book of Revelation?

[eaglesway]

  "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
(2Pe 3:15-16)

What I read is that Peter is saying that Paul has been given wisdom when he speaks about specific matters in his letters.  In the next sentence Peter uses a preposition and a pronoun (in them); this would be a reference to a former thing.  That thing (according to grammar, but you could argue against that if you wish), must be the closest logical noun ('things' doesn't work because it is part of the phrase):  which is '[these] matters'. Otherwise we would have lot of dangling modifiers and the whole sentence would cease to make sense.  When I read to the end of the sentence he binds his subject (these matters, referenced through the pronoun 'them') with the rest of scripture.  What I see is Peter linking the rest of scripture to Paul's writings when he writes about 'these matters'.

Amen

[MLCCP]

Hi ML:

We seem to have blurred the lines between the thread about adjusting and the one about Revelation.  Did you check out the reference to the reply for which you asked?  You didn't mention it, and the writings didn't seem to reflect that you had.  I'll give you the quotation I used:  "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
(2Pe 3:15-16)

What I read is that Peter is saying that Paul has been given wisdom when he speaks about specific matters in his letters.  In the next sentence Peter uses a preposition and a pronoun (in them); this would be a reference to a former thing.  That thing (according to grammar, but you could argue against that if you wish), must be the closest logical noun ('things' doesn't work because it is part of the phrase):  which is '[these] matters'. Otherwise we would have lot of dangling modifiers and the whole sentence would cease to make sense.  When I read to the end of the sentence he binds his subject (these matters, referenced through the pronoun 'them') with the rest of scripture.  What I see is Peter linking the rest of scripture to Paul's writings when he writes about 'these matters'.

I mentioned that verse earlier. However, that verse says Paul writes things that are hard to understand, which is correct. It does not say that what is hard to understand should not be part of the canon of Scripture. Paul said and did a whole lot of things which never made it into Scripture, but what is there was meant to be there. Peter never said otherwise.

[marie glen]

well. I will stand up for the Book of Revelations..even though it mean I am drama seeking,

or have an agenda or seek pie in the sky.  Red herrings,strawman arguments and slippery slopes.

all.....only the word of God is the word of God.  what? remove the book of Revelation section

next?

   People have been twisting scripture for their own agenda from the beginning..and the

  book of revelations is no different.  But, that does not invalidate the scriptures,as the

  word of God..inspiried of the Holy spirit.

I don't think that's the issue sheila.  We are to divide the word.  Even Peter put limits on which parts of Paul's writings should be seen as scripture.  That tells me, the other parts are not.  So, some are important, and it is up to us to divide it properly.

Would you be kind enough to give the verse where Peter questions some of Paul's writings as Scripture?

I know Peter said some of Paul's writings are hard to understand, but that is a far cry from questioning whether it should be Scripture or not.

Oops! i was gonna reply.. but I'm forever jumping in, then reading on, or back, and finding I've simply jumped into the middle either too early or too late! [  :dontknow: ]  Peter did say some things Paul wrote were hard for some to understand, but never has any verse I know of said some scripture can be overlooked or selected to not be scripture - although :iagree: about memorizing genealogies :laugh2: mentioned above.. Some folks I think, think of the Book of Revelation as being like the gnostic gospels, where you can tell they're off, just by reading them! But that's the point! Revelation is so different.. (taken down by that old man, John! only surviving apostle and original disciple of Jesus who witnessed all which occurred). The book is full of visions, and visions within visions, sort of like mankind's history itself (especially if we include angels in that history). But Revelation is the peak of man's history, the final result, the collapse and crumble of man's empire(s).. Just like the Angel/Spirit of the LORD told Abraham before the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah "shall I do a thing and not tell my servant?" Doesn't every story have a conclusion? Is life a random jumble of occurrences? Well yes, I guess it is.. But that's the letting thinking ability which includes choice(surely?) run its course.. But is that all? God's not doing anything? Not proving something? No most basic of all basic understandings? The one thing and lesson we all must thoroughly know and understand before things can move on? No foundation of everything? That there is no life/living apart from God, which attempt can only ever end in dust and a brief puff of smoke...
- hmmmm, I've been pacing my kitchen.. guess I ended up
posting after all :pointlaugh: have a good day!

[VineBranch]

I mentioned that verse earlier. However, that verse says Paul writes things that are hard to understand, which is correct. It does not say that what is hard to understand should not be part of the canon of Scripture. Paul said and did a whole lot of things which never made it into Scripture, but what is there was meant to be there. Peter never said otherwise.

Okay, but how does that relate to what I said about the parsing of the verse?

