It's apparent that you couldn't find your biblical backside with both hands. Matt. 20:16 refers to the quotation of Jesus that "The first shall be last, and the last shall be first." This, too, is an ordinal of place, not of time.
You have a way of playing with verses.
I Corinthians 4:9 is different from matthew 20:16
I Corinthians 4:9 is CLEARLY talking of ordinal of time, because Paul shouldn't have said "as it were appointed to death" if he was not talking of ordinal of time.
And it is true,
Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
What is apparent is, your scholarsip has led you to believe that you are what you think you are.
The King James language there is a little confusing. I prefer the NRSV, which, as far as translations go, is considered to be, by most Biblical scholars, superior to the King James. it has little to do with what I think.
Well just because most biblical scholars considered NSRV superior over KJV, do you think that would be enough to nullify KJV as a whole?
Not so. Got my information from several noteable commentaries (Interpreter's Bible, Anchor Bible Commentary, etc.) Sorry to disappoint you.
Sorry mister i'm not. So you base your scholarship to commentaries?
Information on which you think is accurate?
Did you study each bible commentary to be correct? I doubt
Logs and specks...
Assigning meaning and then using scripture the way you want is easy ... too easy. However, having scripture inform one's intepretation in order to form meaning is ... exegesis.
Where did I assign meaning? I let scriptures answer for itself.
The problem with you is your stuck with what you believe, that scriptures need's scholarship. And there is no biblical account that early christians need's scholarship. Or neither there was a hint that in latter time that you need one.
That is why Pharisees and Saducees with there pride as high as heaven can not accept Jesus teaching because they knew who Jesus was, a carpenter.
And Sojourner is Pharisees in our own time.
'K. Who is "we?" Since John's gospel can be dated to around the year 100 c.e., there is very little chance that it was written by someone who witnessed Jesus' ministry, which ended 70 years before. Even if the witness was 20, he'd be 90 by the time he wrote the gospel, which, in that time and place, was highly unlikely.
The gospels do not, themselves, name authorship. The authorships were added by later redactors, probably in order to lend the writings authenticity. Or, they could have been written pseudonymously -- a very common practice in those days. In any case, there simply is no clear evidence in the texts, themselves, that they were written by apostles.
Again, this is not my conjecture, it is the considered opinion of Biblical scholars (as well as anthropological common sense.)
And you considered OPINION of biblical scholars as your belief?
What happen to your scholarship?
And i thought you have that very little
CLEAR evidence.
Clear- understood without confusion or uncertainty.
And I think
an opinion is not clear evidence.
This is nothing but a knee-jerk rant. What I'm saying is that one does not gain the ability to interpret magically, just because one is under salvific grace. One still has to do the scholastic and interpretive leg work. But then, it appears that you don't want to have a leg to stand on...
Oh c'mon Sojourner your just saying that cause you can't answer my question straight?
Having then gifts differing
according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy,
let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
Ok i'll ask you again?
Can they teach if they did not recieve the gift of grace?
Did they receive a scholarship or did they recieve grace to understand scriptures
Those who teach are they not under the grace which is given to them?
Are you mocking early christian because they are under God's grace when they teach and prophesy?
And then here you are saying "one does not gain the ability to interpret magically, just because one is under salvific grace"
They
did teach and prohesized under God's grace Sojourner, so what are you talking about magically interpreting. Answer me did they teach or not?
They did not go to scholarship and do interpretative leg work, to teach and prophesy.
They do it with God's grace and help for them to teach and prophesuzed which
for you Sojourner is not enough.
I may not have a scholarship and whatever leg work your saying,
But as long as I fear the Lord and turn from His reproof that would be more than enough to trample scholarship of men.
In the book of proverbs,
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge..
Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
I dont see scholarship there, do you?
And as for trusting so much for your scholarship,
Jer 17:5
Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
You
trust men by there opinions and commentaries and maketh flesh and arm, you do not trust God by saying grace is insufficient.
For you(Sojourner)
One need's scholarship of men because you think one is not able to interpret magically just because they are under God's grace. In short grace is insufficient.
Curse be the man that trustheth in man, and maketh flesh his arm.
And you exactly fit right into it.:yes:
Peter was there when Jesus walked the earth. We are not. You bet Peter used scholars to interpret the scriptures that were extant -- he was illiterate. He was not a Rabbi.
Since we are looking at documents that are 2000 years old, from a different culture, written in different languages, and coming to us through a series of redactions, you bet we use scholarship to determine what was meant.
You did not answer my question,
Was Peter a scholar?
Did he study to understand the words of God?
Is he educated in the bible like the Pharisees and Saducees?
Pharisees and Saducees are scholar's of the scriptures. But did they come to the knowledge of truth?
Scholarship you say, you badly needed one especially your belittling God's grace.
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Did you come to the knowledge of truth?:no:
Exegetical scholarship and understanding is a different animal from the wisdom your Biblical passages speak of. Scholarship is not an end in itself -- it's a tool to help us toward the end, which is wisdom (unless you just happen to be in it for the intellectual exercise -- which I'm clearly not).
Ok if you think that scholarship for you is a tool from the end.
Then let me ask you this,
Which is important, you fall into God's grace for understanding or scholarship of men to come to understanding?
No matter how many colleges and scholarship you have, If God won't make known his words to you, you will never come to the knowledge of truth.
Do you agree with this?
My definition and use of the word "grace" is very tight here. Grace is the state of having been reconciled to God. In that state, yes, we prophesy, and understand, etc. But it is not the grace, itself that causes it. Grace makes it possible for our scholarship to take on greater meaning, thereby giving us wisdom.
there is a difference between exegesis and wisdom. Exegesis helps lead us to wisdom, but cannot take the place of wisdom.
That's it "MY definition of grace". At least I know why you have deviated from the truth.
Why do you have to make it so hard to understand,
They are under God's grace, they received it. And they did happen to teach and prophesy.
It cause them to teach and prophesized.
Scholarship is not needed when your under God's grace for understanding, and grace is sufficient enough to teach and prophesized.
Why do i say so?
Because I trust God, not men.:yes:
And if I trust in God am I in error?