Radiography
From Kristos Vocabulary Booster
English
Noun
radiography
- the process of making radiographs, and the science of analyzing them
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:18:30 +0000 (UTC), lsenders@hotmail.com wrote:
>Mike Rhodes wrote:
>> Note: This post uses 2 Peter 3 as its reference. I had assumed this
>> was actually Peter's letter, but then found a discussion saying some
>> early authorities don't believe Peter wrote this. Having read that I
>> now tend to agree. It seems that the writer's purpose was to do war
>> against Paul's error, and may have assumed Peter's identity just for
>> that reason. Nevertheless, I agree with his reason, whether or not
>> Peter actually wrote it.
>>
>> But if Peter didn't write it then Peter didn't call Paul "beloved,"
>> nor his writings as "scripture," (both appear with some sarcasm).
>
>Ya, like that would evidence the fruit of the Spirit!
So that's your response? Weak sarcasm, and an empty claim on your
part.
It doesn't take much thought for a disinterested observer to come to
the conclusion that if one wants to defend their portion of
Christianity then all such as they must be convinced the Holy Spirit
is with them. But as you and I can see, there are many various
divisions, and some are really quite unusual; with Paul's teaching
taking a major portion of their foundation of theology. Paul is so
impressive! But it's Paul's word alone, mixed as they personally see
fit, in 'grace'. And "meek and lowly at heart" ain't in there.
Repentance has been pushed aside.
Oh they want grace so bad! This so they don't have to repent, or can
make their own decision on what is repent-worthy. So how free they
are! By the words of their solitary god.
We all have some sort of spirit in us. And we all have been
'inspired' by the most unusual things; even when we _know_ it is
_fiction_. So let's all get together and hold hands and make it
truth?! No, let's don't.
>I would suggest that you read, ""Palaeographical Dating of P46 to the
>Later First Century," by Young Kyu Kim. hester Beatty Papyrus
>II-University of Michigan Papyrus Inv. 6238-better known as P46,
>has been assigned a date of around A.D. 200 by most paleographers and
>NT textual critics. As such, it is the earliest manuscript of the
>Pauline corpus, originally containing 10 of Paul's letters (all but
>the Pastorals) and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Its text is an excellent
>representative of the Alexandrian type.
Meaningless to the argument, which is about the letter's _content_. I
really couldn't care less about approximations of date. And you are
being deceptive in pretending that it would make a difference.
>Though there are several implications of such an early date for P46.,
>only one need here to be noted, that being, that the problematic
>statement in 2 Pet 3:16 (viz., that the author knew of a collection of
>Paul's letters) could no longer be used as an argument against
>Petrine authorship of 2 Peter.
And why would anyone fight so diligently to say that it is Peter's
letter? Only because of "beloved Paul"? This alone makes your
argument suspect. Since is is because of that 'belovedness,' then the
words you claim are _empty_, for that is how they were intended,
regardless of the author.
I was _disappointed_ to find the only way to resolve the 2 Peter's
content, (something wasn't right, don't you think?), was to accept the
probability that Peter did not write it.
>No one is discounting difficulties, but to start out the gate as you
>have by insinuating error in Pauline teaching, or questioning the
>Spiritual authority of his canonical epsitles puts you at odds with the
>greater part of church history. Personally it first struck me as
>immature, your position being "swayed" by a recently read argument.
The post is straight-forward logical as to my reasoning. And yes I
was embarrassed. But there is no deception in it, nor you have not
pointed any outanywhere. And that strikes me as cowardice. As it is
a similar ignoring (not correcting) response to my post on Gal 2.
In the SRCB, I'm always dissed in some manner. Not surprising for the
subject, (or is it? Christ?) But I expect to find a few men who want
to get at the truth. Instead, they all act as 'oracles', and any
attempt to find the truth is as to uncover the great secret in Oz. So
there is no answering to reveal, only hiding and disdainment of what
is different. Though you are with the majority, on one point, I
cannot respect you, nor your presumed behavior as 'instructor.'
>I've known too many who portray this tendency, ever learning, never
>acquiring. Before arriving at a conclusion, I would suggest you read
>works like what I have just referenced, or at least commentaries which
>explore the subject but arguing in favor of Petrine authorship.
You change the subject, hiding your secret, on purpose.
My intent is to undercut Paul, and not without reason. That has
always been clear. My intent is to restore authority to Christ and
His Word. No one has reasonably accused otherwise. It is for Paul
and his doctrine alone that you are angry, and that is so clear for
all to see. I will continue to push that button. It isn't difficult.
It is only by the reputation of Paul alone that you hope for victory.
As the writer of 2 Peter implied, that 'victory' won't last. Then
God's long-suffering may become yours; for the lie, the anti-Christ
taught.
What Paul did to the ones who held the keys to the kingdom is the most
overt of devilish hates of brothers. What Paul did to the Gospel in
Gal 2, and Romans, etc is an abomination that was purposed by Paul,
and still purposed by the Jews.
"Meek and lowly"? You've decided that the only way you could be
impressed and intellectually satisfied was through Paul's jesus. But
it is a proven lie. Just read for yourselves.
--
Mike
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
