did paul consider his letters as scripture?

[outhouse]

What is called Scholarship in most is higher knowledge of false information one learns from incorrect sources.

FALSE

some theist often refuse knowledge, reason and reality, over faith, the belief of something with ZERO evidence.


the rest of the world does not live is such fantasy, and chooses to learn and gain education. NOT REFUSE IT!

 

[sincerly]

My original post comment was:

What is called Scholarship in most is higher knowledge of false information one learns from incorrect sources.
You(Shermana) wrote "actual bible scholarship" when those so-called-scholars have no belief in GOD or the BIBLE which really would educate the one concerning ITS REAL LIVING GOD.

FALSE

some theist often refuse knowledge, reason and reality, over faith, the belief of something with ZERO evidence.

the rest of the world does not live is such fantasy, and chooses to learn and gain education. NOT REFUSE IT!

Knowledge in itself isn't the problem. What is being discussed is "learned persons" from /with degrees from Educational institutions who propose "Theories" and declare them fact when in reality their is no producible evidence that those "theories" are so.

As far as FAITH, those "scholars" and those who believe them have to Believe/produce as much Faith in the "Theories of Evolution" as one does to acknowledge That GOD spoke and it stood fast. However, 2000 years ago that Creator manifested that Creative power in small ways---Parting the red sea so that a multitude of people and goods could cross on dry land. Bring water from Rock. Walk on water, Heal all manner of human ailments/conditions from Blindness, crippling, leprosy, to raising of the dead.
The evidence I see daily is All things outside my house that mankind didn't have any hand in creating/making.
Daniel through GOD'S prophecies stated that in the end time "men would run to and fro and knowledge would be increased". Yes, indeed! I have seen Knowledge increase, but have seen a greater departing from the Creator of all things to a departing from most all of the principles GOD said DO.

There is nothing wrong with education in truth, but placing wrong information and declaring it fact is what is False. (As Athiest do.)

 

[Shermana]

There is nothing wrong with education in truth, but placing wrong information and declaring it fact is what is False.

Exactly. Saying that 2 Peter was written by Peter is placing wrong information and declaring it is fact because they believe they claim the Spirit guided the Roman canon composers (as opposed to the Ethiopian canon), when even Metzger (conservative) agreed on this that 2 Peter is not by Peter. A great example.

So who gets to decide what is wrong information exactly? You? Do you claim prophetic right to dictate what is true or not without even examining the evidence and arguments?

 

[sincerly]

Exactly. Saying that 2 Peter was written by Peter is placing wrong information and declaring it is fact because they believe they claim the Spirit guided the Roman canon composers (as opposed to the Ethiopian canon), when even Metzger (conservative) agreed on this that 2 Peter is not by Peter. A great example.

So who gets to decide what is wrong information exactly? You? Do you claim prophetic right to dictate what is true or not without even examining the evidence and arguments?

By your post, Do I detect that you believe the Ethiopian Canon to be true/acuate?

Why should I belive Metzger? Just because you do?

 

[waitasec]

By your post, Do I detect that you believe the Ethiopian Canon to be true/acuate?

Why should I belive Metzger? Just because you do?

it seems as though some use rationality and logic to determine what is true, and others rely on faith...blind faith. tell you what, once you start crossing the street blindfolded and with ear plugs on...then perhaps i'll believe you have found the ultimate magic 8 ball

 

[outhouse]

another thing that must be addressed

these letters were not going to what we today would call churches.


these personal letters were going to private homes to be read around a dinner table, where members of this early sect gathered

 

[outhouse]

My original post comment was:



Knowledge in itself isn't the problem. What is being discussed is "learned persons" from /with degrees from Educational institutions who propose "Theories" and declare them fact when in reality their is no producible evidence that those "theories" are so.

As far as FAITH, those "scholars" and those who believe them have to Believe/produce as much Faith in the "Theories of Evolution" as one does to acknowledge That GOD spoke and it stood fast. However, 2000 years ago that Creator manifested that Creative power in small ways---Parting the red sea so that a multitude of people and goods could cross on dry land. Bring water from Rock. Walk on water, Heal all manner of human ailments/conditions from Blindness, crippling, leprosy, to raising of the dead.
The evidence I see daily is All things outside my house that mankind didn't have any hand in creating/making.
Daniel through GOD'S prophecies stated that in the end time "men would run to and fro and knowledge would be increased". Yes, indeed! I have seen Knowledge increase, but have seen a greater departing from the Creator of all things to a departing from most all of the principles GOD said DO.

There is nothing wrong with education in truth, but placing wrong information and declaring it fact is what is False. (As Athiest do.)

well your wrong again.

many of the scholars today are theist, not atheist.

there is plenty of eividence showing many parts of the bible to NOT BE literal history

 

[sincerly]

well your wrong again.

