Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death."
I know of a few things Jesus Christ has said about the Sabbath. But does it ever really spell it out for us that work in general on the Sabbath day is no longer a sin?
Nope. It's a sin.
What is sin ?
Ans: Sin is the transgression of the law (Ten Commandments).
God says to "Remember" to keep the Sabbath holy...that is the 4th Commandment.
2Pe 3:15 and the long-suffering of our Lord count ye salvation, according as also our beloved brother Paul--according to the wisdom given to him--did write to you,
2Pe 3:16 as also in all the epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, among which things are certain hard to be understood, which the untaught and unstable do wrest, as also the other Writings, unto their own destruction.
The fact is graphe simply means writing(s)...When it is translated broadly as Scripture(s) it cause many to assume that the OT Scriptures are being spoken of...When this is not neccessariy the case...It is illogical to assume whenever the word graphe is being used that it, by neccessity, has to mean the OT Scriptures...Graphe simply means writings, not Scripture...And Peter literally said, 'the other writings' and not, 'the rest of scripture'...Which would still differentiate Paul's writings from the OT writings, if you wish to go in this direction...Paul's writings were a mix of what he had to say on certain subjects while using the Holy Scriptures to back up his point and these wrtings of Paul are what Peter states are, 'wrested by the untaught and unstable to their own destruction as they do the other writings'... Is Peter speaking here of Holy Writ?...Or is he speaking of Paul's other writings?...Or is he speaking of other writings from other Apostles?...He could not be speaking of Holy Writ here, for in order for it to be Holy Writ it had to be cannonized, as were the Books of Holy Writ of the Old Testament...Was Peter speaking about Paul's other writings?...No, because he mentions that Paul spoke on these things in all his writings or epistles (letters), and it is among those things that are hard to understand and it is the untaught and unstable that pervert not only the things which Paul speaks about but also pervert that which is in the other writings...Differentiating Paul's writings from these other writings...The word 'other' diferentiates one thing from another, it does not place them in the same category...And the fact here is that Peter didn't even place them on par with Holy Writ...What he did place on par with Paul's writings was that, the untaught and unstable wrested with Paul's writings as they ALSO do with the OTHER writings...If one wrests with Mathew Hemry's commentary as one does with the Holy Bible, does that make Mathew Henyr's commentary on par with the Holy Bible...And Peter may well have been speaking of other letters not neccessarily by Paul...
OK, I don't think we're making any progress. Have you looked at each use of "graphe" in the NT? I don't know how you can come here and claim the use in 2 Peter 3 is different from 2 Peter 1, 1 Peter 2, and the other 48 instances. You insist on denying it's a technical term* that absolutely means Scripture to support your presuppositions and odd integration of Christianity and Judaism. Your argument that it can also mean "writing" falls flat in light of the entire NT context and usage.
I'll give you credit for one thing - you eventually took my advice and started the diversionary argument (though I still disagree with it) that "Paul's writings" are in a different category from the "graphe" in 2 Peter 3:16.
But to claim that "graphe" is not speaking of OT Scripture - no way.
* It would be just as absurd to read theological literature, see the word Incarnation, and go, "Oh, since dictionary.com defines it as:
2. a living being embodying a deity or spirit.
3. assumption of human form or nature.
5. a person or thing regarded as embodying or exhibiting some quality, idea, or the like
so maybe that could easily be what's being talked about - no need to assume they're talking about Jesus or God becoming a man or anything like that." (hopefully you get the point - don't torture the analogy too far)
OK, I don't think we're making any progress. Have you looked at each use of "graphe" in the NT? I don't know how you can come here and claim the use in 2 Peter 3 is different from 2 Peter 1, 1 Peter 2, and the other 48 instances. You insist on denying it's a technical term* that absolutely means Scripture to support your presuppositions and odd integration of Christianity and Judaism. Your argument that it can also mean "writing" falls flat in light of the entire NT context and usage.
I'll give you credit for one thing - you eventually took my advice and started the diversionary argument (though I still disagree with it) that "Paul's writings" are in a different category from the "graphe" in 2 Peter 3:16.
But to claim that "graphe" is not speaking of OT Scripture - no way.
* It would be just as absurd to read theological literature, see the word Incarnation, and go, "Oh, since dictionary.com defines it as:
2. a living being embodying a deity or spirit.
3. assumption of human form or nature.
