How to interpret the scripture?

[JLB]

Gosh J,,,, I know you don't think Jesus was calling Peter satan.
The above might lead some to think that you do.

Jesus was referring to the thinking that Peter had...he was being influenced by satan. He was just being human and didn't want Jesus to die. Jesus could not be tempted by satan, but Peter could and he did not want to accept that Jesus had to die.

Jesus was speaking to satan in Matthew 16:23a and to Peter in Matthew 16:23b.

Another point in this is, when we have ears to hear God and be influenced by Him, we also have ears to other spirits, who desire to influence as well.



JLB

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, but the above does not explain why we have St. Peter's Basilica in Rome and not St. Paul's Basilica.

wondering,

That's a human invented structure that was allegedly based on Matt 16:18.

It seems to me that Paul was the most influential in developing the theology of the new religion.

I agree. Why should that deter us from supporting that teaching?

WHY did Jesus die on the cross?

The basis is in Lev 17:11 (NIV): 'For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life'.

Atonement by shedding blood was God's way of cleansing for sin. However, that meant the tradition had to be done over and over to obtain atonement. Jesus' death put an end to that by one shedding of blood for cleansing of sin

Heb 10:1-4 (NIV) explains why the Law was not adequate for the permanent cleansing of sin:

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins.t It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.​

WHY leave the law? What did it mean to be saved? Jesus never really spoke of these ideas.

We must move from the Old Covenant Law to the New Covenant for 'it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins'.

• Jesus did speak of salvation: 'I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish' Lk 13:3 NIV). Many of our English translations conceal the fact of Jesus speaking about salvation with statements such as:
• The prostitute who repented washed Jesus' feet with tears. Jesus' response to this action was, 'Your faith has saved you' (Luke 7:50). Other examples can be found in Mark 10:52 and Luke 17:19.

In Luke 17:15-19 in the story of the 10 lepers who were healed, it states:

One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice. He threw himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him – and he was a Samaritan.​

Jesus asked, ‘Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? Has no one returned to give praise to God except this foreigner?’ Then he said to him, ‘Rise and go; your faith has made you well.’​

The word translated 'has made you well' (NIV) is the Greek, swzw, which is the regular word for 'saved' or 'made well'.

What could be clearer than this from Matt 10:22 (NIV): 'You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved'? See also:Matt 19:25; 24:13; Mk 10:26; 13:13; Lk 8:12; 18:26; Jn 5:32; 10:9 where swzw means 'to be saved, attain salvation' (Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich Greek Lexicon 1957:806).

The evidence I've provided above demonstrates Jesus did speak of salvation.

What did he mean when he said: '‘Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life' (Matt 25: 46 NIV). Does this have anything to do with salvation or no salvation?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

​

Again, I don't know how we could be absolutely sure especially in view of the fact that the gospels were written so many years after Jesus died.​

​

wondering,

We need to understand a fundamental difference between empirical science (observation and repeatability) and historical science that uses historical criteria to determine the reliability of any historical document. We must not impose the presuppositions of empirical science on historical science. They are 2 very different disciplines.

The nature of historical science means that it is more difficult to be confident of the accuracy of a document, the further one is removed from that document. However, by historical standards, the original NT documents are close to the time of writing.

We cannot be 100% sure of the accuracy of any writing from history, including the Bible.

I've applied these criteria to the resurrection of Jesus in: Evidence for the afterlife

I have a further question for you: What evidence do we have for when the Gospel of Mark was written?

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

We need to understand a fundamental difference between empirical science (observation and repeatability) and historical science that uses historical criteria to determine the reliability of any historical document. We must not impose the presuppositions of empirical science on historical science. They are 2 very different disciplines.

The nature of historical science means that it is more difficult to be confident of the accuracy of a document, the further one is removed from that document. However, by historical standards, the original NT documents are close to the time of writing.

We cannot be 100% sure of the accuracy of any writing from history, including the Bible.

I've applied these criteria to the resurrection of Jesus in: Evidence for the afterlife

I have a further question for you: What evidence do we have for when the Gospel of Mark was written?