That conclusion is expected from your posts.

many of the scholars today are theist, not atheist.

Source and statistics, please.

there is plenty of eividence showing many parts of the bible to NOT BE literal history

True, but even the parables are included in the literal history of the events of the Time they are expressed.

 

[outhouse]

Source and statistics, please.

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The New Testament scholar Nicholas Perrin has argued that since most biblical scholars are Christians, a certain bias is inevitable, but he does not see this as a major problem.

 

[Rocky S]

No evidence Paul considered his writings to be scripture. Apparently, after Paul's death, Peter, the chief Apostle (Mat 10:2), placed Paul's writings on equal footing with existing scripture:

2Pe 3:15-16 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.
​

You beat me to it, I am glad I looked through replies before I posted..

 

[Shermana]

By your post, Do I detect that you believe the Ethiopian Canon to be true/acuate?

Why should I belive Metzger? Just because you do?

I don't think the Ethiopian Canon is 100% accurate. I think its correct in including the Apocrypha and Enoch. That has nothing to do with my question. Is there a reason you don't want to answer? Let me ask again:

Why do you believe the Roman Canon is correct but not the Ethiopian?

As for Bruce Metzger, I disagree with a lot of what he says. However, he was the defacto leader of the Biblical conservatives in the Scholarship movement. That means he believes in most of the Traditional Chrisitan beliefs. In this issue, he is forced to concede that the "skeptics" on 2 Peter are right. I don't always agree with the scholarly concensus, it's often very faulty and based on downright idiotic reasons and blatant anti-prophetic bias such as when it comes to dating the texts, but on certain issues such as authorship of the NT epistles, there are facts and points they bring to light which are hard to deny. As you can see yourself, all you are capable of doing is saying "nuh uh", we haven't even addressed the reasons yet.

So why should I believe you when you say that 2 Peter was in fact written by Peter when almost the entire scholarly community says it was not, even among the "Conservatives"? Because you said so? Why should I trust you over Bruce Metzger on this regard? Do you claim prophetic validation? Even the early Church was divided about 2 Peter, more so than perhaps any other epistle in the early formation of the Canon. Do you even know why it was disputed in the early days?

http://www.nabion.org/html/disputed_books.html

* Disputed must be qualified concerning these books. As evidenced from the Muratorian Canon of circa 200 AD, the Pastorals seem to have not been regarded as Pauline, though regarded as of authoritarian level. To dispute the authorship of the Pastorals today would actually be to claim Paul did write them. The same can be said for 2 Peter2 & 3 John. They were never regarded as having been written by apostles and . Pseudo-epigraphy can explain 2 Peter, while the Johannine epistles received their names because they appear to have been penned by the Elder John. Historically, the claims they were written by the apostle are pretty thin. 2 & 3 John and Jude have essentially fallen out of the modern canon because of disuse anyway.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
By your post, Do I detect that you believe the Ethiopian Canon to be true/acuate?

Why should I belive Metzger? Just because you do?

I don't think the Ethiopian Canon is 100% accurate. I think its correct in including the Apocrypha and Enoch. That has nothing to do with my question. Is there a reason you don't want to answer? Let me ask again:

Why do you believe the Roman Canon is correct but not the Ethiopian?

Nor do I believe that any of the spurious books of OT or NT should be included. As I have posted previously, I believe the Holy Spirit had a hand in the final listings of the BOOKS HE Wanted to be our spiritual guide.

As for Bruce Metzger, I disagree with a lot of what he says. However, he was the defacto leader of the Biblical conservatives in the Scholarship movement. That means he believes in most of the Traditional Chrisitan beliefs. In this issue, he is forced to concede that the "skeptics" on 2 Peter are right. I don't always agree with the scholarly concensus, it's often very faulty and based on downright idiotic reasons and blatant anti-prophetic bias such as when it comes to dating the texts, but on certain issues such as authorship of the NT epistles, there are facts and points they bring to light which are hard to deny. As you can see yourself, all you are capable of doing is saying "nuh uh", we haven't even addressed the reasons yet.

In other words, the only reason you have really----is that he agrees with you on 2 Peter. I have given Scripture to back-up my reasons and it is you who say "nuh uh" because the scripture verses were from a BOOK you want/and claim some other critics dispute their validity.

However, Paul commended the Bereans because they validated the teachings of Paul by checking the SCRIPTURES (OT) to see that his teachings followed the Scriptures.(Acts 17:11) {Therefore, Acts of the Apostles will need to be added to your list of disputed books.}

So why should I believe you when you say that 2 Peter was in fact written by Peter when almost the entire scholarly community says it was not, even among the "Conservatives"? Because you said so? Why should I trust you over Bruce Metzger on this regard? Do you claim prophetic validation? Even the early Church was divided about 2 Peter, more so than perhaps any other epistle in the early formation of the Canon. Do you even know why it was disputed in the early days?

