And the truth shall set you free...

[bbyrd009]

You mean like put an end to sin?

Woe to me for waiting for that.

ok then pls elaborate on this "end to sin" that by intimation is a Corporate Event, guess i misunderstood.

 

[Job]

ok then pls elaborate on this "end to sin" that by intimation is a Corporate Event, guess i misunderstood.

Read the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

[bbyrd009]

Read the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

ok ty

i mean we are talking about some future event however you care to phrase it right

 

[bbyrd009]

 

[Job]

i mean we are talking about some future event however you care to phrase it right

Of course.

 

[DPMartin]

No.

why?

 

[bbyrd009]

Of course.

yes, of course.

 

[Job]

why?

Here's how I explained it a few pages back.

The New Testament didn't exist but the scriptures did. The scriptures that are being twisted in 2 Peter 3:16 are Paul's. Notice what it says. Paul's teaching's are hard to understand and people who lack understanding twist his teaching's to their own destruction as they do the rest of the scriptures. "The rest of the scriptures" being the Old Testament and what was completed of the future New Testament.

2 Peter 3
15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.


Do you see it?

"As they do also" is the key to understanding that Paul's writings were considered scripture.


Does this help any?
.

 

[DPMartin]

Here's how I explained it a few pages back.
The New Testament didn't exist but the scriptures did. The scriptures that are being twisted in 2 Peter 3:16 are Paul's. Notice what it says. Paul's teaching's are hard to understand and people who lack understanding twist his teaching's to their own destruction as they do the rest of the scriptures. "The rest of the scriptures" being the Old Testament and what was completed of the future New Testament.

2 Peter 3:15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,

16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Well for one the scripture says: (KJV)

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


"Other" surly doesn't mean "rest of". I don’t know what translation or maybe what we used to call paraphrased bible your quoting but it certainly is inconsistent with the original English translation. So, it’s very possible you’re reading something into this, due to the contrary text.

Therefore, Peter isn’t talking about the rest of scripture, and how you see that Peter is says Paul’s writings are scripture, just isn’t there. According to KJV. but in context all Peter is doing is verifying that Paul’s teachings and writings are in accordance to God’s wisdom, and should be treated as such, because anything of God should be treated as such.

Do you see it?

As they do also" is the key to understanding that Paul's writings were considered scripture.

Does this help any?

.

This just tells me you’re off the mark, sorry but you are. there were many copies good and not so good of all these documents now known as the NT. but it was the church that had to wrestle with and verify what was accurate according to the originals and not. I suspect it took a lot of prayer.

 

[Job]

This just tells me you’re off the mark,

The rest of the scriptures are the other scriptures.

They both mean the same thing. "The other scriptures" and "the rest of the scripture" simply indicate the presence of other scriptures besides Paul's and that people are twisting Paul's word's just like they do with the rest of the scriptures or the other scriptures.

I don’t know what translation or maybe what we used to call paraphrased bible your quoting but it certainly is inconsistent with the original English translation. So, it’s very possible you’re reading something into this, due to the contrary text.

I use the New King James.
.

 

[Mungo]

But surely, at the point 2Peter was written, it (2Peter) wasn't considered as scripture and therefore anything in it wasn't considered inspired and infallible. At that time therefore it cannot be considered as validating Paul's epistles as scripture.

 

[Job]

But surely, at the point 2Peter was written, it (2Peter) wasn't considered as scripture and therefore anything in it wasn't considered inspired and infallible. At that time therefore it cannot be considered as validating Paul's epistles as scripture.

So what do you believe "the rest of the scriptures" or "the other scriptures" means?

 

[Mungo]

So what do you believe "the rest of the scriptures" or "the other scriptures" means?

The Old Testament.

Incidentally:
1. We do not know who wrote 2Peter or when it was written.
2. We do not know which letters of Paul are referred to by "all" of Paul's epistles. How many did the writer of 2Peter know about?

According to Dave Armstrong 2Peter was still being disputed as to whether it was canonical into the 4th century.

 

[Job]

The Old Testament.

I agree.

I believe the phrase "the other scriptures" or "the rest of the scriptures" implies that Paul's writings are on par with what people believed were the holy scriptures. (old testament scriptures)


But that's just me.
.

 

[Mungo]

I agree.

I believe the phrase "the other scriptures" or "the rest of the scriptures" implies that Paul's writings are on par with what people believed were the holy scriptures. (old testament scriptures)


But that's just me.
.

It implies that some unknown person thought that some of Paul's letters were on a par with the OT. But as the epistle of the unknown person wasn't considered canonical until some time in the 4th century we cannot say that at the time of writing, or even for a couple of centuries after, it had the force of being scripture itself, and therefore validating all Paul's letters as scripture. We have the advantage of hindsight.

Again to quote from Dave Armstrong's research the Pauline corpus was mostly accepted by 130 and was accepted with some exceptions by 260.

 

[Job]

It implies that some unknown person thought that some of Paul's letters were on a par with the OT. But as the epistle of the unknown person wasn't considered canonical until some time in the 4th century we cannot say that at the time of writing, or even for a couple of centuries after, it had the force of being scripture itself, and therefore validating all Paul's letters as scripture. We have the advantage of hindsight.

Again to quote from Dave Armstrong's research the Pauline corpus was mostly accepted by 130 and was accepted with some exceptions by 260.

The average Christian doesn't have access to that information and has to make a determination of it's interpretation based on how it is written or worded.

 

[Mungo]

The average Christian doesn't have access to that information and has to make a determination of it's interpretation based on how it is written or worded.

Are you suggesting that we make do with less than the truth as defined by the "average Christian"?

If the "average Christian" thinks that 2+2=5 then we accept that 2+2=5?

Does that not make truth very subjective? What seems truth to me (or at least the "average Christian") is true.

 

[Job]

Are you suggesting that we make do with less than the truth as defined by the "average Christian"?

Why is it less than the truth?

 

[Job]

If the "average Christian" thinks that 2+2=5 then we accept that 2+2=5?

Why do you feel the average christian is stupid?

 

[Mungo]

Why is it less than the truth?

You implied it was because you said the average Christian doesn't have access to that information.