Reputation
1,307
Top tag
Next privilege 1,500 Rep.
Approve tag wiki edits
Badges
1 11 24
Impact
~55k people reached

Feb
14
comment Does 2 Tim.1:16-18 imply that Onesiphorus is already dead?
Thanks for your answer. "By that I mean that we should build a doctrine upon this as a key text" - Did you mean to say "we should NOT" instead?
Feb
14
comment Does 2 Tim.1:16-18 imply that Onesiphorus is already dead?
2) the person Onesiphorus did really exist, except he might've gone by some other name, that is, not by name "Onesiphorus" that the author chose; but, on the other hand, in your answer you said "Onesiphorus in this case is further evidence that he was a literary construct and existed only within Second Timothy. Onesiphorus was not dead if he never lived." So, what's your point here about that person's existence? If this is the case of "a literary construct", did the person still exist regardless of what name he really had?
Feb
14
comment Does 2 Tim.1:16-18 imply that Onesiphorus is already dead?
1) "I am saying that when the anonymous author of 2 Tim was looking around for a name, he chose a name appropriate for the situation and was perhaps inspired by Onesimus, who also helped Paul in prison." - I am sorry for being such a dummy, but I still don't get it. I know that some names have meaning, for example, the name "Carpus" in 2 Tim. 4:13 means "fruit", but I am a bit puzzled by the apparent contradiction in your words. On one hand, you say "the anonymous author of 2 Tim was looking around for a name, he chose a name appropriate for the situation", which I take as your agreeing that ↙
Feb
13
comment Does 2 Tim.1:16-18 imply that Onesiphorus is already dead?
You've made a valid point here. Thank you.
Feb
13
comment Does 2 Tim.1:16-18 imply that Onesiphorus is already dead?
".. so it is likely that Onesiphorus was a literary construct invented by the actual author of 2 Timothy" - So you are saying here that the name Onesiphorus here is not actually a name that would be a reference to one particular person, but rather some phrase with the meaning of "bringing advantage", right? If so, then how should this verse be translated then? Something like "The Lord give mercy unto the house of the one who was to my advantage; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain" or something? Will this rendition not be quite a stretch and rather awkward looking?
Feb
11
comment What is “that day” in John 14:20?
@LWise - I don't deny that option, but... how is the fulfillment of a promise of another comforter is not on the day of His resurrection (John 20:22)? Well, it's kind of point of controversy between different traditions, as we know.
Feb
6
comment What is “that day” in John 14:20?
@Susan - I see. Thank you.
Jan
13
comment Are the unlearned and unstable in 2 Pet 3:16 regenerated Christians?
Very interesting input! Thank you.
Jan
12
comment Are the unlearned and unstable in 2 Pet 3:16 regenerated Christians?
I understand that, but still... is it possible to stay only within the context of 2nd Peter and - regardless of any tradition - try to infer from the text whether or not the author includes the unlearned and unstable ones in 2 Pet 3:16 in the number of those he had mentioned earlier in 1:4? Or is it an impossible task?
Jan
11
comment Are the unlearned and unstable in 2 Pet 3:16 regenerated Christians?
"The issue of "regeneration" παλινγενεσίας (palingenesias), is not the issue in this passage" - What if we looked at this issue in the way of "being regenerated = being the one who has partaken of God's divine nature at least once in his lifetime" (see my replies to Dan's comment right below my question for detailes). So, could these unlearned and unstable ones in 2 Pet 3:16 be from among those who have at least once partaken of the divine nature of God mentioned in 2 Pet. 1:4?
Jan
5
comment Are the unlearned and unstable in 2 Pet 3:16 regenerated Christians?
@Dan - (2) Along these lines, I am also quite curious if the people that Peter is talking about in 2 Pet. 2:20 are also the ones that have partaken at least once in the past, that is, are the partakers: "For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome..."
Jan
5
comment Are the unlearned and unstable in 2 Pet 3:16 regenerated Christians?
@Dan - (1) "this is not a one-time event, as I'm sure you recognize" - The process of partaking is, of course, not a one-time event, but the very act of becoming a partaker, for sure, is. Simply put, the one who has become a partaker is the one who has started the process of partaking in his life, that is, has performed an act of partaking at least once in his life.
Jan
4
comment Are the unlearned and unstable in 2 Pet 3:16 regenerated Christians?
@Dan - "It would also be helpful to examine what you mean by 'regenerated' in the context of 2 Peter (which probably wasn't written by Peter)" - By having been regenerated I mean having become the partaker of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4)
Jan
4
comment Are the unlearned and unstable in 2 Pet 3:16 regenerated Christians?
Ah, I see. Thank you.
Jan
4
comment Are the unlearned and unstable in 2 Pet 3:16 regenerated Christians?
I don't know, maybe it's clearer in Greek, but where does the author assets that he knows all Paul's epistles?! At least, the KJV rendering of that verse (quoted in my question) doesn't assert that at all!
Jan
4
comment Are the unlearned and unstable in 2 Pet 3:16 regenerated Christians?
Thank you for your answer. "...which confirms for New Testament scholars that this epistle was actually written long after Paul's death" - How does it confirm that the epistle was written long after Paul's death?! Why Paul could not have still been alive while Peter was writing this epistle?
Dec
18
comment Does the woman in Revelation 12 go down to the earth from the heaven?
"Just as Israel and Judah (two tribes) went astray..." - I can get that Judah is one tribe, but how is Israel another one tribe?!
May
22
comment The grammatical tense of the verb “judged” in 1Peter 4:6
9) If you look, by the way, at what kind of things Peter was preaching to them, you will notice the content of that preaching that was accessible to the audience: Jesus’ acts of “doing good”, His miracles of healing, His death and resurrection, His judgment, and the forgiveness of sins to those who believe in Him – nothing about being born of God or being born of the Spirit, and nothing about being spiritually dead or alive.
May
22
comment The grammatical tense of the verb “judged” in 1Peter 4:6
8) And for sure such a phrase like “both the living and the dead” would be firstly understood by him only in the physical sense as such concepts like “physically living, but spiritually dead” or “physically dead, but spiritually alive” were simply not yet familiar to him – just like they were first not familiar to Nicodemus. Peter, of course, realized that; therefore, I make a conclusion that when Peter was using the phrase “both the living and the dead” in his first preaching to Nicodemus and his kinsmen and friends he was using it in the physical sense. ↙
May
22
comment The grammatical tense of the verb “judged” in 1Peter 4:6
7) So, if the Pharisee Nicodemus, a ruler of Jews and a master of Israel, was so puzzled by these spiritual things when they were first mentioned to him, then we won’t commit an error by suggesting that these things would be equally, if not all the more so, puzzling to the centurion Cornelius who was not a Jew, but rather “one of another nation”, keeping a company with whom was “unlawful for a Jew” (Acts 10:28) – even despite the fact that he was a God-fearing gentile and of good report among Jews (Acts 10:22). ↙