Shermana, I have said that it is my belief that Peter wrote both Books, but that didn't negate someone else writing them for/in the presence of Peter. The messages in both are true. Nothing contradictory---to Scripture---just your Beliefs.

Your "Nabion" site and the excerpt doesn't help you because the asterisk and first line says, """* Disputed must be qualified concerning these books. """

 

[Shermana]

Nor do I believe that any of the spurious books of OT or NT should be included. As I have posted previously, I believe the Holy Spirit had a hand in the final listings of the BOOKS HE Wanted to be our spiritual guide.

What I should have asked was

"Why do you believe the Spirit guided the Roman Canon but not the Ethiopian or Muratorian Canon"?

In other words, the only reason you have really----is that he agrees with you on 2 Peter. I have given Scripture to back-up my reasons and it is you who say "nuh uh" because the scripture verses were from a BOOK you want/and claim some other critics dispute their validity.

No. I do not want to get into the stylistic and historical reasons why 2 Peter is in question, I am pointing out that your belief in them being Inspired and authentic is challenged even by the leading Conservative Biblical authority, and it was challenged by much of the early historical church.; If you want me to discuss those reasons in detail, we can do so. Your rebuttal is essentially denying their conclusions because you believe it was Inspired. You say that they don't go by the word, I say that 2 Peter doesn't necessarily fit the word by authenticating Paul, which is the heart of the OP. So why should I believe you exactly? Your entire argument is "Your belief that thy are not authentic goes against the Holy word because you deny 2 Peter and Paul's epistles", so that's nice prosletyzing but my point is that 2 Peter cannot necessarily be used as a solid backup for Paul's epistles because it is so disputed.





However, here is a more objective study among traditional believers that says we don't know one way or another and examines the evidence from a scholarly but still independent perspective, though they take the position that 2 Peter is right either way and I disagree, unless the part where it agrees with Paul is an interpolation, which may well be the case especially if it was written during the time of the Clementine literature when this schism was in force.


2nd Peter Authorship - Who wrote 2nd Peter?

basic.theology.forums > The Authenticity and Authorship of 2 Peter

I don't see any scripture given to support the idea that 2 Peter is in fact valid, please post or link to where you claim to have supported its authorship by Peter.

However, Paul commended the Bereans because they validated the teachings of Paul by checking the SCRIPTURES (OT) to see that his teachings followed the Scriptures.(Acts 17:11) {Therefore, Acts of the Apostles will need to be added to your list of disputed books.}

It was not necessarily his teachings but about Christ's identity himself and his teachings, which as I think you've agreed, are very Jewish.

Shermana, I have said that it is my belief that Peter wrote both Books, but that didn't negate someone else writing them for/in the presence of Peter. The messages in both are true. Nothing contradictory---to Scripture---just your Beliefs.

Okay, so what I'm challenging is your belief on this matter. If it's not contradictory to Scripture by condoning Paul, then I'd agree. But I disagree, and doing so ultimately involves the next Paul vs. Jesus thread.

Your "Nabion" site and the excerpt doesn't help you because the asterisk and first line says, """* Disputed must be qualified concerning these books. ""

Feel free to explain why, I question your understanding of what the meaning of that is. It's saying that there's a reason why they are listed as disputed.

 

[sincerly]

Nor do I believe that any of the spurious books of OT or NT should be included. As I have posted previously, I believe the Holy Spirit had a hand in the final listings of the BOOKS HE Wanted to be our spiritual guide.

What I should have asked was

"Why do you believe the Spirit guided the Roman Canon but not the Ethiopian or Muratorian Canon"?

Shermana, "spurious writings" are "spurious writings" and have contrary TO the Truths no matter who writes them.

In other words, the only reason you have really----is that he agrees with you on 2 Peter

No. I do not want to get into the stylistic and historical reasons why 2 Peter is in question, I am pointing out that your belief in them being Inspired and authentic is challenged even by the leading Conservative Biblical authority, and it was challenged by much of the early historical church.;

Your last two posted sites in context do not help your cause either.
Notice: """My point in bringing this to light is that the grass is no more greener on either side of the debate."""
AND (Conclusion) """ However, as we know scholars are guessing in their statements regarding Second Peter, and since we know Second Peter retains aspects common to the remainder of the New Testament and introduces nothing new to what is known or communicated, there is no reason readers cannot engage in this method of understanding for further inspirational reflection. Even if Second Peter was not authored by Peter, there are no features in it that would hinder a believer’s spiritual growth."""

Your rebuttal is essentially denying their conclusions because you believe it was Inspired. You say that they don't go by the word, I say that 2 Peter doesn't necessarily fit the word by authenticating Paul, which is the heart of the OP. So why should I believe you exactly? Your entire argument is "Your belief that thy are not authentic goes against the Holy word because you deny 2 Peter and Paul's epistles", so that's nice prosletyzing but my point is that 2 Peter cannot necessarily be used as a solid backup for Paul's epistles because it is so disputed.

