• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Question on John 19:30

We have more than the OT Eleanor.
Who said otherwise?

Mt 20:28 - "he came to die as a ransom" (guilt offering, Heb 9:15, 1 Tim 2:6, Isa 53:10)

Jn 19:30 - "It is finished.". . .the ransom PAID. . .in full. . .no other payment owing.

Heb 7:27 - He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.
 
Who said otherwise?
You should know by now that the verses you supplied are written to Timothy and verse 15 [that you didn't supply] suggests the scripture being talked about are the OT scriptures.
 
You should know by now that the verses you supplied are written to Timothy and verse 15 [that you didn't supply] suggests the scripture being talked about are the OT scriptures.
Are you aware of what Peter wrote? Speaking of Paul.
“as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

(2 Peter 3:16 NAS20)
 
Are you aware of what Peter wrote? Speaking of Paul.
“as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

(2 Peter 3:16 NAS20)
Yes.... Separately, Paul said this to Timothy --

and that from infancy you have known [the] sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture....
 
You should know by now that the verses you supplied are written to Timothy and verse 15 [that you didn't supply] suggests the scripture being talked about are the OT scriptures.
Should you not know there are indications that some NT books were already considered equal in authority to the OT Scriptures; e.g., in
2 Pe 3:15-16 and
1 Tim 5:18, "the worker deserves his wages," is a quote from Lk 10:7.
 
I know that the verses you supplied refers to the OT [when Timothy was a boy].
What does Timothy being a boy have to do with the OT?

Where do we find Lk 10:7 in the OT, which Paul quotes as "Scripture" in 1 Tim 5:18?

2 Pe 3:15-16 brackets Paul's writings with "the other Scriptures."

All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16), and that includes the NT. No other writing enjoys that authority.

And still no refutation of the following:

Mt 20:28 - "he came to die as a ransom" (guilt offering, Heb 9:15, 1 Tim 2:6, Isa 53:10)

Jn 19:30 - "It is finished.". . .the ransom PAID. . .in full. . .no other payment owing.

Heb 7:27 - He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

The work of atonement is finished.
 
Last edited:
I know that the verses you supplied refers to the OT [when Timothy was a boy].
I am seeing a whole lot of avoidance. Difficult to have a reasonable discussion like this
You can do better.
 
not bad, you are only off by three centuries....keys to Peter
That was three centuries before RCism came into existence.

The universal church consists of all those who believe in Jesus Christ. Most RCs do not trust in Jesus; rather, they trust in the RC organisation and its magisterium.
 
What does Timothy being a boy have to do with the OT?



All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16). No other writing enjoys that authority.
The Church gave us the Bible.... why are you looking at it in reverse?
 
The Church gave us the Bible.... why are you looking at it in reverse?
This makes no sense.
For centuries, the RCs kept the scriptures from its members. Why?
 
It could have easily been Antioch.
No it couldn't. The RCC designates itself as Antioch but that is no where supported by the scriptures themselves. The number 1 reason the RCC hates sola scriptura is because it removes all possibility of the RCC being the one true church of Christ. Too much of what they teach and claim is soundly refuted by Scripture. The five solas keep the "baby" and throw the dirty bath water out.
The universal/Catholic Church is the same Church as the Nazarenes/The Way/Christians
The RCC is not universal. There is a whole thing called Protestantism.
You are going to have to show where Christ made the RCC His one true church. And you are going to have to do so from a neutral position, and not by inserting RCC tradition into it. To insert it does nothing. The authority to do so must be proven first.
You are going to have to show where Christ gave them the authority to be His one true church. And from a neutral position, not by inserting RCC tradition into it. Inserting tradition into it does nothing. The traditions of men have no authority.
It has always been answered... you are just denying a simple fact.
It has never been answered, just like it was not answered this time. Scriptures are quoted and interpreted to refer to the RCC when there is nothing IN Scripture that does so. The RCC designates itself, as the sole correct interpreter of Scripture, and now we are right back where we started from. Why can't you just come out and admit it?
 
Back
Top