[MLCCP]

I mentioned that verse earlier. However, that verse says Paul writes things that are hard to understand, which is correct. It does not say that what is hard to understand should not be part of the canon of Scripture. Paul said and did a whole lot of things which never made it into Scripture, but what is there was meant to be there. Peter never said otherwise.

Okay, but how does that relate to what I said about the parsing of the verse?

You can break that sentence down all you want to, but you can't make it say what it doesn't say. And it doesn't say anything about any of Paul's writings not being inspired, only that some things are difficult to understand.

The original statement was Peter said there were writings of  Paul's that should not be in the Scriptures. I was just pointing out that that is incorrect. I think we have beat this subject to death.

[marie glen]

  "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
(2Pe 3:15-16)

What I read is that Peter is saying that Paul has been given wisdom when he speaks about specific matters in his letters.  In the next sentence Peter uses a preposition and a pronoun (in them); this would be a reference to a former thing.  That thing (according to grammar, but you could argue against that if you wish), must be the closest logical noun ('things' doesn't work because it is part of the phrase):  which is '[these] matters'. Otherwise we would have lot of dangling modifiers and the whole sentence would cease to make sense.  When I read to the end of the sentence he binds his subject (these matters, referenced through the pronoun 'them') with the rest of scripture.  What I see is Peter linking the rest of scripture to Paul's writings when he writes about 'these matters'.

Amen

:iagree: :smile: ..and he speaks of those matters "in all his letters".. no separation of some letters good and some not.. amen!

[marie glen]

Sorry, I keep jumping in when I want to respond to something I've read in the thread.. Even though I actually stopped by real quick right now just to post that I've always felt a 'revelation call'.. I found God and Jesus in the mountains, and I've spent a lot of time outside of 'the world'.  :dontknow: I've just always felt I more or less understood 'apocalypse' (the unveiling of all untrue.. by revealing the results of it..) [The easiest character of Revelation to see is the false prophet, who is not the same character most seem to think he is.. and there I go blabbity blabbing again a habit I've had for some time now! :smile: hope everyone has a good evening.. or otherwise if across the pond, or somewhere else..]

[VineBranch]

You can break that sentence down all you want to, but you can't make it say what it doesn't say. And it doesn't say anything about any of Paul's writings not being inspired, only that some things are difficult to understand.

The original statement was Peter said there were writings of  Paul's that should not be in the Scriptures. I was just pointing out that that is incorrect. I think we have beat this subject to death.

So, is this then like with your theology:  your mind is made up and nothing anyone says is going to change it, or make you question your assumptions?  If this is a place to practice your skills at monologue then fine.  IMO the point of discussion is trying to see the other person's point of view.  You changed your mind about UR.  Is that where your search ends?  Stephen Leacock said that when he got his Ph.D he was pronounced full and capable of learning no more.  Surely none of us here are so full of themselves that there is no room for clear thought about those things with which we disagree.

One favour, if you will.  If you are going to leave, as you mentioned in the other thread, give me a warning if you would.  Laz is gonna slap me up side the head, and Lom is gonna tell me to stop being so serious.  It will somehow be all my fault  lol.  I'ld like to be able to duck and cover:  quack quack.  Come to think of it, they may still do it even if you stay.  So, why not stay and watch the fun?

[eaglesway]

I agree that Peter was qualifying Paul's writing as scripture and that it is quite clear in the passages being discussed.  quack, quack, duck! :o)

[VineBranch]

I agree that Peter was qualifying Paul's writing as scripture and that it is quite clear in the passages being discussed.  quack, quack, duck! :o)

But in reply #75 you amenned the other notion.  You is confuuuussssing me.   :Chinscratch:

[Lazarus Short]

VB, I won't slap you upside the head...but - remember that it's easier to attract flies with honey than with vinegar.

Better teaching with a kind word  :friendstu: than with confrontation.  :punish:

[eaglesway]

I agree that Peter was qualifying Paul's writing as scripture and that it is quite clear in the passages being discussed.  quack, quack, duck! :o)

But in reply #75 you amenned the other notion.  You is confuuuussssing me.   :Chinscratch:

"What I see is Peter linking the rest of scripture to Paul's writings when he writes about 'these matters'. "

That's what you said that I was amenning :o) I thought you were saying, "Peter considers Paul's writings to be scripture". Sorry if I confused you. :o)

[VineBranch]

VB, I won't slap you upside the head...but - remember that it's easier to attract flies with honey than with vinegar.

Better teaching with a kind word  :friendstu: than with confrontation.  :punish:

With all due respect, and I genuinely mean that, when we were children, did we not think as children?  Did the Father then not place people more mature and more willing to stand up among us?  Are we not now, after these years of having watched how the Gospel can become a snare to trap the young, morally responsible to cut through those snares?  Are we not morally responsible to spring those traps which we have seen damage those around us, and perhaps ourselves?