Yes, I do believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the NT JUST AS HE DID THE OT. GOD has never been one to give contradicting information to those whom was seeking to save----And that has from ADAM been all of the human race.
Where you are claiming "proselytizing" is false---It is scriptural.

I don't see any scripture given to support the idea that 2 Peter is in fact valid, please post or link to where you claim to have supported its authorship by Peter.

Read both epistles by Peter.

However, Paul commended the Bereans because they validated the teachings of Paul by checking the SCRIPTURES (OT) to see that his teachings followed the Scriptures.(Acts 17:11) {Therefore, Acts of the Apostles will need to be added to your list of disputed books.}

It was not necessarily his teachings but about Christ's identity himself and his teachings, which as I think you've agreed, are very Jewish.

Why shouldn't they be Jewish? After all, The Oracles were given to the Israelites and that mixed multitude at Sinai for a guide to all mankind. However, the Jewish Nation failed in its obligation then and continuously to this day denying that Jesus is/was the Messiah that was expected and and HIS Mission for Coming.
That is what this whole dispute of "writings is concerning."

Shermana, You are borrowing a page out of those who claim the Sabbath was negated in the NT because it wasn't "validated"---"restated as such".(But this isn't a thread for that topic).

Okay, so what I'm challenging is your belief on this matter. If it's not contradictory to Scripture by condoning Paul, then I'd agree. But I disagree, and doing so ultimately involves the next Paul vs. Jesus thread.

It seems to me that has been your challenge with this thread? As I said, now you need to add Acts to those "disputed" books. and even Daniel, GOD used him to give a time table for the Birth of the Messiah----which passed almost 2000 years ago.

Your Nabion site

* Disputed must be qualified concerning these books. As evidenced from the Muratorian Canon of circa 200 AD, the Pastorals seem to have not been regarded as Pauline, though regarded as of authoritarian level. To dispute the authorship of the Pastorals today would actually be to claim Paul did write them. The same can be said for 2 Peter2 & 3 John. They were never regarded as having been written by apostles and . Pseudo-epigraphy can explain 2 Peter, while the Johannine epistles received their names because they appear to have been penned by the Elder John. Historically, the claims they were written by the apostle are pretty thin. 2 & 3 John and Jude have essentially fallen out of the modern canon because of disuse anyway.

Feel free to explain why, I question your understanding of what the meaning of that is. It's saying that there's a reason why they are listed as disputed.

Especially by the Jewish people based on these reasonings by that Jewish site:"""
Nabion will adhere to the Reformers’ points of view: that a certain individuality must be exercised in acceptance and rejection of whole books or parts thereof. (It must be stated outright first that the apostles considered only the Scriptures to be authoritative.) Individuality, however, must be qualified. This does not mean acceptance or rejection based on what one likes but rather on certain principles: 1, the uncovering of inauthentic or Hellenized concepts impossible for apostles to have expressed. 2, books displaying literary styles or philosophies known to date from a time after Christ and the Apostles, 3, comments contradicting Scripture. 4, pseudo-epigraphy. Of all these, of course, number 3 is the most weighty."""

1) The Virgin Birth had to be Hellenized and could not have been as prophesied by Isaiah according to Nabion. It couldn't be GOD with us--trinity---according to Nabion.

2) Just any excuse to negate the writings will do. Jesus Christ was Crucified before the first epistle was written and as shown in your sites the written dates are guess-work. All but John was written before the destruction of the Temple and Jersulem by the Roman army.

3) there are lot of verses in those epistles which validify the Messiahship of Jesus and HIM being the SON of GOD the Father. Hence, the great number of books on Nabion's list of disputed books.

4)To say the book wasn't written by the said author would nullify the book according to Nabion in those reasons.

"Seems" and "pretty thin" where GOD is concerned means little in the realm of facts.(Nothing is impossible with GOD.)

 

[Shermana]

Shermana, "spurious writings" are "spurious writings" and have contrary TO the Truths no matter who writes them.

You really should qualify with "What I believe are the Truths' so you don't get dinged for Prosletyzing. If you don't want to answer simple questions of WHY you believe certain books are "Truth" and why others are "Spurious", stick to the DIRS where you don't have to actually debate and answer people's questions.

I disagree with what you call "The Truths" and believe that what you call "Spurious writings" are not spurious, and that certain writings you consider authentic like 2 Peter are what are Spurious, and this was a problem even back in the early church, not just a modern ivory tower scholar thing.

Your last two posted sites in context do not help your cause either.

