 2:3-4,12-13) in regard to the church. You are simply correcting and rebuking the writer of Hebrews! I am simply noting the obvious to anyone with on open mind.

The Author of Hebrews is not quoting Isaiah in 2:3-4. Note: hebrews

3how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. 4God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

Isaiah

18 Here am I, and the children the LORD has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the LORD Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion.

This is not a direct quote. And the use of signs and symbols has the connotation of the passage I quoted from Psalm 95. In that they were ignored. So, I'm not correcting the writer of hebrews you are attaching a meaning not intended. Note Isaiahs positive connotation of the people being the signs and wonders and note Hebrews negative value of ignoring the signs and wonders. Which refers to what the Lord is saying in psalm 95

do not harden your hearts as you did at Meribah, [a]
as you did that day at Massah in the desert,

9 where your fathers tested and tried me,
though they had seen what I did.

10 For forty years I was angry with that generation;
I said, "They are a people whose hearts go astray,
and they have not known my ways."

11 So I declared on oath in my anger,
"They shall never enter my rest."

This is the textual understanding of what the writers of Hebrews is saying.

So why are we having this discussion? No objective mind at all ("forced")! You have made up your mind and drawn your conclusions in spite of such obvious evidence against your interpretations. That is amazing blindness!

Absolutely, forced. Note your interpretation and contexts of the passages are forced with your preconceived idea. Its what most people call reading your theology into the text. Rather than upholding the text itself.

Wow! The contextual development is so easy to follow and yet you miss it completely! In verses 15-16 it is his wish that they remember what he ORALLY related to them about a particular experience that is nowhere else recorded by anyone but Matthew and now in written form by this epistles. Hence, if "it matches what the prophets said" then he can only be referrring to Matthew as there is no account in the Old Testament of the transfiguration and the voice of God in regard to His Son.

I agree the contextual development is very easy its a shame that you've missed it altogether. This is the problem when you take a passage out of context and apply your view to it. As in this case. Peter is clear. Our eyewitness is confirmed by the prophets so there is a more sure case. You totally imply a different reading of the passage.

Peter equates "all of his epistles" to be on the same level as "other scriptures."

in this passage?

14So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction

. Its clear from the text that People misinterpret Paul just as they do other scriptures. Now you may get Pauls writings are scripture because of the use of other and I generally would agree with it. However, It can also be taken as comparing the two. In other words the same people who misinterpret scriptures also misintpret paul. Note If all of Pauls writings were scripture all of it would have been retained however we know not all of Pauls writings have been retained thus not all of pauls writings were scripture. that is if you believe God keeps all his scripture for all eternity available to man.

Marcion was an Agnostic.

Yes and he misinterpret paul as Peter suggests others were doing.

You are a perfect illustration of the Catholic monks who villify a person or a whole movement based upon an inappropriate comparison.

Whom have I villified? Certainly Marcion was already a villian to christianity long before I came along. I haven't even villified you. I suggest your taking the text out of context. You are engaged in what is known as pretext. I was comparing the people whom Peter was speaking of. I wasn't comparing you.

We are not going to accomplish anything so let's drop the argument as there is not an objective bone in your body

The proverbial Pot calling the Kettle black. I'm taking the passages in their context. And trying to show you how this is so with out putting in a pretext to view it with.

You first admit that there can be more than one application of Isaiah 8:14-20 and then you proceed to categorically deny any such application in the New Testament.

I'm following the rules that you can't take a word from a text and have it mean its opposite in a different age. Just like Davids psalm 22. David is speaking of himself. Yet each is a prophetic image of the Crucifixion. None of the words have to be interpreted oppositely in its context to meet the requirement for David or Jesus. Yet you try to do this with how testimony is used in Isaiah compared a different word altogether in the NT name gospel. The testimony in Isaiah is judgement the gospel is saving grace. Two opposite conotations.

You totally ignore the fact that it is "my disciples" who are also described in verse 18 which the writer of hebrews (not I) directly quotes and directly applies in context to the apostles and their signs and wonders (Heb. 2:3-4,12-13). How much more clear can it be and yet you will have nothing to do with it and make unfounded and silly charges that it is "forced" when in fact it is as natural as honey in a bee hive.

The Term in Isaiah is used for all faith of YHWH. IT can be seen as all believers in christ to include the apostles. why you limit it to just the 12, I don't know save to make your point.

