Rome and Finished Revelation

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

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.

"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!

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."

 

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).

 

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?