5. a person or thing regarded as embodying or exhibiting some quality, idea, or the like
so maybe that could easily be what's being talked about - no need to assume they're talking about Jesus or God becoming a man or anything like that." (hopefully you get the point - don't torture the analogy too far)
Translating it as 'the rest of the writings' would put Paul's Letters in the same category as Holy Writ, however, literally it says, 'the other writings'...
oth·er
Adjective:
1.Used to refer to a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about.
2.The alternative of two: "the other side of the page"; "flinging up first one arm and then the other".
rest
Verb:
1.Cease work or movement in order to relax, refresh oneself, or recover strength.
2.Remain or be left in a specified condition: "rest assured". Noun:
1.An instance or period of relaxing or ceasing to engage in strenuous or stressful activity.
2.The remaining part of something.
So you are telling me that Holy Writ is the rest of Paul's had to say and what Paul had to say did not come from Holy Writ?...
Actually, in the original Greek it says:
'καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς γραφὰς' - 'and the other writings'...What are these other writings, differentiated from Paul's writings?...If they are indeed a reference to Holy Writ, then Peter has definitely made a distinction between the two, and what he is comparing is the untaught and unstable wreting with the two, Paul's writings and Holy Writ...He is not categorizing Paul's writings as Holy Writ...
Last edited by Richard1965; 08-13-2012 at 04:00 AM..
You seem to have (correct me if I'm wrong) a presupposition that no new revelation from God occurred in propositional (loose sense) form after the OT canon was completed, and that NT writers are merely just reflecting, commenting and writing about that - but no new "Scripture" actually occurred.
Which would seem odd in light of what the early church thought, John 16:13-14, 2 Peter 3:2, 1 Cor. 2:9, 2:13, 14:37, 2 Cor. 13:3, Rom. 2:16, Gal. 1:8-9, 1 Thess. 2:13, 4:8, 4:15, 5:27, 2 Thess. 3:6, 3:14, and 1 Tim. 5:17-18.
If you do admit to new, progressive revelation by them, but deny potential canonicity of what they wrote, then that's pretty odd as well.
Finally, let's look at that adjective: loipa, or loipoy.
Definition:
1) remaining, the rest
1a) the rest of any number or class under consideration
1b) with a certain distinction and contrast, the rest, who are not of a specific class or number
1c) the rest of the things that remain
Masculine plural of a derivative of leipo; remaining ones
other, which remain, remnant, residue, rest.
Heck, just look at its usage throughout the NT.
So your insistence on using "other" and then treating that as totally distinct from "the rest" seems pretty unfounded.
What does this have to do with two year of language study?...
No one is a walking encyclopedia, however, knowing where to find infomration and comprehending this information and how to uuse it once one finds it is the important thing, because it matters not if one can find information, if one cannot comprehend and know how to use this information that one finds, it becomes useless...The Pastor in question has a B.A. in history from Lafayette College and a B.A. in divinity from Hatfield Seminary college, both in Pennsylvania, and is currently a Pastor of a church in Bangor, Pennsylvania and for all I know he may very well have his D.D. by now...You can look him up if you wish...Pastor Ron Shippman...It is a shame that your arrogance prevents you from learning...And by the way, I didn't study languages for just two years, I have been emmersed in them for over 40...Ancient and modern...I speak German, French, Spanish, Italian, Irish, Tagalog, Chinese, Polish...And have delved into the grammatical aspects of languages such as Arabic, Latin, Swahili, Japanese, Korean, Hindi, several Amerind languages, Aztec, Mayan, etc., etc....And I have been emmersed in Ancient languages and their idioms for over 30 years...When it comes to linguistics, one better have there little duckies all in a neat little row before attempting to debate with me on the subject...
"If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words"
God has the ducks all figured out.
If one claims the NT is not scripture, they are false teachers and is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words.
2 Peter 3:15-16 .... is called the inspired Word of God, not Peter's clumsiness.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
As far as the OP .... Keeping the sabbath is accomplished via Christ. To claim that one must do so on a particular day then one is calling Christ a liar \ failure.
Romans 10:4 Christistheendofthelawso that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Remeber it AND keep it Holy...Sorry Verna...Pet peeve of mine...Two things...Remember it always and keep it Holy always...
But He never said that to you. He said it to the nation of Israel. You must consider to whom something is said and not assume that every word of the scripture is applied to you. For it is not. You must learn to "rightly divide" the word of God as scripture tells us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...who can also cook collard greens 