 

[Dr. Walter]

As usual there is no point in discussing anything substantial with you. I can easily reply to this absolute nonsense but why waste my time on someone who simply wants to appear intelligent? The superficial reading of Hebrews 2:1-13 is about "salvation" and about those who heard Christ and whose words were confirmed by signs and wonders in Israel - THE APOSTLES and whom the writer of Hebrews directly associated Isaiah 8:18 with the Apostles (Heb. 2:13) which context is also a context of salvation (Isa. 8:14-15) and obviously applied by Apostles themselves to Christ (I Pet. 2:8). Why should I continue to argue with a man who chooses to be willfully blind?

I haven't ignored anything. What I have done is explain the original context and how it would have been seen from an apostolic context.

I admit a text can have more than one application but that does not mean I take a text or a word in the text and give it the opposit connotation that it has in the original sense. Prophetic messages or Messianic Messages uses the same words with the same context to site two different periods. For instance Isaiah The word Virgin can mean virgin or young woman. It cannot be taken to mean old harlot in the future context. In both the current context and the future context there verbage has the same meaning applied.


I The Author of Hebrews is not quoting Isaiah in 2:3-4. Note: hebrews Isaiah This is not a direct quote. And the use of signs and symbols has the connotation of the passage I quoted from Psalm 95. In that they were ignored. So, I'm not correcting the writer of hebrews you are attaching a meaning not intended. Note Isaiahs positive connotation of the people being the signs and wonders and note Hebrews negative value of ignoring the signs and wonders. Which refers to what the Lord is saying in psalm 95 This is the textual understanding of what the writers of Hebrews is saying.


Absolutely, forced. Note your interpretation and contexts of the passages are forced with your preconceived idea. Its what most people call reading your theology into the text. Rather than upholding the text itself.


I agree the contextual development is very easy its a shame that you've missed it altogether. This is the problem when you take a passage out of context and apply your view to it. As in this case. Peter is clear. Our eyewitness is confirmed by the prophets so there is a more sure case. You totally imply a different reading of the passage.

in this passage? . Its clear from the text that People misinterpret Paul just as they do other scriptures. Now you may get Pauls writings are scripture because of the use of other and I generally would agree with it. However, It can also be taken as comparing the two. In other words the same people who misinterpret scriptures also misintpret paul. Note If all of Pauls writings were scripture all of it would have been retained however we know not all of Pauls writings have been retained thus not all of pauls writings were scripture. that is if you believe God keeps all his scripture for all eternity available to man.

Yes and he misinterpret paul as Peter suggests others were doing. Whom have I villified? Certainly Marcion was already a villian to christianity long before I came along. I haven't even villified you. I suggest your taking the text out of context. You are engaged in what is known as pretext. I was comparing the people whom Peter was speaking of. I wasn't comparing you.


The proverbial Pot calling the Kettle black. I'm taking the passages in their context. And trying to show you how this is so with out putting in a pretext to view it with.


I'm following the rules that you can't take a word from a text and have it mean its opposite in a different age. Just like Davids psalm 22. David is speaking of himself. Yet each is a prophetic image of the Crucifixion. None of the words have to be interpreted oppositely in its context to meet the requirement for David or Jesus. Yet you try to do this with how testimony is used in Isaiah compared a different word altogether in the NT name gospel. The testimony in Isaiah is judgement the gospel is saving grace. Two opposite conotations.

The Term in Isaiah is used for all faith of YHWH. IT can be seen as all believers in christ to include the apostles. why you limit it to just the 12, I don't know save to make your point.

 

[Dr. Walter]

If there are any on this forum reading this particular thread who really believe that Thinkingstuff has any legitimate arguments against the SECONDARY application that is obvious in the New Testament, I will be most happy to take apart and dismantle his arguments as that is easy to do. However, if none but Catholics are excited about his response then it is a waste of my time to respond as there is no ability to carry on an objective debate with Catholics over this point as no amount of evidence will sway them. The absurd and rediculous reponses by Thinkingstuff is sufficient to prove that point.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

As usual there is no point in discussing anything substantial with you. I can easily reply to this absolute nonsense but why waste my time on someone who simply wants to appear intelligent? The superficial reading of Hebrews 2:1-13 is about "salvation" and about those who heard Christ and whose words were confirmed by signs and wonders in Israel - THE APOSTLES and whom the writer of Hebrews directly associated Isaiah 8:18 with the Apostles (Heb. 2:13) which context is also a context of salvation (Isa. 8:14-15) and obviously applied by Apostles themselves to Christ (I Pet. 2:8). Why should I continue to argue with a man who chooses to be willfully blind?

