Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: wagglebee
Your reply is a non sequitur. You don't address the content of the verse.

First, I don't necessarily agree with your date for Mark. "Generally agreed" is a fallacious term used to end argument.

But the point remains that Paul saw the existing scripture as sufficient to make the man of God complete, perfect, apt to every good work, what God intended him to be. Peter specifically refers to Paul's writing, and others, as that scripture. That more apostolic writings came after Paul's statement in 2 Timothy does not change the conclusion. There was a sufficient gospel before his death, and he assumed his readers knew what he was talking about.

What do you think he is saying? Are you allowed to suggest an alternate interpretation, or does that violate 2 Peter 3:16?

653 posted on 05/05/2008 2:17:54 PM PDT by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies ]


To: Chaguito
First, I don't necessarily agree with your date for Mark. "Generally agreed" is a fallacious term used to end argument.

The date of John's writings have NEVER been in dispute.

668 posted on 05/05/2008 3:55:34 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 653 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson