Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
You are absolutely right about needing teachers and footnotes to come to a proper understanding. Notice the BOLD S? Of course, this was a "Freudian slip" of sorts on your part. In the Local Church of Witness Lee only ONE TEACHER counts, and ONE SET OF FOOTNOTES counts. You know that, but you tried to be politically correct. Nice try.
|
If my source is Witness Lee why am I posting from Don Stewart and Prof Daniel Wallace etc? The stuff I post is not "from Google", that is just a search engine to find the sources and I stay away from the nutters like Jesus-is-savior .com and other KJV-only and conspiracy sites.
The verse you posted says that Paul reasoned from the Scriptures. That is already well established that the Scripture was used. But for Paul to explain about Christ crucified - they did not have the New Testament nor would the Jews have considered it or Paul to be authoritative. This is the extra-biblical revelation Paul was presenting to them.
He would have said something like "There was this man who died a few weeks (months?) ago and he rose from the dead. He is the Messiah that is foretold in the Scripture". Some may have said, "really? But he was a sinner, I saw him eat and drink with tax collectors". Others may have said "he was just a criminal like the rest". So Paul did have to convince them that this guy called Jesus was in fact the Messiah.
There was nothing in their Old Testament that explained everything. They still had to take a leap of faith based upon Paul's words, and could not rely solely upon what the Old Testament said. Unless they were witnesses to the resurrection themselves, they'd have to believe Paul that Christ actually rose from the dead and was not hidden away by his disciples.
An error of the OP is the view that himself and his overly literal interpretation will give him more accuracy than consulting biblical footnote, commentaries etc.
For example his view that in Revelation the woman is Israel and not the Church is already diverging from mainstream protestant, Catholic and Orthodox belief.
In any case,
unless you have some kind of proof that the Bereans believed in sola-scriptura and that was the reason they were "more noble", the Bereans were just oral and written -tradition Jews like everyone else.
I note that you are not trying to refute this position, not even using Google. It seems your word alone is authoritative without providing any sources. All you can do is say how I interpret everything according to Lee and saying I am clueless.