News:


Main Menu

Highlighting the Walkout

Started by PrTim15, February 19, 2024, 10:58:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Rev. Edward Engelbrecht

Quote from: Mbecker on February 23, 2024, 05:16:00 PM
Quote from: Rev. Edward Engelbrecht on February 22, 2024, 10:03:52 AMBut you do agree, Matt, that they were teaching the historical critical method?

If by "they" you mean bibical scholars and other professors of theology at LCMS colleges and seminaries after the mid-1940s, you are correct. As I mentioned, when the synod celebrated its centennial, the convention that year voted to spend a large sum of money to support the publication of a major historical-critical resource, BAG (later abbreviated BDAG). From the 1940s onward (perhaps even earlier), seminary students, LCMS pastors, and LCMS professors of theology learned historical-critical methods in LCMS institutions, and those individuals benefited from historical-critical resources. I learned about such resources myself when I was a student at 801 ('84-'88), and made use of them then as well as subsequently. Hoerber made use of those resources in NT studies, just as Hummel did in his OT courses. (Hummel helped to introduced these modern methods to Concordia students in the early '50s.)

Were there matters of disagreement? Absolutely. The Scharlemann affair is a good example. Hummel left Concordia for LSTC, where he could work a little more freely in his area. Habel's work on the genres of the Genesis stories in Gen 1-3 is another example.

By the early 1960s it was clear that the Synod would need to address the limited usefulness of "the historical-critical method," given that those tools could be used destructively (e.g., as they have been, imo, within the ideology of historicism). Thus, the Synod went on record in 1967 and 1969 supporting the use of historical-critical tools of biblical scholarship within certain prescribed limits. The presuppositions and aims that one brings to the exegetical/hermeneutical task are crucial, e.g., using those historical-critical tools in service to the gospel and not in rigid obedience to Troeltsch's three principles.

Matt Becker

Thank you, Matt. I think that was precisely the bone of contention, whether or how to use the historical critical method. Users can reach widely different conclusions. A more conservative user like Danker would raise fewer eyebrows. But as users began to reach more surprising conclusions, that sparked concern and mistrust.

As I've read the literature, the number one accusation from both sides was dishonesty. Both felt it and both feared it, which led to further and further confrontation.

I've been with youth all night talking about the two natures in Christ. Time to turn in.

Dave Benke

By the early 1960s it was clear that the Synod would need to address the limited usefulness of "the historical-critical method," given that those tools could be used destructively (e.g., as they have been, imo, within the ideology of historicism). Thus, the Synod went on record in 1967 and 1969 supporting the use of historical-critical tools of biblical scholarship within certain prescribed limits. The presuppositions and aims that one brings to the exegetical/hermeneutical task are crucial, e.g., using those historical-critical tools in service to the gospel and not in rigid obedience to Troeltsch's three principles.

This is an interesting insight, Matt.  How do those 1960s resolutions compare with the 1973 Statement?  Are they preliminary versions, or were they headed in a direction in any way different from the 1973 effort?

Having studied in the discipline of biblical exegesis with professors who remained on campus after Seminex and with professors who went to Seminex and eventually to LSTC or other schools, I found Martin Scharlemann's perspectives on Scripture to be in line with say Bob Smith or Ev Kalin when it came to the use of historical-critical tools.

Dave Benke

It's OK to Pray

John_Hannah

Quote from: Dave Benke on February 24, 2024, 10:11:55 AMBy the early 1960s it was clear that the Synod would need to address the limited usefulness of "the historical-critical method," given that those tools could be used destructively (e.g., as they have been, imo, within the ideology of historicism). Thus, the Synod went on record in 1967 and 1969 supporting the use of historical-critical tools of biblical scholarship within certain prescribed limits. The presuppositions and aims that one brings to the exegetical/hermeneutical task are crucial, e.g., using those historical-critical tools in service to the gospel and not in rigid obedience to Troeltsch's three principles.

This is an interesting insight, Matt.  How do those 1960s resolutions compare with the 1973 Statement?  Are they preliminary versions, or were they headed in a direction in any way different from the 1973 effort?

Having studied in the discipline of biblical exegesis with professors who remained on campus after Seminex and with professors who went to Seminex and eventually to LSTC or other schools, I found Martin Scharlemann's perspectives on Scripture to be in line with say Bob Smith or Ev Kalin when it came to the use of historical-critical tools.

Dave Benke



Clearly true that there was no difference between Scharlemann and the others. Recall that he (along with Ehlen and Hummel) was vigorously condemned before the selection of Tietjen in 1969, after which Scharlemann switched "sides."

As I lived through the 1960's to 1973, I would posit that the significant change in attitudes came mostly as a result of Herman Otten's rapidly rising influence. He was able to draw in the growing anxiety over culture as well as the rise of Evangelicalism in America.

Otten successfully compared 17th century Lutheran Orthodox theories of inspiration (repeated by Pieper) against more current serious studies of the texts of Holy Scripture. It is a false choice. Piepkorn's essay and Jenson's monograph (from ALPB!) as well as other studies demonstrate that confessional orthodoxy is not forfeited by employing historical criticism.