I was assuming that when I qualified it with "from traditional believers" that I wouldn't have to explain that their conclusion was that it was in favor of 2 Peter's authorship, I included it for the sake of objectivity to show that even those who conclude 2 Peter's evidence is not against it, it is still from a faith-based reason that doesn't involve real tearing apart of the scholarship and is all subjective. It's not so much that their conclusion does not help my cause, if anything it does because it proves that they have no real counter-argument than "just believe".

Yes, I do believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the NT JUST AS HE DID THE OT. GOD has never been one to give contradicting information to those whom was seeking to save----And that has from ADAM been all of the human race.
Where you are claiming "proselytizing" is false---It is scriptural.

I think what I asked you was about "Why"? By calling it scriptural without qualifying with "I believe" you are in fact prosletyzing since you're basically declaring that you're right and I'm wrong without bothering to actually address the question, you didn't answer what I asked, and you didn't provide an actual argument.

Read both epistles by Peter.

Please explain how that in any way answers what I asked, and show what verses you're specifically referring to.

Why shouldn't they be Jewish? After all, The Oracles were given to the Israelites and that mixed multitude at Sinai for a guide to all mankind. However, the Jewish Nation failed in its obligation then and continuously to this day denying that Jesus is/was the Messiah that was expected and and HIS Mission for Coming.
That is what this whole dispute of "writings is concerning."

Where does scripture say that the Jewish nation failed? All of his early Apostles were Jewish. It didn't become a heavily Gentile movement until long after even Paul was dead. This argument in no way invalidates the original Jewish teaching of the Jerusalem church and proves total ignorance of actual Christian history in which the entire movement was nothing but Jewish until later. It was changed later from what the Jerusalem Church held for decades and even after that in the underground among the Nazarene and Ebionite groups. There's absolutely no reason to say "The Jewish nation failed" except for some extreme supercessionist idea that has no scriptural basis.

Shermana, You are borrowing a page out of those who claim the Sabbath was negated in the NT because it wasn't "validated"---"restated as such".(But this isn't a thread for that topic).

I don't understand why you'd say that or if you understand what you're talking about.

It seems to me that has been your challenge with this thread? As I said, now you need to add Acts to those "disputed" books. and even Daniel, GOD used him to give a time table for the Birth of the Messiah----which passed almost 2000 years ago.

Acts is in fact disputed for related reasons. Daniel is not disputed here. Daniel does not radically clash with the rest of the whole.

Your Nabion site

Which apparently you did not read because it merely summarizes the traditional scholarly arguments in a way you did not apparently garner accurately.

Especially by the Jewish people based on these reasonings by that Jewish site:"""

Huh? That site summarizes the general scholarly opinions.

Nabion will adhere to the Reformers’ points of view: that a certain individuality must be exercised in acceptance and rejection of whole books or parts thereof. (It must be stated outright first that the apostles considered only the Scriptures to be authoritative.) Individuality, however, must be qualified. This does not mean acceptance or rejection based on what one likes but rather on certain principles: 1, the uncovering of inauthentic or Hellenized concepts impossible for apostles to have expressed. 2, books displaying literary styles or philosophies known to date from a time after Christ and the Apostles, 3, comments contradicting Scripture. 4, pseudo-epigraphy. Of all these, of course, number 3 is the most weighty."""

1) The Virgin Birth had to be Hellenized and could not have been as prophesied by Isaiah according to Nabion. It couldn't be GOD with us--trinity---according to Nabion.

I agree with that concept, Isaiah 7:14 is not even talking about the Messiah but a son born in the days of Hezekiah, it's amazing how few people who use this quote have any idea of what the text says in chapter 7 or 8, but that's another story. I don't see what that has to do with rejecting the Scholarly claims.

2) Just any excuse to negate the writings will do. Jesus Christ was Crucified before the first epistle was written and as shown in your sites the written dates are guess-work. All but John was written before the destruction of the Temple and Jersulem by the Roman army.

That's a nice attempt to completely brush off the reasons for disputing the Epistles, there are very real reasons for the "style" and vocabulary uses, besides Canon and manuscript issues (Vaticanus, Murotarian) why the Pastorals are disputed or why Ephesians or 2 Peter would be disputed.

3) there are lot of verses in those epistles which validify the Messiahship of Jesus and HIM being the SON of GOD the Father. Hence, the great number of books on Nabion's list of disputed books.

Is that all you can think of regarding "Comments that contradict scripture"? Paul's epistles contradict all of the OT practically. I don't think you're even on track to what they are talking about. The books on the disputed list were not disputed for reasons pertaining to the Messiahship or being Son of God.

4)To say the book wasn't written by the said author would nullify the book according to Nabion in those reasons.

It would put into question its authenticity if its shown that the evidence suggests it is in fact spurious. It must be hard for someone who boldly asserts that the Apocrypha and Enoch are "Spurious" to accept that his own Canon includes books that others consider "Spurious". Your only defense is your belief that the Spirit guided the Roman Canon, and not the OT. Not very debate-worthy of an argument.

