Timeline for What does "scripture" mean in NT writing?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2015 at 5:44 | comment | added | Tom Edwards | And although Peter juxtaposed the word alongside the term "Scripture," the name he did, in fact, utilize to refer to Paul's writings is exactly what they were: "LETTERS." | |
| Jun 11, 2015 at 5:39 | comment | added | Tom Edwards | Lastly, Fredsbend: ""if you can show that Peter did not call Paul's writings scripture in 1 Peter 3...." One need only read Peter's epistle to see that. At no time did he say unambiguously, "Paul's writings are Scripture." The debate is about whether he implied they were. And that is an impossibility, because in the vernacular of that era, "Scripture" meant the Hebrew Scriptures. That is all it ever meant or could have meant at that point in time. And no epistle author ever cross-referenced any of the others with the conferring of such a term upon their writings. cont'd.... | |
| Jun 11, 2015 at 5:13 | comment | added | Tom Edwards | Similarly, I think everyone knows there was no such thing as "carbon paper" in the time of Paul. So again, my remark that circulating copies of his epistles would have been problematic is self-evident. In short, I am not using any "sources" unless otherwise specified. I am using my brain. | |
| Jun 11, 2015 at 5:10 | comment | added | Tom Edwards | Is there anyone who does not know that Paul, prior to his conversion, was a Jew, and in fact, a member of the leadership-hierarchy, a Pharisee? Is there anyone who is unaware that it was the Pharisees and Sadducees who conspired to murder Jesus? Therefore, my remark that there would have been distrust of Paul on the part of Peter is axiomatic. cont'd.... | |
| Jun 9, 2015 at 19:21 | comment | added | user3961 | Some sources would certainly make this better. For example, saying something is logical or not does not necessarily mean you've used logic to make that point. The last paragraph stands out in this respect. Instead, if you can show that Peter did not call Paul's writings scripture in 1 Peter 3, then you can say it is logical or not. Also, "rephrasing" a verse as you've done here is no different than a personal interpretation. You need to show more; that the translation is lacking. | |
| Jun 9, 2015 at 11:19 | comment | added | Lee Woofenden | Whatever you can cite in the Bible or other sources to support your statements would be helpful. Unsourced answers don't always do so well here--especially if they challenge beliefs and ideas commonly held in the major Christian groupings. | |
| Jun 9, 2015 at 8:39 | history | edited | Tom Edwards | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 11 characters in body
|
| Jun 9, 2015 at 8:08 | comment | added | Tom Edwards | It would help if you could cite which specific segment(s) you mean. For example, the disagreement between Peter and Paul about circumcision is not an "assertion," it is plainly stated in Galatians 2. | |
| Jun 9, 2015 at 7:48 | review | Late answers | |||
| Jun 12, 2015 at 2:17 | |||||
| Jun 9, 2015 at 7:42 | comment | added | curiousdannii♦ | Where's your evidence for all these assertions? | |
| Jun 9, 2015 at 7:30 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 9, 2015 at 19:21 | |||||
| Jun 9, 2015 at 7:30 | history | answered | Tom Edwards | CC BY-SA 3.0 |