See this is your Motus Operandi. I am discussing something substantial here. You have an in ability to refute so you take a truth which I haven't said anything about. You're right Hebrews 2:1-13 is about "salvation" and about those who heard Christ and (the apostles) words were confirmed by signs and wonders. I have not in any instance said this was not the case. I did not draw the inferance of Isaiah 8 that you had nor did I equate Testimony to Gospel as the use of both those terms from Isaiah does not match gospel use in the NT. Nor did I deny the apostles did not use Isaiah 8 as a foreshadowing of Christ and the believers to come. Yet because I did not make the same inference that you had for those pasages and clearly and distinctly explain how it is I viewed it you attempt to make me guilty of not accepting the whole thing. That is disingenuous. The fact is I challenged you on your use of testimony how Isaiah used it and how the early writers saw it. I also challenged your view on 2 Peter. Note. I also showed by revealing both text Isaiah and Hebrews how the writer of Hebrews did not make a direct quote and how it was the writers view that the ignoring of the teachings of salvation by the apostles confirmed by signs and wonders was a negative like mentioned in psalm 95. So in essence I afirm the passage in Hebrews as being about salvation. However, since I have a singular disagreement with you about a particular aspect of the text you claim I ignore the whole text. Which in fact I do not. I afirm the text and differ with you on how its viewed. I don't seek to look intelligent after all I'm not the guy holding a Phd or Doctorate in theology, or bible, or anything else. I never claimed it either. I'm not even a pastor. Which means I don't even have an MDiv. But I can read as well as the next guy. Ego is not my thing. However, I wonder if it is yours since you quickly call others "blind". Note I don't do such things to you until I've been agitated enough by your insults to where I respond in like kind.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If there are any on this forum reading this particular thread who really believe that Thinkingstuff has any legitimate arguments against the SECONDARY application that is obvious in the New Testament, I will be most happy to take apart and dismantle his arguments as that is easy to do. However, if none but Catholics are excited about his response then it is a waste of my time to respond as there is no ability to carry on an objective debate with Catholics over this point as no amount of evidence will sway them. The absurd and rediculous reponses by Thinkingstuff is sufficient to prove that point.

See there you go again. Using terms like absurd, and ridiculous, and blind, and Catholic. The fact is you have failed answer sufficiently my responses to you and you result to insult. You have failed to responed sufficiently to Matt Black as well. And again you insult him. How is that proper? I tell you it is not. You can't even draw a proper parrallel with the Use of the word Testimony in Isaiah 8 and equate that with the gospel. You don't follow proper literary rules with regard to how terms are used consistenly in the current as well in future prophesy as all prophesy does. I've given you the scriptures which and how you failed to make your point in each case. As they say in Kiswahili Pole Sana Bwana.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

we rejoice in the midst of our tribulations--knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience , hope: And hope makes not ashamed

 

[Dr. Walter]

See this is your Motus Operandi.

I always wrote it as "modus operandi". Of course my last Latin class was over 35 years ago.

I am discussing something substantial here. You have an in ability to refute so you take a truth which I haven't said anything about. You're right Hebrews 2:1-13 is about "salvation" and about those who heard Christ and (the apostles) words were confirmed by signs and wonders. I have not in any instance said this was not the case. I did not draw the inferance of Isaiah 8 that you had nor did I equate Testimony to Gospel as the use of both those terms from Isaiah does not match gospel use in the NT.

There has never been but one gospel (Gal. 1:6-9) and it is the same Gospel Isaiah preached in Isaiah 53. It is from that chapter the Ethiopian Eunuch was reading and asked of whom was the Prophet speaking and in response Philip began right there and preached unto him "Jesus" (Acts 8). It is this same gospel that Paul identified with in Romans 10:16 in a gospel context. It is the prophet who is included in Acts 10:43 who preached the same gospel of remission of sins that Peter preached. The language in Isaiah 8:14-15 does not contradict the only gospel the Bible knows about as those terms are the prophetic description of Christ and the stumbling block of salvation by faith alone without works. The "law" does not teach another way of justification before God and never has as God never gave the law to justifiy anyone but rather to reveal sin. So your primary position on Isaiah 8:14-20 contradicts the New Testament gospel is wrong. Your interpretation of Isaiah 8:14-15 as contradictory to a new testament gopsel of Christ is wrong. It is the same gospel Isaiah preached in chapter 53 as there is no other gospel.

Nor did I deny the apostles did not use Isaiah 8 as a foreshadowing of Christ and the believers to come.