"Seems" and "pretty thin" where GOD is concerned means little in the realm of facts.(Nothing is impossible with GOD.)

Translate what you're trying to say here.

 

[sincerly]

Shermana, "spurious writings" are "spurious writings" and have contrary TO the Truths no matter who writes them.

You really should qualify with "What I believe are the Truths' so you don't get dinged for Prosletyzing. If you don't want to answer simple questions of WHY you believe certain books are "Truth" and why others are "Spurious", stick to the DIRS where you don't have to actually debate and answer people's questions.

Since the topic thread is what is being discussed and I am defending Paul's epistles and have said many times that is my stance, those that have been following this thread know what I believe.
Why should I qualify my beliefs with a doubting statement indicating there may be another answer contrary to my beliefs??? That makes no sense. Nor does my answers preclude anyone from believing whatever they choose to believe.
I posted Isa.8:20 as my reason for NOT accepting any information claimed to be truth as TRUTH.
Possibly, you need to "stick to the DIRS".

I disagree with what you call "The Truths" and believe that what you call "Spurious writings" are not spurious, and that certain writings you consider authentic like 2 Peter are what are Spurious, and this was a problem even back in the early church, not just a modern ivory tower scholar thing.

stale-mate.

I was assuming that when I qualified it with "from traditional believers" that I wouldn't have to explain that their conclusion was that it was in favor of 2 Peter's authorship, I included it for the sake of objectivity to show that even those who conclude 2 Peter's evidence is not against it, it is still from a faith-based reason that doesn't involve real tearing apart of the scholarship and is all subjective. It's not so much that their conclusion does not help my cause, if anything it does because it proves that they have no real counter-argument than "just believe".

Do I understand you correctly----You assume that I will accept your conclusion """it proves that they have no real counter-argument than "just believe"'' because you placed """their conclusion was that it was in favor of 2 Peter's authorship,.."""????

I ssure you that the content and context of both the epistles of Peter are in agreement with the Scriptures(OT and NT).

Where does scripture say that the Jewish nation failed? All of his early Apostles were Jewish. It didn't become a heavily Gentile movement until long after even Paul was dead. This argument in no way invalidates the original Jewish teaching of the Jerusalem church and proves total ignorance of actual Christian history in which the entire movement was nothing but Jewish until later. It was changed later from what the Jerusalem Church held for decades and even after that in the underground among the Nazarene and Ebionite groups. There's absolutely no reason to say "The Jewish nation failed" except for some extreme supercessionist idea that has no scriptural basis.
I don't understand why you'd say that or if you understand what you're talking about.

Shermana, there were two parts to the Covenant made at Sinai. The first was the Laws written by GOD on tablets of stone---and the second were the those GOD Told MOSES to write during that forty days and nights Moses was with GOD.

Because the Jewish leaders added their "Traditions and commandments" to GOD'S LAWS didn't improve the beliefs, but altered/made vain GOD'S LAWS. Just as Daniel had prophesied (Mark 7:1-13; Dan.9:24-27).
That prophecy of 70 weeks (until the Messiah to "finish/restrain the transgression") began with a decree to rebuild the temple (and It was the one destroyed in AD 70). That 490 years began in the 20th year of Artaxerxes reign. The Nation of Israel Failed in their mission and Jesus said their "House was left desolate".

Acts is in fact disputed for related reasons. Daniel is not disputed here. Daniel does not radically clash with the rest of the whole.

The Dispute is by the majority of Jewish people who refuse to acknowledge the prophecies and the fulfillment of the same.
Yes, there was those Israelites and Mixed Multitude who believed and those who today accept the Scriptures for the same truths which those same scriptures revealed from Sinai.

Which apparently you did not read because it merely summarizes the traditional scholarly arguments in a way you did not apparently garner accurately.

Shermana, it is "in a way you did not apparently garner accurately" that the summeries were accurately discerned as invalid/false. NOT accepted as they were concluded.

Your only defense is your belief that the Spirit guided the Roman Canon, and not the OT. Not very debate-worthy of an argument.

Again, that is your false assessment of my beliefs. The Holy Spitit was as much an inspired guide to the OT as to the NT. The one is a fulfillment of the other. The Holy Spirit doesn't contradict Himself. Principles remain factual and are the ones GOD has said to live by/be the guide ones life.

 

[Shermana]

Since the topic thread is what is being discussed and I am defending Paul's epistles and have said many times that is my stance, those that have been following this thread know what I believe.

What you believe is not what matters, you are being questioned WHY you believe what you believe and you have refused to address it each time by answering something you weren't asked and not answering the questions.

Why should I qualify my beliefs with a doubting statement indicating there may be another answer contrary to my beliefs???

