R
rdclmn7
Guest
The only part of the new testament that was available at the time of Paul's writing was little more than Mark, which may have been written but not distributed throughout the church.
That leaves him with only the old testament as a source.
That left him with Nu 10 which regulated the use of the two ceremonial trumpets made of hammered silver.
The ceremonial use included;
- times of rejoicing
- appointed feasts
- new moon festivals
- over sacrificial offerings.
Of course, there is the matter of what did Paul use as a basis for his statement on the last trumpet.
This brings us to an important decision,
what do you accept as authoritive?
the scripture that regulates the use of trumpets?
the accumulated commentaries that demonstrate that in actual use, the did it another way?
Paul's use of precedent?
Paul's inspiration without scripture?
If you use scripture as a basis, you get biblical results.
Commentaries are not meant to have the same authority as scripture.
The use of precedent lets you find any given topic and see it develop throughout scripture.
Divine inspiration is subject to the verse in 1John 5;7, "there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one.
The spirit cannot contradict the word.
The idea of being inspired without the word, isn't biblical.
The situation described by Paul in a local church demonstrated that when they would meet, there would be psalms, interpretations, doctrine, prophecy, etc...
The context is that of the sharing of the old testament, each activity described is compatible with this scenario.
So, you have the process of inspiration based on scripture described with texts, you also have a situation where it is happening on a regular basis.
In the old testament, the following people are vivid examples of the same process;
1. Isaiah, a courtier is concious of the economic might of Tyre and then sees into the future.
2. Daniel is part of the first exile, he is described as a child who learns Chaldean and other languages necessary for the running the empire he is now part of.
This is why the first and second part of the book are different in language and style.
Every move he made was known to his people, he would later learn hebrew and then be able to write about his new prophetic ministry, along with the perspective that reflects his age, and experience.
3. Jeremiah was at least 5 when Josiah brought about the reforms that resulted in the last revival.
He would also witness the falling away of this same generation before the fall of Jerusalem 30 years later. "this generation shall not pass..."
4. Ezekiel would see visions that he would recognize as levitical in origin, which would serve as the basis for his ministry.
The point to this is that each prophet had something that they would use as the basis for their ministries, be it dreams, visions, experiences and scripture.
It also applies to those that are familiar with the concept of ministerial annointing.
Its not the individual that is supported, its the word that he preaches and is subject to.
That leaves him with only the old testament as a source.
That left him with Nu 10 which regulated the use of the two ceremonial trumpets made of hammered silver.
The ceremonial use included;
- times of rejoicing
- appointed feasts
- new moon festivals
- over sacrificial offerings.
Of course, there is the matter of what did Paul use as a basis for his statement on the last trumpet.
This brings us to an important decision,
what do you accept as authoritive?
the scripture that regulates the use of trumpets?
the accumulated commentaries that demonstrate that in actual use, the did it another way?
Paul's use of precedent?
Paul's inspiration without scripture?
If you use scripture as a basis, you get biblical results.
Commentaries are not meant to have the same authority as scripture.
The use of precedent lets you find any given topic and see it develop throughout scripture.
Divine inspiration is subject to the verse in 1John 5;7, "there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one.
The spirit cannot contradict the word.
The idea of being inspired without the word, isn't biblical.
The situation described by Paul in a local church demonstrated that when they would meet, there would be psalms, interpretations, doctrine, prophecy, etc...
The context is that of the sharing of the old testament, each activity described is compatible with this scenario.
So, you have the process of inspiration based on scripture described with texts, you also have a situation where it is happening on a regular basis.
In the old testament, the following people are vivid examples of the same process;
1. Isaiah, a courtier is concious of the economic might of Tyre and then sees into the future.
2. Daniel is part of the first exile, he is described as a child who learns Chaldean and other languages necessary for the running the empire he is now part of.
This is why the first and second part of the book are different in language and style.
Every move he made was known to his people, he would later learn hebrew and then be able to write about his new prophetic ministry, along with the perspective that reflects his age, and experience.
3. Jeremiah was at least 5 when Josiah brought about the reforms that resulted in the last revival.
He would also witness the falling away of this same generation before the fall of Jerusalem 30 years later. "this generation shall not pass..."
4. Ezekiel would see visions that he would recognize as levitical in origin, which would serve as the basis for his ministry.
The point to this is that each prophet had something that they would use as the basis for their ministries, be it dreams, visions, experiences and scripture.
It also applies to those that are familiar with the concept of ministerial annointing.
Its not the individual that is supported, its the word that he preaches and is subject to.