"my disciples" in the context of Isaiah 8:16 is the same ones described in Isaiah 8:18. He is not speaking of two completely different groups of people but the same historical ones. The writer of Hebrews specifically introduced Hebrews 2 with salvation and historical reference to the twelve apostles in verses 3-4. That historical reference has to do with confirming THEIR WORD with signs and wonders and therefore has a close affinity with the context of Isaiah 8:16-18 between binding up and sealing the Law and Testimony among disciples who also are for "signs and wonders" in Israel. Hebrews 2:12 is a particular prophecy pertaining to Christ and the twelve apostles in Matthew 26 when they sang a hymn in "the church" as that is the only reference in the New Testament where Jesus sang a hymn with his disciples and in the church (congregation).

The writer of Hebrews is quoting from multiple sources and Isaiah 8:18 is one of those sources (Heb. 2:12-13 Psalms and Isaiah). Hebrews 2:13 is quoting almost word for word from Isaiah 8:18 and it takes no genuis to see that clearly. Psalm 95 has for its subject matter chapter 3 not chapter 2 of Hebrews and the phrase you point out in Psalm 95 is merely supportive due to INFERENCE not due to resemblance of the statement already quoted almost verbatim from Isaiah 8:18. So your argument is baseless. Your confounding and confusing the text instead of interpreting it properly.

The writer of Hebrews quotes and applies Isaiah 8:18 in a context where He has already applied "signs and wonders" to the historical 12 apostles in Heb. 2:3-4 that is designed to confirm HIS WORD and He quotes if from a context where it is also in relationship (Isa. 8:18) to "this word" as Isaiah 8:20 refers to Isaiah 8:16 as "this Word." You cannot get a more harmonious relationship between two different contexts than this. To respond that the writer of Hebrews did not quote it EXACTLY would disqualify half of the Messanic quotations in the New Testament where we know for a fact that they are being directly applied to Christ by New Testament writers. Your arguments are simply that - arguments!

I also challenged your view on 2 Peter. Note.

Where do the prophets record the transfiguration the mount that Peter was eyewitness to?????? Only Matthew records this account outside of Peter.

Peter's intent for writing what was previously ORAL was to insure they did not forget it but remembered it after his passing (vv. 13-15). The "more sure word" is the prophecy that is put in WRITING as verses 19-21 cannot possibly be applied to ORAL tradition! His point is simple, I want you to remember what was previously revealed to you ORALLY, so to make sure of that, I am putting it into writing as the WRITTEN word is "more sure" than oral communicated traditions. That is claiming that his present writing is equally inspiried by God with those by Prophets in the past (vv. 19-21). Why is this so hard for you to get? Doesn't Paul make this very claim about his own epistles in 1 Thes. 2:13?

13 ¶ For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

2 Thes. 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Why do you find it difficult to believe that Peter would make the same claim for himself and for the epistles of Paul??????

Common sense tells you that oral tradition depends upon an accurate memorization whereas the written word does not require memory but is put down in black and white. However, this very claim is equal to the claim he makes concerning "in all the epistles" of Paul to be as "other scriptures." You can argue about which epistles but the bottom line is that "all the epistles" Peter has in mind he considers to be equal to "other scriptures."

 

[Dr. Walter]

The passage that got the interest of the Early Writers were the use of these terms Contextually, the initial recepients of this prophesy would have understood this to mean that God himself because of the covenant (ie the Law) which the Isrealites failed to fulfill would suffer the consequences of not following the Law. The early Christian writers of this text would see how Jesus would correlate with this because of his afrontery in his nature and the people could not accept him. In much the same manner their ancestor would not participate in the law of the covenant. This passage which follows initial intent of the term testimony is the prophesy of coming destruction. Sealing up the Law among his disciples were those that were faithful to the covenant requirements of YHWH. To take this term "testimony" and mean something entirely different "Salvation by Grace" or the Gospel goes against the rules of dual prophetic meanings. Rather I think Destruction of Judaism in AD 70 and the Judaic offerings is more appropriate. And binding the law upon the heart of his disciples I believe as in Isaiah would extend to all believers in the New Covenant. To take a term and have an opposite connotation works against the "messianic prophetic" words which are presented by the prophets. It would certainly confuse the Jews.

The historical background is the threat posed by Samaria and Damascus against Judah. Many in Judah were frightful and wanted Judah to form an alliance with Egypt in order to protect herself. Isaiah predicts that Assyria would overthrow both Samaria and Damascus and that Judah should not seek a confederacy with Egypt but trust in the Lord to defend them.