We are the adults now.  When we see yet one more person come among us and try to impose yet another set of rules or doctrines or philosophies on us and the young among us, do we not have the duty to oppose them?  Christ came to free the prisoners, and he whom the son has set free is free indeed.  As the adults, are we not the ones who must now look upon those who would re-enslave us once more to the law of sin and death, or some other performance- based salvation, and say NO.  Is it not now up to us to stand in their way and say 'I love you' but please don't shackle my brethren to the very walls which Christ died to destroy.  Don't build your prison here!!!

As adults, is that not one of the things we take on?

[eaglesway]

Not really. This is a blog. We are not on a crusade to eliminate potential enemies. We are on a mission to communicate with one another and reach out toward a mutual understanding of the mind of Christ.

[ded2daworld]

People do not change their minds about their wrong beliefs because someone tells them they are wrong.
People change their minds when asked questions which make them think and question their wrong beliefs.
For example, someone says we should do this or that to get closer to God.

Q. Is there anything we can DO to get ourselves saved?
Q. Once Christ saves us, does he place his Holy Spirit in us?
Q. Does Jesus say he will never leave us or forsake us?
Q. If the spirit of the living, creator God is actually inside of us, how can anything we do bring him closer?

[VineBranch]

Not really. This is a blog. We are not on a crusade to eliminate potential enemies. We are on a mission to communicate with one another and reach out toward a mutual understanding of the mind of Christ.

I thought this was a discussion forum.  A blog is a monologue.

'crusade'?  'enemies'?  When did I use those words? Now that hurts!!!  I was advocating a still, peaceful, resistance, to someone who would impose another gospel, not some violent campaign to thwart those who don't believe what I do.

Camel's back, meet last straw.

[eaglesway]

All I was trying to say Vine Branch is that evryone who sees it different than 'me' is the child in whose way I must stand. Point being that as you said, it is a discussion forum, and we ought to try to keep the form of a discussion, even if we seriously disagree with our dialogees, lest the discussion forum become a monologue for a few folks who agree about everything :o).

The parameters are really fairly wide- as long as the respect of scripture is maintained and UR remains the general hub of the wheel, we should respect each other as conversationalists as opposed to debaters.

I hope you have room for a few more straws, as you are a valuable member of the forum. :Peace2:

[dajomaco]

Q. If the spirit of the living, creator God is actually inside of us, how can anything we do bring him closer?
WE can not bring HIM closer.
We can how ever bring ourselves closer to him.

[eaglesway]

Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you Jas 4:8

[eaglesway]

A wise man once wrote,

"When will you quit looking outward with the eyes of your heart. The portal within opens up a vast universe, the very heavens themselves with their attendant wonder, glory and power await you where the spirit of God awaits you in the spirit realm, within the holies of holies, beyond the veil."

[reFORMer]

I read somewhere that the Reformation of the mid 1500's was the result of a particular interpretation of the Book of Revelation.  How ever much true that is, it serves to illustrate why there is such spiritual warfare against this writing's potency.

Not with weapons that cut, shoot, burn or smash in the same dimension our flesh exists, the warfare of the saints, particularly evidenced in the arena between our ears, is a fight against the existence in flesh of persons with characteristics resulting from their walk with God.  The atmosphere of culture and its shining stars agree we're not supposed to think that way.  While they may futilely use carnal weapons against us, we cannot accomplish the Divine agenda by such means.  This nature we increasingly assume requires a "Revelation of Jesus Christ" which only God can give.

Tho' Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of God five times in the Gospel of John, He calls Himself son of Man fifty-five times there.  This is what is so opposed:  in-your-face God as flesh and blood.  As long as He's spirit in the heavenlies there's little objection.  As your brother or sister is forbidden thought.  Son of a theological doctrine ruffles few feathers...until it manifests in flesh.  "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:  and this is that [spirit] of antichrist..." (1 Jn 4:3,) which John also says is a deceiver (2 Jn 1:7.)  That a man is on the throne of God, expecting all things to be subject to him, this Revelation through us into the world is what is most contested.

[Lazarus Short]

I had read that the Reformation was sparked by Martin Luther reading one simple sentence:  The just shall live by faith.

[micah7:9]

I had read that the Reformation was sparked by Martin Luther reading one simple sentence:  The just shall live by faith.

That's what I was taught from K-8 at St. Peter Lutheran school.

[ded2daworld]

That was in the biographical movie, "Luther" also.

[Lazarus Short]

Guess where I read about Martin Luther and "The just shall live by faith"?

In a book penned by the Seventh-Day Adventist prophetess, Ellen White.