Oz

Hi Oz....
I read your article, BTW....evidence for the afterlife.
Made hubby read it too...he's also reading the bible!

As to the gospel of Mark.....
The writings of all the gospels are matched with what they mention regarding historical events and when those events happend. For instance, if the destruction of Jerusalem is mentioned...it would have been written after 70 AD. I don't know the specifics for Mark and would have to look it up. Which is not difficult to do.

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz....
I read your article, BTW....evidence for the afterlife.
Made hubby read it too...he's also reading the bible!

As to the gospel of Mark.....
The writings of all the gospels are matched with what they mention regarding historical events and when those events happend. For instance, if the destruction of Jerusalem is mentioned...it would have been written after 70 AD. I don't know the specifics for Mark and would have to look it up. Which is not difficult to do.

wondering,

I hope the article on the afterlife reaches the heart of your husband.

As for dating the Gospels, in a remarkable book by J A T Robinson, Redating the New Testament (available online), he concludes that all of the NT books were written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. However, he adds this qualifier, 'All the statements of this book should be taken as questions. It certainly makes no claim to represent a conclusive redating of the New Testament'.

Towards the end of the publication, he gives a list of NT books and their approx. dates. He placed James as the earliest.

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

I hope the article on the afterlife reaches the heart of your husband.

As for dating the Gospels, in a remarkable book by J A T Robinson, Redating the New Testament (available online), he concludes that all of the NT books were written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. However, he adds this qualifier, 'All the statements of this book should be taken as questions. It certainly makes no claim to represent a conclusive redating of the New Testament'.

Towards the end of the publication, he gives a list of NT books and their approx. dates. He placed James as the earliest.

Oz

Something is happening....
He read John and Acts in 4 days.
He never asks questions and I'm not pushing...
A couple of times I made him take note of a verse or two
that I really like...like Gamaliel in Acts 5.

I'm not sure how important dating is except that it's something for scholars to work on, and it's not bad.

There are so many questions regarding the N.T....I've just accepted that we need to read it, trust the Apostles testimony and then move on. We don't even have any of the original writings. But, as attested to by the ECFs also, it does seem that all the important concepts have been written about and discrepancies are for minor events....which really shows how honest the writings are.

 

[OzSpen]

Something is happening....
He read John and Acts in 4 days.
He never asks questions and I'm not pushing...
A couple of times I made him take note of a verse or two
that I really like...like Gamaliel in Acts 5.

I'm not sure how important dating is except that it's something for scholars to work on, and it's not bad.

There are so many questions regarding the N.T....I've just accepted that we need to read it, trust the Apostles testimony and then move on. We don't even have any of the original writings. But, as attested to by the ECFs also, it does seem that all the important concepts have been written about and discrepancies are for minor events....which really shows how honest the writings are.

wondering,

You know your hubby and I don't. Since he doesn't ask questions of what he read, why don't you pose questions of him from John & Acts. Here are a couple. Only you can decide if they are appropriate.

1. Quote John 3:16. What does that mean for you personally?
2. Where will you be one minute after your last breath, based on ...
3. John 3:36, 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them' (NIV).
4. Acts 4:12 states, 'There is salvation in no one else! God has given no other name under heaven [than Jesus] by which we must be saved' (NLT).

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

You know your hubby and I don't. Since he doesn't ask questions of what he read, why don't you pose questions of him from John & Acts. Here are a couple. Only you can decide if they are appropriate.

1. Quote John 3:16. What does that mean for you personally?
2. Where will you be one minute after your last breath, based on ...
3. John 3:36, 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them' (NIV).
4. Acts 4:12 states, 'There is salvation in no one else! God has given no other name under heaven [than Jesus] by which we must be saved' (NLT).

Oz

Oz, the above are all good questions, of course.
The thing is: I've been witnessing to hubby for about 40 years now. He knows the answers to the above...the problem is that they have to be accepted. He was raised as an atheist and the very fact that he's reading the bible is like a miracle to me.
Please keep him in your prayers. His name is Juliano.

 

[Prycejosh1987]

Interpretation comes from spiritual growth. the more spiritual we become and the more in tune we become we God the more likely we are in finding true meaning to scripture.