The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians

[angellous_evangellous]

The definition was given, it is in black and white, anyone can look it up.

Anyone can look anything up. Not everyone, however, has the critical thinking skills to use what they "look up" properly. Also important, one needs to be able to recognize a valuable and a useless source.

 

[sojourner]

OK. The writers' context not the scholarly context. God chooses writers who AREN'T critical. That is what he doesn't know. If Bible writers were critical we would have men's thoughts not God's thoughts. See? He can't imagine it is possible to write how God sees anything.

What was the writer's context?

 

[outhouse]

Ok. Then how is The Bible the most read book in the HISTORY of the world?

.

People as a whole, are not that bright.


Literally a few out of millions lead and create for the masses.

 

[savagewind]

People as a whole, are not that bright.

Yah. You think I am not so bright. How do I know? Not one frubal.

Literally a few out of millions lead and create for the masses.

Yes, it is why I choose Jesus Christ.

 

[savagewind]

What was the writer's context?

The writers' context is belief in God The Savior. All of it is about God's way is the best way. So to cut that out of your exegesis is utterly ridiculous.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The writers' context is belief in God The Savior. All of it is about God's way is the best way. So to cut that out of your exegesis is utterly ridiculous.

Oy Vey

 

[savagewind]

Oy Vey

Ok What?

"All scripture is God breathed".

King James Bible
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

Not every but all. There is a difference.

He says they wrote with their culture in mind. OK, of course they did but it is not ABOUT it. It is about God.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I personally put the scriptures in prospective. I realize when it was written and the circumstances it was written in. I don't accept all of it is the word of God or even it's efficacy has survived time and countless translations.

Do you not think you tread on thin ice when you do that? I say the word is right, and we must find the understanding. I say that it has survived its various translations. How can you accept one bit without another?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Anyone can look anything up. Not everyone, however, has the critical thinking skills to use what they "look up" properly. Also important, one needs to be able to recognize a valuable and a useless source.

Obviously

 

[savagewind]

Do you not think you tread on thin ice when you do that? I say the word is right, and we must find the understanding. I say that it has survived its various translations. How can you accept one bit without another?

Finding the understanding of twisted scripture is not possible. If someone else misunderstood it and wrote it down (not the original, you understand) their way then the true understanding cannot be found in it. THAT IS MY POINT. If it can be twisted it can be untwisted. Ask any jeweler.

 

[sojourner]

The writers' context is belief in God The Savior. All of it is about God's way is the best way. So to cut that out of your exegesis is utterly ridiculous.

No, that's not the writer's context. The writer's context is time of writing, place of writing, intended audience, etc.

 

[savagewind]

No, that's not the writer's context. The writer's context is time of writing, place of writing, intended audience, etc.

No. I think you describe the setting, not context.

 

[sojourner]

No. I think you describe the setting, not context.

"Setting"/"context" is the same thing in the world of exegesis.

 

[outhouse]

Not every but all. There is a difference.

.

So appeal to severe ignorance helps figure out the difference between the two ????

 

[savagewind]

So appeal to severe ignorance helps figure out the difference between the two ????

English son. English!

I don't know what your post means. I don't know if I want to know.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Obviously

If it were that obvious, people wouldn't be posting definitions from Webster's. And I would never see that in graduate papers. Want to see the wrath of Angellous? I'll come down on you with the wrath of the titans.

Seriously. I email those to the admissions committee every time I get them - subject line - You aren't doing your job... again.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

English son. English!

Why? It's obviously not doing you any good.

 

[savagewind]

Why? It's obviously not doing you any good.

It's not doing me any good? How do you know?
How do you know is a real question.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's not doing me any good? How do you know?

He was already speaking English.

 

[savagewind]

He was already speaking English.

He WAS? OK. What did his post mean? I might malfuction if I let a question go.