2 Peter 3:16 Protestant interpretaion?

[sandusky]

jam070406:

fine. it is a ridiculous argument at this point but, it still doesn’t change the fact that we are not to interpret scripture on our own to our own destruction.

It’s not fine.

Please, direct me in that verse, to one word, just one that prohibits, or forbids anything. :ehh:

 

[jam070406]

It’s not fine.

Please, direct me in that verse, to one word, just one that prohibits, or forbids anything. :ehh:

:yawn:

 

[sandusky]

:yawn:

Correct; there is not even one word in that verse that either prohibits, or forbids, anything.

Thanks :tiphat:

 

[joshua_b]

Then, IMO, you illustrate Peter’s point.

Your point is moot; we have of Paul’s writings, what we have of Paul’s writing, and we must live in that reality.

And what reality might that be …the reality that it is possible noone on earth has a complete collection of Sacred Scriptures ??

Furthermore, I fail to see how I “illustrate Peter’s point”…could you qualify that statement please, because your intended message was totally lost on me. What “point” am I illustrating ?

Aside from that, you still haven’t addressed the vernacular usage of the word “scripture” during the time Peter’s epistles were written.

 

[jam070406]

Correct; there is not even one word in that verse that either prohibits, or forbids, anything.

Thanks :tiphat:

no, i meant this argument is tired.

i would say, Distort and Destruction are two pretty powerful words in that statement.
course, you’re gonna make it mean whatever you want anyway so that is why we’ll get nowhere with this. and you’ll just go on interpreting whatever you want to mean whatever you want.
go ahead distort away. it’s only your salvation at risk.

 

[catsrus]

“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” (DRB)

Easy.
The Hebrew Scriptures.
Don’t forget, that’s the only scripture available to anyone at that time.

 

[joshua_b]

Easy.
The Hebrew Scriptures.
Don’t forget, that’s the only scripture available to anyone at that time.

Correction…that was the only SACRED Scripture available to anyone at that time. Once again…ANYTHING written down was a “scripture”. Who is to say that the author isn’t referring to items outside of what we consider to be Canonical ?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

So if we discover some more of Pauls writings in a cave today, you’ll add them to your canon once they are verified as authentic?

As for me, I’ll trust that the Holy Spirit preserved that which was needed to be preserved.

Hi,
It could just mean that Paul didnt write all of his letters at that point. I dont know–Im not sure of the timeline when everything was written, but that is a possibilty.Unless of course Paul was dead when Peter wrote this.

 

[sandusky]

Joshua_b:

And what reality might that be …the reality that it is possible noone on earth has a complete collection of Sacred Scriptures ??

All you have to do is prove that there is a more complete collection of scripture available, and I’m on board.
Joshau_b:

Furthermore, I fail to see how I “illustrate Peter’s point”…could you qualify that statement please, because your intended message was totally lost on me.

You twist and distort the scripture when you say:

I don’t buy into the "Peter recognized Paul’s writings as scripture."

In the ancient language, “scripture” simply meant “writing”. ANY writing was referred to as a “scripture”. There was a dilineation between “scripture” and “Sacred Scripture”.

catsrus:

Easy.
The Hebrew Scriptures.
Don’t forget, that’s the only scripture available to anyone at that time.

The Catholic Encyclopedia in the second paragraph that begins, “As the verb graphein was thus employed,” disagrees with both of you.

IOW, the word, scripture, when used in scripture, means scripture.

 

[jam070406]

All you have to do is prove that there is a more complete collection of scripture available, and I’m on board.

You twist and distort the scripture when you say:

The Catholic Encyclopedia in the second paragraph that begins, “As the verb graphein was thus employed,” disagrees with both of you.

IOW, the word, scripture, when used in scripture, means scripture.

and he used letter to describe Paul’s writing. not scripture.

 

[sandusky]

jam070406:

no, i meant this argument is tired.

I’m sorry you’re bored.

jam070406:

i would say, Distort and Destruction are two pretty powerful words in that statement.

course, you’re gonna make it mean whatever you want anyway so that is why we’ll get nowhere with this. and you’ll just go on interpreting whatever you want to mean whatever you want.

go ahead distort away. it’s only your salvation at risk.

You’re all turned-around.

It is you who is distorting the verse, and making it say something it does not say.

jam070406:

and he used letter to describe Paul’s writing. not scripture.

Are you protesting what the Catholic Encyclopedia says in the link I’ve provided?

 

[jam070406]

I’m sorry you’re bored.

You’re all turned-around.

It is you who is distorting the verse, and making it say something it does not say.

Are you protesting what the Catholic Encyclopedia says in the link I’ve provided?

i didn’t read the link.
i didn’t distort the verse. it says people distort scripture to their destruction.
did they distort Sacred scripture or did they distort Paul’s letters?
because Paul’s letters were not yet considered Sacred scripture.