Because you are in fact prosletyzing and not actually debating or bothering to address arguments or even make one. If you're not willing to accept that your belief isn't necessarily the whole truth and if you're not willing to debate, stick to the DIRs.

That makes no sense. Nor does my answers preclude anyone from believing whatever they choose to believe.

It precludes nothing. But it gives away that you're only interested in prosletyzing your stance and not arguing the points about it.

I posted Isa.8:20 as my reason for NOT accepting any information claimed to be truth as TRUTH.
Possibly, you need to "stick to the DIRS".

Feel free to explain how Isaiah 8:20 in any way supports what you're saying. Trying to turn it around on me? I'm not the one refusing to address questions and simply repeating myself when asked, you are the one who refuses to address the issues and then doesn't actually present actual arguments. Like this. You said you used Isaiah 8:20, how does that in any way support your statement?

stale-mate.

The stalemate is only because I explained what I believe and you explained what you believe. The problem is you are not willing to actually address why you believe what you do when asked. I will happily address my belief in canon. You simply use non-sequiturs to defend your view if you actually do.

Do I understand you correctly----You assume that I will accept your conclusion """it proves that they have no real counter-argument than "just believe"'' because you placed """their conclusion was that it was in favor of 2 Peter's authorship,.."""????

Where did I say that you accept my conclusion? You can't even read what your debate opponent says properly?

I ssure you that the content and context of both the epistles of Peter are in agreement with the Scriptures(OT and NT).

Didn't you just say something about me expecting you to just believe my conclusion without arguing? This is what I'm talking about. Statements like this. Assuring me that you are right is not debating. You are prosletyzing.

Shermana, there were two parts to the Covenant made at Sinai. The first was the Laws written by GOD on tablets of stone---and the second were the those GOD Told MOSES to write during that forty days and nights Moses was with GOD.

There is no separation. I've heard this desparate argument before by those who try to reconcile the concept of the Law to their beliefs. There is no proof whatsoever that when it refers to "The Law" it's referring to anything less than the entirety of the commandments. There is only one covenant, it's not divided into parts.

Because the Jewish leaders added their "Traditions and commandments" to GOD'S LAWS didn't improve the beliefs, but altered/made vain GOD'S LAWS. Just as Daniel had prophesied (Mark 7:1-13; Dan.9:24-27).

Ummm, that's what I'm saying is why Jesus rebuked the Pharisees. Are you even on the same page?

That prophecy of 70 weeks (until the Messiah to "finish/restrain the transgression") began with a decree to rebuild the temple (and It was the one destroyed in AD 70). That 490 years began in the 20th year of Artaxerxes reign. The Nation of Israel Failed in their mission and Jesus said their "House was left desolate".

Where does it say the House was left Desolate exactly? Verse please. The entire Church was comprised of Messianic Jews until Paul stepped in. Cornelius was the first gentile convert. You are now making up your own Theology by trying to say the Law is outright eliminated or something because most Jews didn't accept Jesus? The subject was about the Jerusalem Church under James' leadership and its difference with Paul. Your argument is that the Jerusalem Church's authority was never binding because not enough Jews converted?

The Dispute is by the majority of Jewish people who refuse to acknowledge the prophecies and the fulfillment of the same.

Which has nothing to do with anything in terms of doctrinal requirements. That has nothing to do with why the Church of Jerusalem differed from Paul. Is your argument that James never had Apostolic authority to begin with?

Yes, there was those Israelites and Mixed Multitude who believed and those who today accept the Scriptures for the same truths which those same scriptures revealed from Sinai.

No, the ENTIRE church was Israelite, Cornelius was the first convert. Only later did Gentiles convert. I understand this may put a wrench in your logic, but it's the facts.

Shermana, it is "in a way you did not apparently garner accurately" that the summeries were accurately discerned as invalid/false. NOT accepted as they were concluded.

Accurately discerned as false? More prosletyzing. I showed that your counter statements were wrong, and then you just repeat that you're right instead of addressing my arguments.

Again, that is your false assessment of my beliefs. The Holy Spitit was as much an inspired guide to the OT as to the NT. The one is a fulfillment of the other. The Holy Spirit doesn't contradict Himself. Principles remain factual and are the ones GOD has said to live by/be the guide ones life.

If the Spirit doesn't contradict itself, then it didn't motivate Paul's epistles. Be careful when using the Spirit as the basis of your discussion. One of us blasphemes it when they make false claims about it, I will take the risk of doing so, will you? Apparently so.

Now would you like to try actually debating? If you continue to prosletyze and refuse to address my actual arguments and counter arguments, and if you continue to just say "Nuh uh" or "I have shown you are wrong" without actually countering, I'll simply ignore you.

 

[waitasec]

What you believe is not what matters, you are being questioned WHY you believe what you believe and you have refused to address it each time by answering something you weren't asked and not answering the questions.

what a strange phenomenon...

