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’s use of graphe—which he does do, more than ten times, if i recall correctly—is usually or always attributed to what we now call OT, i think? Seems like there are maybe one or two graphe refs by him of some NT writer too, though
The chief Ethiopian claim is, i think, concerning a book of Enoch? Which i guess the argument for denying it as Bible mostly concerns its lack of ancient copies (witnesses). Enoch almost surely had a book or two, being such an important early father, but that we have no agreeing copies of an ancient one, which is usually the standard. And the reason why kinda eventually becomes clear imo; what is Enoch most famous for? Doesnt it seem like a guy, such a colorful guy, would have had a more dedicated following/readership?
Also, the copies that do survive put the authorship way later than Enoch’s era, i think? Plus, i mean just read it? All writings (at the time) might have been useful for instruction etcetc but imo the Ethiopian Enoch ends up being…useful via the left hand, say? Almost a primer in how not to write wisdom literature lol…but thats just imo ok, not saying that there isnt any wisdom in it, but there is a bunch of assertions made that are not witnessed in any other work
Which i recall ended up kinda helping me form my standard for truth, the Enoch thing. Im not so interested in changing anyone elses mind, and obv ppl have many various beliefs that must conform to their standard of truth, right? What is truth? That ends up being up to you, sort of, point being that its prolly a good idea to formalize some personal standard for it, particularly being a*gnostic, which can easily be perceived as like wishy washy or undecisive, as imo the current cultural definition even indicates, “doesnt know if there is a God or not,” which btw drives me nuts since that can be assumed anyway lol, its just the height of retarded for a definition, imo; no one knows that, we only have ppl who say that they know, might even be convinced that they know, but they have no objective evidence, right?
i would even argue that anyone who says that they know should be avoided like the plague, not bc they say that they know but bc they will inevitably have a (prolly pretty detailed) description and definition of God? Which dont get me wrong here, i dont doubt that there is a God, but can i comprehend even His Name? AEOU?