 

[joshua_b]

All you have to do is prove that there is a more complete collection of scripture available, and I’m on board.

You twist and distort the scripture when you say:

The Catholic Encyclopedia in the second paragraph that begins, “As the verb graphein was thus employed,” disagrees with both of you.

IOW, the word, scripture, when used in scripture, means scripture.

Although I have to concede that my point was not entirely correct, neither is your’s. Read the whole paragraph you linked to and you will see “In the language of Christ and the Apostles the expression “scripture” or “scriptures” denotes the sacred books of the Jews. The New Testament uses the expressions in this sense about fifty times; but they occur more frequently in the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles than in the synoptic Gospels. At times, the contents of Scripture are indicated more accurately as comprising the Law and the Prophets (Romans 3:21; Acts 28:23), or the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44). The Apostle St. Peter extends the designation Scripture also to tas loipas graphas (2 Peter 3:16), denoting the Pauline Epistles; St. Paul (1 Timothy 5:18) seems to refer by the same expression to both Deut., xxv, 4, and Luke, x, 7.”

So “scripture” when used in the Gospel accounts, refers to “the sacred books of the Jews”. In later usage “scripture” refers to “the law and the Prophets”, or “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms” (still the sacred books of the Jews). When Peter uses the word, “scripture” refers to the “scripture written by Paul” (as well as the sacred Jewish writings).

In short, I admit to being wrong, but I’m up to speed now, and you’re not entirely on the right track.

 

[jam070406]

yes. i was gonna post that also.

In the language of Christ and the Apostles the expression “scripture” or “scriptures” denotes the sacred books of the Jews.

thanks for reaffirming what we’ve said mr. Sandusky.

 

[sandusky]

jam070406:

i didn’t read the link.
i didn’t distort the verse. it says people distort scripture to their destruction.

I believe you were also asserting that the verse prohibited private interpretation, did you not?

jam070406:

did they distort Sacred scripture or did they distort Paul’s letters?

Both.

jam070406:

because Paul’s letters were not yet considered Sacred scripture.

Peter thought so.

 

[sandusky]

Joshua_b:

In short, I admit to being wrong, but I’m up to speed now, and you’re not entirely on the right track.

Fair enough.

 

[sandusky]

yes. i was gonna post that also.

In the language of Christ and the Apostles the expression “scripture” or “scriptures” denotes the sacred books of the Jews.

thanks for reaffirming what we’ve said mr. Sandusky.

 

[jam070406]

I believe you were also asserting that the verse prohibited private interpretation, did you not?
Both.
Peter thought so.

hmmm… well, distorting scripture to your own destruction can’t be a good thing can it?

maybe it doesn’t say prohibt, but would you agree that is ill advised to do so based on said sentence? otherwise, he would have no need to say anything because according to some, such as yourself, we all can interpret on our own, right?
that is why there was a church hierarchy set in place and it worked for 1500 years before the reformers.

fine. i stand corrected. it doesn’t say prohibit. ok?

Paul’s letters were not sacred scripture at that time. your link even pointed out the meaning of scripture in that passage’s context.

prove to us Peter thought Paul’s letter was Sacred scripture.

and another thing, Paul writes that he only wrote because he couldn’t be there in person. so if he had gone in person perhaps a letter would not have been written. therefore we would have to rely further on oral Tradition preserved by the church.

 

[sandusky]

jam070406:

hmmm… well, distorting scripture to your own destruction can’t be a good thing can it?

Nope.

jam070406:

maybe it doesn’t say prohibt, but would you agree that is ill advised to do so based on said sentence?

Only if one is untaught, and unstable, says Peter.

jam070406:

otherwise, he would have no need to say anything because according to some, such as yourself, we all can interpret on our own, right?

Only if one is taught, and stable, implies Peter.

jam070406:

that is why there was a church hierarchy set in place and it worked for 1500 years before the reformers.

Are you implying that it quit working at 1500 years?

jam070406:

fine. i stand corrected. it doesn’t say prohibit. ok?

OK.

jam070406:

Paul’s letters were not sacred scripture at that time. your link even pointed out the meaning of scripture in that passage’s context.

prove to us Peter thought Paul’s letter was Sacred scripture.

Re-read the verse, and the link.

jam070406:

and another thing, Paul writes that he only wrote because he couldn’t be there in person. so if he had gone in person perhaps a letter would not have been written. therefore we would have to rely further on oral Tradition preserved by the church.

The fact that Paul did write letters renders your point moot.

 

[jam070406]

Only if one is untaught, and unstable, says Peter.

yes. the taught being the magisterium. the untaught being those that find proper interpretation from the magisterium.

Are you implying that it quit working at 1500 years?

no. i just worded it poorly. i’m implying that there are those that believe it still works today and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. then there are those, such as yourself, that rebel against the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church by denying it’s authority to teach and interpret scripture. they now believe they can interpret on their own, thanks to the reformers.