 

[sincerly]

What you believe is not what matters, you are being questioned WHY you believe what you believe and you have refused to address it each time by answering something you weren't asked and not answering the questions.

Again, I believe what I believe because: """To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them."""

Isa.8:20 is very clear and excludes all opinions which are contradictory to that which comes from GOD either on those stone tablets or through HIS prophets.(including Moses writings).

You may caLL THE SCRIPTURES AS ANSWERS being "non-Sequitur" if you want, but the Scriptures are the only valid answers.

There is no separation. I've heard this desparate argument before by those who try to reconcile the concept of the Law to their beliefs. There is no proof whatsoever that when it refers to "The Law" it's referring to anything less than the entirety of the commandments. There is only one covenant, it's not divided into parts.

Are you saying that the laws Of Moses(given by GOD) which have to do with sanitation can be used to condemn a person for idol worshiping(a law written on those stone tablets)??

Heb.9:1 has this information. "Then verily the first [covenant] had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary."

Where does it say the House was left Desolate exactly?

Matt.23:37-38, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. "

The entire Church was comprised of Messianic Jews until Paul stepped in. Cornelius was the first gentile convert. You are now making up your own Theology by trying to say the Law is outright eliminated or something because most Jews didn't accept Jesus? The subject was about the Jerusalem Church under James' leadership and its difference with Paul. Your argument is that the Jerusalem Church's authority was never binding because not enough Jews converted?

Paul was converted and then Cornelius. The instructions Jesus gave before HIS ascending was to the Jews First and then the Gentiles.
Jesus saw that Paul was honest in his belief in GOD, but had been deceived---NOT in the doctrines given from Sinai, but in the Messiah and HIS followers.
Paul didn't just "step-in" Paul was choosen by Jesus and was brought to his knees and blinded----so that he could see the truth of the correct light of knowledge.
ALL that Paul taught was revealed by Jesus.(Gal.1:11-12)

False! The only part of the law which was
fulfilled was the Sacrificial/ceremonial laws dealing with the Sanctuary/priestly duties.
The reason sought to be heard by the Jerusalem council was some believing Pharisees insisted that new Gentile converts be circumcised and keep those Sacrificial laws of Moses which had been prophesied and fulfilled by Jesus Christ upon the Cross. The Council stated they had NOT sent those men with such a message and upheld Paul in his teachings.Acts15:1-29

Which has nothing to do with anything in terms of doctrinal requirements. That has nothing to do with why the Church of Jerusalem differed from Paul. Is your argument that James never had Apostolic authority to begin with?

The Jerusalem Council didn't differ with Paul and the council was affirming the authority of the teaching which Jesus taught and lived in accordance to the Law and the Prophets.

No, the ENTIRE church was Israelite, Cornelius was the first convert. Only later did Gentiles convert. I understand this may put a wrench in your logic, but it's the facts.

Shermana, That "church in the wilderness" was a mixture of abraham's seed and "A Mixed Multitude" and on entering the Promised land, a pick up of Rahab and her kin who believed her report were added---also, Ruth---and any of the nations surrounding the Israelites who choose to have GOD as their GOD.
At Pentacost, Acts 2. reveals that proselytes were in that number who attended.
Therefore, unless you are using "Israelite" to mean "prevailer/overcomer" and not strickly Jewish, Gentiles were in the Church at Jerusalem.
Yes, While Paul taught the Jews first, there were many Gentiles happy that the Gospel was for them as well.
The Jews who heard the messages taught were just as free to decide then as today what they wanted to believe as from GOD. From the very beginning of leading HIS Chosen people, it was known that GOD isn't a respecter of persons.

Accurately discerned as false?... I showed that your counter statements were wrong, and then you just repeat that you're right instead of addressing my arguments.

Your sites didn't convince me that you were correct in your arguments.
Shermana, I don't recall ever using the words, "I'm right and you are wrong" or a variant. Just because you believe something/anything doesn't mean I have to agree with you because that is your belief and that goes for posted sites as well.

Now would you like to try actually debating? If you continue....without actually countering, I'll simply ignore you.

Suit yourself! My answers will still be from the Scriptures rather than believing some biased against the truths of the Scriptures sites.

 

[Pegg]

15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.


every time i ask someone to prove the bible is the word of god, i can count on this passage being brought up over and over again...

so did paul consider his letters to be scripture god breathed or inspired by god?

Paul is speaking about the hebrew scriptures here. Paul was a teacher of those hebrew scriptures in harmony with his spiritual understanding of them. So his own writings are a guide to understanding the hebrew scriputres and their fulfillment....when he says 'all scripture is inspired' he is speaking about the writings of the prophets and Moses.

But as he himself was also an inspired prophet, his writings constitute 'scripture' for christians.