Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

6

Peter almost certainly didn't think of canonicity the way we do today. As Ignatius Theophorus points out, the Greek word (as used by New Testament writers) refers to sacred writings. In its most common use among early Christians, the word γραφὰς referred to those writings that could be read in church; however, Clement, bishop of Rome in the late first ...


6

From my understanding of Strong's and Thayer's, γραφὰς always means, "sacred writings." It does not necessarily imply the entire canon as Christ used the word to refer (presumably) to the Tanach. In addition, it does not even imply which canon is to be trusted (as there were several present at that time). All of that being said, I think it is fairly safe to ...


5

It is often believed that the author of the second book references the first book. This is based on both using otherwise rare words (such as "multiply" in Jude 2 being used in 1 Peter 1:2 and 2 Peter 1:2) and themes ("our common salvation" in Jude 3 and "a faith of the same kind as ours" in 2 Peter 1:2). Whether Jude quotes 2 Peter or 2 Peter uses content ...


5

Most readers notice the connection between Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2.4, but the similarities go beyond that. Second Peter has a lot more material in between some of the parallels, but the two epistles actually touch on much of the same subject matter, in the same order: Jude 1 = 2 Peter 1.2 Jude 4-5 = 2 Peter 2.1 Jude 6-10 = 2 Peter 2.4-12 Jude 12-13 = 2 Peter ...


4

A Contrary Argument: Seeing the Reference as to Good Angels Jack Douglas laid out some good points to argue for 1 Pet 2:11 to be evil angels. However, I do find some holes and things left unconsidered that for me seem to point to a contrary conclusion. I will address the three points and the conclusion he makes to frame my counter argument. Regarding Point ...


4

The other angels in 2 Peter are evil1 Angels are only mentioned twice in 2 Peter. The other mention is near the start of the same logical section in verse 4: 4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; ESV If these angels are good angels, why ...


3

After thinking about it some more, there is a medium strength argument to be made that Peter here supports any letter submitted by Paul under his ministry, past or future. It is an argument not directly from the text, but from omission. In other words, Peter says that people twist Paul’s writings, in the same way that they do scripture. He does not logically ...


3

The phrase "of Scripture" here is intended to distinguish between prophecies belonging to Scripture and prophecies belonging to the false prophets who are excoriated beginning in 2 Peter 2:1. The genitive "of Scripture" can be taken to mean: "prophecy about Scripture" (similar to the form "a prophecy of Jesus' death") "prophecy belonging to Scripture" ...


2

2 Pet 2 and Jude are very similar, both in structure, language, and themes. These two are parallel passages (cf. e.g. this site): Jude 8-9: Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the ...


2

Soldarnal's points are spot on. Context is always important in interpreting Scripture, or any other writing for that matter! Peter is surely contrasting true prophecies, on the one hand, and false prophecies on the other. In other words, Peter is contrasting the "cleverly devised tales" of the false prophets vis a vis two things: 1) the eyewitness ...


2

ταρταρώσας is defined as: ταρταρόω (Τάρταρος ‘the Netherworld’) 1 aor. ἐταρτάρωσα (Acusilaus Hist. [V B.C.]: 2 Fgm. 8 Jac. I p. 50; Lydus, Men. 4, 158 p. 174, 26 W.; cp. Sext. Emp., Pyrrh. Hypot. 3, 24, 210 ὁ Ζεὺς τὸν Κρόνον κατεταρτάρωσεν [this compound several times in Ps.—Apollod.: 1, 1, 4; 1, 2, 1, 2; 1, 2, 3]. Tartarus, thought of by the ...


2

Is it at all possible that these two books were written completely independent of one another by the individual prompting of the Holy Spirit? From a Christian perspective, the Holy Spirit is indeed the true Author of God's word and merely works through men by divine inspiration (as affirmed by Peter in 2 Peter 1:20-21). Given this, is it not quite feasible ...


2

A 'hypostatic union' is a specific term used in Christian theology to describe the trinity. It is meant simply to state that a being can have different persons under a same essence. In the incarnation, it is less frequently used but then means a being, a Unity, the Christ, exists as a single person 'under' which two distinct natures exist, human and divine. ...


2

From Wikipedia, the Papyri containing 2 Peter are: P72 (circa 300, also contains 1 Peter, Jude, and several apocryphal writings) P74 (circa 650, missing chapter 1, also contains Acts, 1 Peter, and 1-3 John) The Uncials containing 2 Peter are 4th century: א, B 5th century: A, 048. 6th century: 0156 (Chapter 3), 0247 (Chapter 1) 7th century: 0209 9th ...


1

This concept is fascinating, and a short survey of some New Testament will shed light on the questions at hand. First, the word "nature" in the New Testament is the Greek noun, φύσις, which occurs with the following connotations as follows: (1) The "nature" of heterosexuality (Rom 1:26-27) (2) The "nature" of dictates of the conscience (Rom 2:14) (3) The ...


1

As best I can tell, there is no major difference in the wording seen in the oldest extant manuscripts dated closest to any original text of 2 Peter. Specifically: P72 (ca. 275-325 CE) shows ΠΑΡΑΚΥΡΙΟΥΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΟΝΚΡΙΣΙΝ (παρα κυριου βλασφημον κρισιν), and similarly, codex Vaticanus (ca. 325-375 CE) reads ΠΑΡΑΚ̅ WΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΟΝΚΡΙϲῙ (παρα κω βλασφημον κρισι̅ ). ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible