Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
Languages
Does dysnoetas mean nonsense?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Light on the Hill" data-source="post: 77245125" data-attributes="member: 449833"><p>A very fair point. I think the author has more of a problem with Protestantism/Dispensationalism than Paul (I heard Luther tried to remove James from the canon too, not looking so great for protestants <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite30" alt=":grimacing:" title="Grimacing :grimacing:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":grimacing:" />). He said he started looking into Paul because he saw that some from the dispensationalist camp were leaning wayyy to hard into Paul, to the extent of saying his epistles should be taken above Jesus' from His earthly ministry; I've seen some of that too. His articles kind of gave me a crisis of faith but now I kind of see he is stretching a lot of his arguments further than most people would find reasonable, rather "dysnoetas" if you ask me <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />. Peter was probably talking about people like Calvin when it came to "twisting and distorting" Paul's letters.</p><p></p><p>For instance he says that Peter called Paul a brother and not a fellow apostle, meaning that Peter didn't recognize him as a fellow disciple/apostle. and now when I read it my thought is "ok so what?". Like unless Peter went out of his way to call others apostles, then I find it hard to believe that Peter calling Paul a brother would be a thinly veiled attempt at sarcasm. Even if the author was correct in his assessment that some of Paul's writing are nonsense, that wouldn't mean that all of them are, as even the article author himself admits. I always had a problem with that mentality that a lot of these anti-Paulinists have; they'd rather just throw the baby out with the bath water. Even if you are someone who thinks salvation is works based, there is a lot of good stuff in Paul's epistles such as the Armor of God, but its easier to just throw everything else out than sit through and try to understand. </p><p></p><p>I'll give Doug this, he's been doing this since I think 2005 so I'm sure he has thought of many refutations of people objecting to him. The guy seems genuine; doesn't ask for money, tells people to donate to charities, etc. I think he probably saw people putting Paul on a pedestal and his immediate thought was to run in the opposite direction. I'll pray for him, seems like a nice guy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Light on the Hill, post: 77245125, member: 449833"] A very fair point. I think the author has more of a problem with Protestantism/Dispensationalism than Paul (I heard Luther tried to remove James from the canon too, not looking so great for protestants :grimacing:). He said he started looking into Paul because he saw that some from the dispensationalist camp were leaning wayyy to hard into Paul, to the extent of saying his epistles should be taken above Jesus' from His earthly ministry; I've seen some of that too. His articles kind of gave me a crisis of faith but now I kind of see he is stretching a lot of his arguments further than most people would find reasonable, rather "dysnoetas" if you ask me ;). Peter was probably talking about people like Calvin when it came to "twisting and distorting" Paul's letters. For instance he says that Peter called Paul a brother and not a fellow apostle, meaning that Peter didn't recognize him as a fellow disciple/apostle. and now when I read it my thought is "ok so what?". Like unless Peter went out of his way to call others apostles, then I find it hard to believe that Peter calling Paul a brother would be a thinly veiled attempt at sarcasm. Even if the author was correct in his assessment that some of Paul's writing are nonsense, that wouldn't mean that all of them are, as even the article author himself admits. I always had a problem with that mentality that a lot of these anti-Paulinists have; they'd rather just throw the baby out with the bath water. Even if you are someone who thinks salvation is works based, there is a lot of good stuff in Paul's epistles such as the Armor of God, but its easier to just throw everything else out than sit through and try to understand. I'll give Doug this, he's been doing this since I think 2005 so I'm sure he has thought of many refutations of people objecting to him. The guy seems genuine; doesn't ask for money, tells people to donate to charities, etc. I think he probably saw people putting Paul on a pedestal and his immediate thought was to run in the opposite direction. I'll pray for him, seems like a nice guy. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
Languages
Does dysnoetas mean nonsense?
Top
Bottom