Two or three witnesses?

[Esaias]

And, BTW, this has nothing to do with how many scriptures should be included in a sermon. Most of the time my "sermons" use entire chapters, or if not then a passage (never one verse) from an Epistle, from the Old Testament, and from a Gospel.

[FlamingZword]

Psalm 10:4, "There is no God."
Psalm 14:1, "There is no God."
Psalm 53:1, "There is no God."

There you have it thrice.

[good samaritan]

I suppose that it is not neccessary to have two scriptures to validate a doctrine. Although, if something is only in one isolated scripture it makes it hard to properly interpret. As Esaias quoted line upon line and precept upon precept. Doctrine is developed by rightly dividing the word of God. We can't randomly cherry pick a single verse and make a doctrine. We must read the scripture within context, and we must compare it with the rest of scriptures. If we are rightly dividing the Word, we should not have a conflict between passages of scripture.

[votivesoul]

When the oracles of God were first being delivered to the holy men of old, as they spoke and wrote, some, or even most of what they said or wrote, was completely original for the time, yet stood as the Word of God, and wasn't corroborated until perhaps centuries later, thereby indicating that a substantial doctrine was still true, and of the Word of God, without a second witness, at the time it was first delivered.

However, that being said, there are difficult verses in the Bible that have no corresponding verses to offer fuller understanding. Baptism for the dead comes to mind. There's been a lot of speculation, and some have even created doctrines around the practice, but without more information on the subject, it's not a good idea to teach the verse a certain way, authoritatively. But these are few and far between. Almost all verses of the Bible can be understood contextually, grammatically, and historically, whether corroborated by other verses or passages, or not.

Notwithstanding, what Esaias wrote is correct. The second or third witness is always used in the context of judicial punishment for crime or sin. The every "word" mentioned is the word of the witnesses testifying against the defendant.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Psalm 10:4, "There is no God."
Psalm 14:1, "There is no God."
Psalm 53:1, "There is no God."

There you have it thrice.

Brother, you having Delphi flashbacks?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I suppose that it is not neccessary to have two scriptures to validate a doctrine. Although, if something is only in one isolated scripture it makes it hard to properly interpret. As Esaias quoted line upon line and precept upon precept. Doctrine is developed by rightly dividing the word of God. We can't randomly cherry pick a single verse and make a doctrine. We must read the scripture within context, and we must compare it with the rest of scriptures. If we are rightly dividing the Word, we should not have a conflict between passages of scripture.

Exactly.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

When the oracles of God were first being delivered to the holy men of old, as they spoke and wrote, some, or even most of what they said or wrote, was completely original for the time, yet stood as the Word of God, and wasn't corroborated until perhaps centuries later, thereby indicating that a substantial doctrine was still true, and of the Word of God, without a second witness, at the time it was first delivered.

However, that being said, there are difficult verses in the Bible that have no corresponding verses to offer fuller understanding. Baptism for the dead comes to mind. There's been a lot of speculation, and some have even created doctrines around the practice, but without more information on the subject, it's not a good idea to teach the verse a certain way, authoritatively. But these are few and far between. Almost all verses of the Bible can be understood contextually, grammatically, and historically, whether corroborated by other verses or passages, or not.

Notwithstanding, what Esaias wrote is correct. The second or third witness is always used in the context of judicial punishment for crime or sin. The every "word" mentioned is the word of the witnesses testifying against the defendant.

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

When the oracles of God were first being delivered to the holy men of old, as they spoke and wrote, some, or even most of what they said or wrote, was completely original for the time, yet stood as the Word of God, and wasn't corroborated until perhaps centuries later, thereby indicating that a substantial doctrine was still true, and of the Word of God, without a second witness, at the time it was first delivered.

However, that being said, there are difficult verses in the Bible that have no corresponding verses to offer fuller understanding. Baptism for the dead comes to mind. There's been a lot of speculation, and some have even created doctrines around the practice, but without more information on the subject, it's not a good idea to teach the verse a certain way, authoritatively. But these are few and far between. Almost all verses of the Bible can be understood contextually, grammatically, and historically, whether corroborated by other verses or passages, or not.

Notwithstanding, what Esaias wrote is correct. The second or third witness is always used in the context of judicial punishment for crime or sin. The every "word" mentioned is the word of the witnesses testifying against the defendant.

could it also be that God and the writer are two witnesses? People wrote as they were moved on by the Spirit.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

could it also be that God and the writer are two witnesses? People wrote as they were moved on by the Spirit.

A witness is one who testifies (to others). For God to be a witness it requires Him to speak - which He has, via the words of Scripture, which requires writers. So the writer is not so much the witness, as God is. The writer just takes the message to others. A court reporter is not a witness, they just report what was testified.

[Aquila]

I don't remember ever being told about this rule of interpretation. If Scriptures is the Word of God, then even if the Scriptures only mention something once, it's just as true as if it mentioned it 100 times.

The premise is silly.