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

[angellous_evangellous]

Some contexts that overlap:

Social contexts - including social class, status

Religious contexts - level of interaction between current religious teachings and practices

Philosophical contexts - level of participation in philosophical debate // use of technical philosophical terms

Empire - level of interaction with Empire - as an oppressed or oppressing people within the context of Rome and related structures

Judaisms - levels of interactions within the various trajectories of Judaisms

General lexical contexts - placement of the individual Greek words within the various shades of meaning from 750 BCE to 400 CE.

Specific lexical contexts - placement of individual Greek words within first century BC and CE // use of individual words and phrases within the corpus written by the author

Transmission history - how Christian scribes and communities interpreted these texts as revealed by how they changed them for clarity

Christian interpretation - where are the key changes in interpretation in Christian history - when did certain theologies first appear?

There's a lot more, but I'd have to charge.

 

[savagewind]

Some of us believe they hear from God. Not think they hear from God. They actually do. That is the context I am talking about.

 

[outhouse]

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.

.

so there is a difference between "Not every" and "all" according to you


As to which I stated

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

Which means to the rest of us.

If you don't know what your talking about, how can you even tell the difference between "Not every" and "all"

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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.

The only possibility here is that "Timothy" was referring to the Old Testament. The New Testament was not yet compiled when this text was written -- obviously -- this letter itself became part of the NT -- hundreds of years after it was written. The only existing body of Scripture that it it could refer to is the Old Testament, which itself just became a canon in about 96CE -- but unlike the NT, it was pretty much standardized in the LXX.

 

[outhouse]

Some of us believe they hear from God. .

Call the guys in with a white paddy wagon and a big net

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Some of us believe they hear from God. Not think they hear from God. They actually do. That is the context I am talking about.

This is not useful for anything.

 

[savagewind]

so there is a difference between "Not every" and "all" according to you


As to which I stated



Which means to the rest of us.

If you don't know what your talking about, how can you even tell the difference between "Not every" and "all"

Right. I know nothing about what I talk about. Good job!

Tell us. Is there no difference between all and every?

 

[savagewind]

Some of us believe they hear from God. Not think they hear from God. They actually do. That is the context I am talking about.

This is not useful for anything.

What is not useful for anything? Me? Or the fact that they really heard from The Spirit of God?

 

[savagewind]

Call the guys in with a white paddy wagon and a big net

Are you on the wrong forum? Lost are you?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Some of us believe they hear from God. Not think they hear from God. They actually do. That is the context I am talking about.



What is not useful for anything? Me? Or the fact that they really heard from The Spirit of God?

I believe that you can firmly refuse to understand what the text says in favor of a theological ideology that some gives you. That's fine.

But it is useless for any other purpose other than making you feel warm and fuzzy.

 

[savagewind]

I believe that you can firmly refuse to understand what the text says in favor of a theological ideology that some gives you. That's fine.

But it is useless for any other purpose other than making you feel warm and fuzzy.

You two discern what the text says without knowing they heard from God. It is about what they said not about what you think they said by your "study" of them. God can tell You the same thing God told them which they wrote down so the context is GOD not "society". Jesus said (or did he?) "they are no part of the world as I am not part of it".

You call yourself a Christian. Why for goodness sakes?

 

[outhouse]

You two discern what the text says without knowing they heard from God.

:biglaugh:

And you assume there actually is one.


I don't see it. I see people writing, in a time when mythology was lived by all.

 

[outhouse]

You call yourself a Christian. Why for goodness sakes?

Education and knowledge while removing religious bias is a trait the world is in desperate need of.


Fantasy, fanaticism and fundamentalism combined with ignorance is the easy way out. :slap:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You two discern what the text says without knowing they heard from God. It is about what they said not about what you think they said by your "study" of them. God can tell You the same thing God told them which they wrote down so the context is GOD not "society". Jesus said (or did he?) "they are no part of the world as I am not part of it".

You call yourself a Christian. Why for goodness sakes?

I am interested in what the text says. The text exists in many ancient contexts - and even if I believed that God spoke them - it makes sense that their primary existence is with the people that God spoke them to.

Now you can happily make up whatever you like to force the text to mean whatever you like, but it is both useless and irrelevant to understanding the text itself.

A good example of this uselessness is your refusal to tend to the text itself, dismissing all other contexts in favor of whatever you're using to make up who you think God is.

 

[savagewind]

Education and knowledge while removing religious bias is a trait the world is in desperate need of.


Fantasy, fanaticism and fundamentalism combined with ignorance is the easy way out. :slap:

fundamentalism? It seems to me YOU are being fundamental about scripture.

Haha! Fanatical ROTFL "obsessively concerned with something" Haha! Good one. My endorphins thank you. Bad association? Hog wash!

Fantasy? Well, that is just your opinion. I am not convinced my God is not fantasy but there is no better way despite not knowing. I am OK with not knowing.

 

[savagewind]

I am interested in what the text says. The text exists in many ancient contexts - and even if I believed that God spoke them - it makes sense that their primary existence is with the people that God spoke them to.

Now you can happily make up whatever you like to force the text to mean whatever you like, but it is both useless and irrelevant to understanding the text itself.

A good example of this uselessness is your refusal to tend to the text itself, dismissing all other contexts in favor of whatever you're using to make up who you think God is.

WHAT? That's them not me. I think your head in history makes you blind to the present.

I don't "think God is" anything. YOU do. OMG

 

[angellous_evangellous]

fundamentalism? It seems to me YOU are being fundamental about scripture. .

I cannot speak for my friend, but the critical difference between what I do and what fundamentalists do is simple:

1) My understanding of Scripture changes as I better understand it using critical methods

2) A fundamentalist can only change slightly inasmuch as it better promotes fundamentalism. There is no room for learning or better understanding independent of the ideology, no matter how far from the text its ideology actually is.

 

[savagewind]

I cannot speak for my friend, but the critical difference between what I do and what fundamentalists do is simple:

1) My understanding of Scripture changes as I better understand it using critical methods

Me too!

2) A fundamentalist can only change slightly inasmuch as it better promotes fundamentalism. There is no room for learning or better understanding independent of the ideology, no matter how far from the text its ideology actually is.

I understand this. It is what I am fighting. I might add that I am alone fighting it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

WHAT? That's them not me. I think your head in history makes you blind to the present.

I don't "think God is" anything. YOU do. OMG

OK, this sophomoric "I don't" but "you do" is immature, baseless, and useless.

I assume that you think that your thinking about God comes from thinking about the Scripture, yet you demonstrate contempt for understanding the text. Therefore, either you or someone else is making up something about God independent of the text.

I have not shown any of my thinking about God - at least that you've read.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Me too!I understand this. It is what I am fighting. I might add that I am alone fighting it.

When you write stuff like this:

You two discern what the text says without knowing they heard from God. It is about what they said not about what you think they said by your "study" of them. God can tell You the same thing God told them which they wrote down so the context is GOD not "society". Jesus said (or did he?) "they are no part of the world as I am not part of it".

You call yourself a Christian. Why for goodness sakes?

It gives me cause to doubt that you're fighting against an ideology. In fact, it demonstrates that you want me to share your misunderstandings of the text and join you in your fundamentalism.