Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
This passage is about the origin of prophecy, rather than it's interpretation.Peter disagrees with the premise that the Bible allows room for different interpretations on prophecy in 2 Pet. 1:20 where he says "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation". The prophets and apostles all agree on prophecy just like they agree on biblical law because they were led by the same God. Failure to align one's self with the proper understanding of prophecy means beings unaligned with God.
That's what I am saying. It is not talking about there being no private interpretations of Scripture, which there are plenty. Private interpretation literally means : own ideas or personal expounding.Do you know . . . that's not actually what this passage is talking about?
Peter is talking not about how the hearer of a prophecy is not to just have their own ideas about it. What he's saying is that prophecy didn't come from the prophet's own ideas.
That is a very different thing.
2 Peter 1:19-21 EMTV
19) And we have the prophetic word made more sure, which you do well to heed, as a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;
20) knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture comes about from one's own interpretation,
21) for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke, being brought along by the Holy Spirit.
Much love!
The statement stands with or without the spiritual teaching applied with it. And we know it stands on it's own as a point of law of Christ, because it can be confirmed by other Scriptures that state drunkenness as sin, along with fornication, etc...Its really hard to take you seriously when you say, "there is no context nor full scripture needed" right after you partially quoted a scripture AND missed the true meaning of the passage.
Well said!That's what I am saying. It is not talking about there being no private interpretations of Scripture, which there are plenty. Private interpretation literally means : own ideas or personal expounding.
But rather that we ought not preach our private interpretation as Scripture, even as the Scriptures themselves came not by private interpretation and will of man.
The Scriptures neither came not by the mind of Moses, nor by the minds of the prophets and the apostles; likewise no prophesying or preaching of Scripture should come from any minister's own mind.
When we do so, we make our minds the mind of Christ, rather than having His mind by believing Scripture only. We make our word into God's Word, and if believed and obeyed by them that hear, then we become Head and Christ: a false christ. A false apostle.
Especially when teaching commandment and law and rule of Christ. That is where Paul said many people don't know what they are talking about and making things worse than better. It is also the very door entered by serpent into the garden. He knew at least Eve had begun to believe her own mind or that of Adam, in that God commanded not to touch it.
Not touching the fruit was a personal rule put into place, no doubt as some kind of safety measure, or zero-tolerance policy, and it became a snare when speaking of what God actually says and commands vs what men only think about it...
Ok. However, 'he is not a Jew' that is one outwardly only, but 'he is a Jew' that is one inwardly by the Spirit.There’s no such thing as a Jew.
Galatians 3:28 KJV
[28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
That is probably one of the most mature things any believer can say. You would literally put even your most cherished ideas, beliefs, and traditions, even from mother and father and friend, to be proved against Scripture.Well said!
Any thought in my mind can be verified against the Bible. It's so very important to know all that the Bible says.
Much love!
AMEN!!That is probably one of the most mature things any believer can say. You would literally put even your most cherished ideas, beliefs, and traditions, even from mother and father and friend, to be proved against Scripture.
You'll never be deceived by another, when you won't let yourself be deceived by your own mind.
We should always come to the Scriptures as a little child, ready to just read and take it as literally as possible, and say, not my mind, but thine be mine, O Lord.
He came to the Jews that were Jews indeed in the Old Covenant, and He also came to the Gentiles, that were Gentiles indeed, until any believed the new Covenant.Romans 1:16 (NKJV)
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
Hmm
None. Neither with being an Israelite. Paul was all three: Kinsmen Jews, Israel after the flesh, and Hebrew of the Hebrews.What's the difference between Jew and Hebrew?
Jews were first so name in Scripture in 2 Kings 16 with the Syrian siege.That is a good way to take things out of context. While no distinctions apply within the Church regarding Jews and Gentiles, there is very definitely a group of people known as "Jews" (since 70 AD). They were dispersed from Israel and went to Europe, and after 1948, there was a huge number of Jews who went to Israel. There were also a few Jews which remained in Palestine (and other Middle Eastern countries). But there were also many Jews throughout the Roman empire.
God's plan was rejected, when His Son was rejected. The crucifixion and death of God the Son was not just a blip in the history of the 'Jews'.Context is based upon facts, not fantasy. It is false and misleading to try and apply what is applicable to the Body of Christ to what God has planned for Jews as descended from the twelve tribes of Israel.
Context is based upon facts, not fantasy. It is false and misleading to try and apply what is applicable to the Body of Christ to what God has planned for Jews as descended from the twelve tribes of Israel.
They were Jews before Babylon when the Syrian besieged Jerusalem. Pula uses Jew, Hebrew, and Israel freely intermixed.Hebrews were all the descendants of Eber, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But after the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, those who returned to Palestine (primarily Judah) were mostly from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. "Jew" is from the Hebrew "Yehudi" (Judahite). Later, all of Israel's people were called Jews.
You are STILL doing it! If you are going to preach the WORD, preach it as it says! But you have already admitted context isn't important and full scripture isn't important. The sad thing is that you could've STILL made your point by preaching it right. You still have a problem, but I can't even address that until you get this verse right.The statement stands with or without the spiritual teaching applied with it. And we know it stands on it's own as a point of law of Christ, because it can be confirmed by other Scriptures that state drunkenness as sin, along with fornication, etc...
The full teaching is to be filled with the Spirit in the new life of Christ rather than be drunk with wine as with the old man of sin. I.e. it's not a verse of Scripture who's primary purpose is to forbid getting drunk, but it certainly begins as a statement of that fact.
Now, are you saying being drunk with wine is ok, when not being filled with the Spirit?
I know that people today insist on Jews still being the seed and people of promise to Abraham, and I also understand it is concretely mixed with their favorite prophecies of the last days, but still I don't know how they can see on any flesh of man, other than those in Christ, that are special with God.Precisely, Paul an Apostle of Christ sees himself as a part of the body, not dividing the body by gender race or social status. Your statements imply all of the above.
I see it more as a slap in God's face as if He would break His promises. He said He'd come back to save them, why should we think that not so?It's pretty much a slap in the face to Jesus, that they demand He go back to the Jews one more last and completely final time, when He did so the first time, and they rejected Him and had Him crucified.
You are STILL doing it!You are STILL doing it! If you are going to preach the WORD, preach it as it says! But you have already admitted context isn't important and full scripture isn't important. The sad thing is that you could've STILL made your point by preaching it right. You still have a problem, but I can't even address that until you get this verse right.
Very timely that someone started a thread by misquoting or paraphrasing Matthew 4:4. Lord have mercy on me, but I am going to do the same to illustrate absurdity:
Matthew 4:4 KJV
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread.
No context needed, right? No full scripture needed, right? I quoted the Bible word for word. It says that, but there is a huge problem, isn't there?
Save who?I see it more as a slap in God's face as if He would break His promises. He said He'd come back to save them, why should we think that not so?
Much love!