Using only what is found in the Tanakh, please demonstrate that the twenty-seven books which make up the New Testament, and only those books, need to be added to what is called 'scripture' or 'the scriptures'.
Numbers Chapter 14Using only what is found in the Tanakh, please demonstrate that the twenty-seven books which make up the New Testament, and only those books, need to be added to what is called 'scripture' or 'the scriptures'.
Using only what is found in the Tanakh, please demonstrate that the twenty-seven books which make up the New Testament, and only those books, need to be added to what is called 'scripture' or 'the scriptures'.
Cool...Please tell us the reason then?Neither response is a description of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament or a claim that scripture is going to be made longer.
Using only what is found in the Tanakh, please demonstrate that the twenty-seven books which make up the New Testament, and only those books, need to be added to what is called 'scripture' or 'the scriptures'.
Nothing in the book of Numbers or Jeremiah tells me that Paul's letter to the Colossians is to be treated as scriptural but that Shepherd of Hermas is not. Neither even mentions an additional set of writings that are to be given the status of 'scripture'.
Come to think of it, when 'the scriptures' appears in the book of Acts and 'scripture' appears in the second epistle of Timothy, nothing there suggests that they are referring to anything additional to the Hebrew scriptures.
The Torah is part of the Tanakh, not something separate from it.
It is absurd to say that the 53rd chapter of Isaiah refers to Jesus. It does not even refer to a messiah. Chapters 52 to 54 are about Israel.
Using anything besides the Tanakh to give legitimacy to the New Testament as scripture requires that something else to prove its own legitimacy. That Paul's writings were treated as scripture by a New Testament writer is not sufficient grounds, neither is an appeal to 'the Holy Spirit', unless you want to get to the back of the queue of cults and sects each claiming their own personal revelation which you are supposed to accept.
You are revealed now as a Judaizer or disbeliever in Christ in general, and it's quite understandable why you would post such things.
Synagogues read the Law alound in Hebrew once a year, plus a selection from the Prophets. The Law is emphasized, quite a separate collection of 5 books of Moses. That collection is stand-alone. Christians usually emphasize the Prophets collection in conjunction with fulfilled prophecy in the New Testament, and the Scriptures (Writings). The Tanakh was added to the Torah collection right up until Malachi.The Torah is part of the Tanakh, not something separate from it.
Using only what is found in the Tanakh, please demonstrate that the twenty-seven books which make up the New Testament, and only those books, need to be added to what is called 'scripture' or 'the scriptures'.
Mr Young...According to your bio you re not even born again...What understanding of Gods Word can you possibly have...You study the word intellectually but its a spirit thing no matter what some may tell you. We worship Him in SPIRIT and in truth....Learning about him, and getting to know Him is a form of worship. John 4:24The Torah is part of the Tanakh, not something separate from it.
It is absurd to say that the 53rd chapter of Isaiah refers to Jesus. It does not even refer to a messiah. Chapters 52 to 54 are about Israel.
Using anything besides the Tanakh to give legitimacy to the New Testament as scripture requires that something else to prove its own legitimacy. That Paul's writings were treated as scripture by a New Testament writer is not sufficient grounds, neither is an appeal to 'the Holy Spirit', unless you want to get to the back of the queue of cults and sects each claiming their own personal revelation which you are supposed to accept.
David, are you saying that you did not find a prediction about a messiah? Or about Jesus? I'm sorry. I find your writing style to be a bit vague.I recently read the Bible in its entirety, for the second time, and an explicit prediction of a messiah came fourth in the list of things I didn't find which various groups are convinced I should have found.
There is quite a lot about what the Jews believed was going to happen when their God made his return, and someone sitting on the throne of David was a component of that, but I think that a lot of the description of this character is influenced more by later writings, such as the First Book of Maccabees and, obviously, the Talmud. I would say that I am still fifty-fifty on whether I would agree with the idea that the Tanakh itself speaks of 'a messiah'.
I would say that I am still fifty-fifty on whether I would agree with the idea that the Tanakh itself speaks of 'a messiah'.