w
um fwiw there is still an arg that in that context Paul might have meant what we now refer to as Scripture; being a letter to a Church, etc i havent pursued it, the def of gramme has surely drifted, what would Paul have…conceptualized when he used that term (in writing), did he use gramme in other contexts? Was the diff deliberate?
Thats all like, scholar stuff that tbh i rely on guys like you to correct me if im wrong lol
All important to consider. 2 Tim 3:15 is dependent on what Scripture meant
at that time and not what we have now. For instance, the Catholic Bible has a few more books than the Christian Bible. And the Ethiopian Bible has way more books in their Scripture than them.
It's also with noting which manuscripts we are referring to since we don't have the originals.
Paul made many refs to other wisdom schools though, and they didnt have “Bible” per se then
the NT wasn’t complete but the OT was. What were these many references to other wisdom schools you are talking about?
well lets admit that they already had a name for the OT, right. His refs to other wisdom schools…wow, gotten considerably harder to search since the last time, five years ago maybe…heres one about Stoicism,
https://donaldrobertson.name/2012/11/10/st-paul-on-stoicism-from-the-acts-of-the-apostles/ and you can search more on that by basically just searching “Paul and Epicureanism” or “and Zoroastrianism,” etc.
Not that its limited to Paul, by any means; half of the Decalogue comes from Hammurabi, king of Babylon, and prolly earlier even, a woman under a tree of knowledge talking to a serpent (of 3 1/2 coils, no less) becomes obvious when you search for that, i dont even need to post my opinion there, the Wise Men at the manger were pretty obviously Zoros, and many of the refs are in the form of critique of some belief of theirs too, so iow not agreeing with it (the other religion)
I read one about refs to Hindu that was pretty good, guess ill hafta start saving links for them, been relying on just being able to search them again. A lot of times these are just like curious similarities, maybe? Which may not amount to actual refs of another religion…but the concepts were not Jewish, and Paul was a Pharisee, after all, so they are curious.
Christians dont believe in reincarnation, right? Yet we have reincarnation in the Bible
Im seeing that a lot of my search trouble is prolly about the explosion of interest/articles on Paul, and the newer ones rising to the top, prolly. Unfort a lot of Catholic…dreck, basically, lotta Waiting for Jesus, Jesus Returning, ah, Jesus Returning in my (Paul’s) lifetime lol, thats a new one, ya, i guess he did say that lol.
Of course you cant really discuss any of this with…ppl on meat, which i mention bc virtually all of these articles are by meat eaters, so it makes it more difficult to stay agnostic (
Test everything), but then that might even be characterized as a defining element of Paul? One is steered into picking a side, iow; im seeing “Paul is anti-Christian” even, lol, “Paul stole Christianity,” so obv a lot of…polarizing thought about Paul
And, as we have seen at (To Be)
Absent from the body, and the meat/milk passage that ostensibly praises eating from the tree of knowledge, he seems to (at least sometimes) deliberately write in very carefully crafted sentences that read differently after they are analyzed…well, which we even have a warning specific to Paul about, right; ppl mostly interpret him to their destruction.
Man, the Bible was written by some sharp guys, i tell ya what. I might even consult other writings, but no other ones still blow my mind after so long. Calling a guy who wrote like, what, 1/3 of the NT prolly? an antiChristian, is just priceless imo. I mean obv he would be anti CoSI, so anti Christian the way we define it now i guess, but i mean how would they have possibly known that that was how the Christianity they believed would play out?
Are you a Zionist? Thats something that is only approached…kind of obliquely, in Christianity, right? Even if support of Israel (Incorporated, i mean, not the real one) is basically ingrained, huh
Which it should be said that “Christian” already had a meaning then, that is subtly diff from ours today, but im kinda realizing that there has prolly always been some disagreement on a definition there, literal v spiritual