More particularly, Isaiah places before them the hope of Israel in the coming Messiah King (Isa. 8:10 "God with us" -lit. immanuel) earlier identified as "immanuel" (Isa. 7:14) and later described as "the mighty God" (Isa. 9:6). This is graphically illustrated by the Prophet going into the prophetess and conceiving a son as a type of this Messanic promise.

The hope he places before them is in the covenant promise unto Abraham about the promised seed, the covenant promise given to Eve, the seed of the Woman represented in the covenant name of God (YHWH).
However, in verse 10 Isaiah uses the Hebrew term "immanuel" which the KJV translates "God with us" with reference back to the Messanic promise in Isaiah 7:14 and it is with this Messanic term he introduces the hope of Judah in the face of a union between the armies of Samaria and Assyria against Judah.

The New Testament writers would see this whole passage exactly in the light that Isaiah presents the hope of Israel in the promised Messiah. If they trusted in the Lord, the Lord would be a stone of help, a sanctuary of protection to those who trusted in him but he would be a rock of offence and a stone of stumbling toward the wicked and unbelieving. The historical application had in view the immediate threat of destruction but the ultimate application even in Isaiah's mind was judgement day. Isaiah was speaking to the essential trust in Christ (Messiah) as the hope of Israel as "the Mighty God" even then in view of temporal troubles as well as eternal destruction and judgement to come.

Isaiah 8:16 historically is the command to bind up and seal the testimony just given in verses 10-15 concerning the Messanic Hope. This would be the final authority to himself and his own disciples instead of the confederacy by those who would not place their faith in the messanic hope. This would be the final authority to himself and His disciples instead of any other revelation by any other sources (v. 19). His hope and the hope of His disciples would be confined to this law and to this testimony and they would simply wait and look to the Lord for deliverance (v. 17) and as such, He and his disciples in their stedfast reliance upon this testimony would be for signs and wonders within Israel and anyone who spoke contrary "to this word" (v. 20) - the word of hope in Christ as the rock, the hiding place, the refuge in time of trouble, has no light in them.

This historical application fit perfectly with Jesus Christ and the work Christ gave to His apostles (Jn. 14-17; Heb. 2:3-4,12-13; 1 Pet. 2:6-8) to finish written revelation. John the last living apostles not only viewed his final book as "the Word and the Testimony" (Rev. 1:2) but the whole of scripture as Messanic which is the spirit of prophecy (Rev. 19:10) and sealed it (Rev. 22:18-19) thus attesting it as the final authority while looking for the next revelation coming from heaven, the personal return of Christ (Rev. 22:20).

 

[quantumfaith]

If there are any on this forum reading this particular thread who really believe that Thinkingstuff has any legitimate arguments against the SECONDARY application that is obvious in the New Testament, I will be most happy to take apart and dismantle his arguments as that is easy to do. However, if none but Catholics are excited about his response then it is a waste of my time to respond as there is no ability to carry on an objective debate with Catholics over this point as no amount of evidence will sway them. The absurd and rediculous reponses by Thinkingstuff is sufficient to prove that point.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

How much time have already wasted?

 

[Dr. Walter]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

How much time have already wasted?

So, do you reject the Scriptures as final authority for faith and practice??? No one else has been able to overthrow the evidence I have given for Isaiah 8:14-20. Do you have anything of subststance to add?

 

[quantumfaith]

So, do you reject the Scriptures as final authority for faith and practice??? No one else has been able to overthrow the evidence I have given for Isaiah 8:14-20. Do you have anything of subststance to add?

No, Dr. Walter I do not. In fact, I probably find myself in agreement with you at least occasionally. What I do not " agree" with is the posture and attitude you take toward other believers in Christ, who just happen to have opposing theological interpretations, and differing doctrinal stances than do you. You sometimes (often) come across as the "playground bully" who must always be correct. That posture and attitude is not concomitant with someone holding a (Ph.D, Th.D, or D.Min) whatever degree it is that you hold. Being a bit "kindler and gentler" would do wonders toward a more meaningful, robust and rewarding discussion of positions.

 

[targus]

However, if none but Catholics are excited about his response then it is a waste of my time to respond as there is no ability to carry on an objective debate with Catholics over this point as no amount of evidence will sway them. The absurd and rediculous reponses by Thinkingstuff is sufficient to prove that point.

What Catholics?

It is my understanding that Catholics are not allowed on the board.

And Thingstuff is not Catholic.

So you have even less of an ability to carry on an objective debate with Catholics here than you think.