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: 77245187" data-attributes="member: 449833"><p>Agreed, I just read an article by the author that expounds on the distinction of "writings" <a href="https://jesuswordsonly.github.io/recommendedreading/335-writings-section-of-original-testament-of-bible-knol.html" target="_blank">Writings Section of Original Testament of Bible - knol</a></p><p></p><p>Essentially, he makes the argument that Peter was saying Paul's writings in 2 Peter 3:16 would have been equivalent to how the Jews treated Ecclesiastes and Daniel, aka the Ketuvim. It has good things in it but not everything in it is inspired. I mean I think that is pretty obvious, there are times where Paul states he is giving his own opinion apart from a command from God or that time he quoted a Greek in I believe Galatians to make a point. Does anyone one here have a problem with this understanding? I don't and I know the church has been moving away from that hyper fundamentalism of "every letter in the Bible is 100% the Word of God". I think the author wants to posit this idea because that means that "well I guess that means everything Paul said is on the table, so he could be wrong about the grace doctrines".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Light on the Hill, post: 77245187, member: 449833"] Agreed, I just read an article by the author that expounds on the distinction of "writings" [URL="https://jesuswordsonly.github.io/recommendedreading/335-writings-section-of-original-testament-of-bible-knol.html"]Writings Section of Original Testament of Bible - knol[/URL] Essentially, he makes the argument that Peter was saying Paul's writings in 2 Peter 3:16 would have been equivalent to how the Jews treated Ecclesiastes and Daniel, aka the Ketuvim. It has good things in it but not everything in it is inspired. I mean I think that is pretty obvious, there are times where Paul states he is giving his own opinion apart from a command from God or that time he quoted a Greek in I believe Galatians to make a point. Does anyone one here have a problem with this understanding? I don't and I know the church has been moving away from that hyper fundamentalism of "every letter in the Bible is 100% the Word of God". I think the author wants to posit this idea because that means that "well I guess that means everything Paul said is on the table, so he could be wrong about the grace doctrines". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
Languages
Does dysnoetas mean nonsense?
Top
Bottom