Peace, JOHN
Pr. JOHN HANNAH, STS

Rev. Edward Engelbrecht

There was an agreed upon step into the historical-critical method, led by a Scharlemann publication as I recall. But what sparked the Walkout more specifically, I think, was that the faculty majority wanted academic freedom. They wanted the right to teach about these matters and methods as they believed the evidence was leading them. Did the synod ever commit to academic freedom? I don't think it did. And that seems to be the real dividing point.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Rev. Edward Engelbrecht on February 24, 2024, 11:29:42 AMThere was an agreed upon step into the historical-critical method, led by a Scharlemann publication as I recall. But what sparked the Walkout more specifically, I think, was that the faculty majority wanted academic freedom. They wanted the right to teach about these matters and methods as they believed the evidence was leading them. Did the synod ever commit to academic freedom? I don't think it did. And that seems to be the real dividing point.
As I recall, being at an ALC seminary at the time, an example we heard was that a professor was not allowed to even present as a possibility that Jonah was not a historical writing. 
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

RDPreus

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 24, 2024, 11:34:16 AM
Quote from: Rev. Edward Engelbrecht on February 24, 2024, 11:29:42 AMThere was an agreed upon step into the historical-critical method, led by a Scharlemann publication as I recall. But what sparked the Walkout more specifically, I think, was that the faculty majority wanted academic freedom. They wanted the right to teach about these matters and methods as they believed the evidence was leading them. Did the synod ever commit to academic freedom? I don't think it did. And that seems to be the real dividing point.
As I recall, being at an ALC seminary at the time, an example we heard was that a professor was not allowed to even present as a possibility that Jonah was not a historical writing.

Since Jesus Himself tied the historicity of Jonah to His own resurrection from the dead, it seems reasonable to me to expect seminary professors to agree with Jesus and teach the historicity of Jonah.

George Rahn

#111
Quote from: RDPreus on February 24, 2024, 11:53:45 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 24, 2024, 11:34:16 AM
Quote from: Rev. Edward Engelbrecht on February 24, 2024, 11:29:42 AMThere was an agreed upon step into the historical-critical method, led by a Scharlemann publication as I recall. But what sparked the Walkout more specifically, I think, was that the faculty majority wanted academic freedom. They wanted the right to teach about these matters and methods as they believed the evidence was leading them. Did the synod ever commit to academic freedom? I don't think it did. And that seems to be the real dividing point.
As I recall, being at an ALC seminary at the time, an example we heard was that a professor was not allowed to even present as a possibility that Jonah was not a historical writing.

Since Jesus Himself tied the historicity of Jonah to His own resurrection from the dead, it seems reasonable to me to expect seminary professors to agree with Jesus and teach the historicity of Jonah.


Nice one.  I never made the connection!  I had Kalen for 1 Corinthians.  And HC was never brought up.  But the NT grammar was the main driver of the exegetical course.


Dan Fienen

#112
We have kicked around "inerrancy" in these discussions here a great deal. We have not even arrived at a mutually agreed upon meaning for the term. Brian insists that it must mean that for the Bible to be inerrant that must mean that the copies which we have on our shelves and desks must themselves be inerrant. Which, of course, none of us assert. Our standard understanding of inerrancy is that the original autographs of the Biblical Books were without error, which, since those autographs no longer exist and all we have are copies of copies which so variations, Brian insists is meaningless. We disagree. We are not even talking about the same thing when we talk about inerrancy, and there seems to be no way in which we can. Seems to me that discussion has reached an impasse and a dead end.

Could we, perhaps, attempt to discuss "inspiration," Just about everyone in these discussions would agree that the Bible is "God's inspired word to us." Am I correct? But what do we mean by "inspired?"  Without trying to accuse anyone of holding a particular position (and trying to defend that accusation) I suggest that there are several possible meanings of "God's inspired word."

1) That when God inspired the men who wrote what we now accept as the Bible, God dictated word for word what they would write so that they acted not as authors but as scribes. So far as I know, nobody in these discussions actually holds this view.

2) That the authors of the Biblical Books were inspired by their religious experiences and wrote under that inspiration. Others found those writings also inspiring and they came to be more widely accepted as authoritative and collected as such.

3) A variation on 2), God has chosen to use writings inspired by the authors' experiences to convey and revel His intentions and actions towards us, especially His gracious intentions to save lost humanity. The inspiration and authority of the Bible is that God has chosen (adopted?) to use these writings to bring people to faith in the Bible. The specific Biblical writings have been generally found to be useful for conveying the Gospel and bringing people to faith, but other religious writings, such as sermons are similarly inspired.

4) God chose to work through some human to revel Himself, His will, and His intentions, so that the human authors own personality, knowledge, and thinking were a part of the process, what they wrote still originated from God. This is basically my position. From the Christian Cyclopedia, LCMS "Inspiration"
Quote2. To say that the Bible is the work of the Holy Spirit as Author does not imply suspension or extinction of the personality or individuality of the writers. God's Spirit used each writer with his endowments and his background of grammar, style, knowledge of nature and hist., etc.

3. That the Holy Spirit suggested to the writers the whole content and the words (plenary and verbal inspiration) is est., e.g., by Is 59:21; 1 Co 2:13; Gl 3:16; 1 Th 2:13. Accordingly, inspiration is a special, potent activity of the Holy Spirit which He exercised on those whom He chose as His instruments for writing the Biblical documents.
How would others in this discussion describe their understanding of "Inspiration" in regards to Scripture?
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Dan Fienen on February 24, 2024, 12:21:59 PMWe have kicked around "inerrancy" in these discussions here a great deal. We have not even arrived at a mutually agreed upon meaning for the term. Brian insists that it must mean that for the Bible to be inerrant that must mean that the copies which we have on our shelves and desks must themselves be inerrant. Which, of course, none of us assert. Our standard understanding of inerrancy is that the original autographs of the Biblical Books were without error, which, since those autographs no longer exist and all we have are copies of copies which so variations, Brian insists is meaningless. We disagree. We are not even talking about the same thing when we talk about inerrancy, and there seems to be no way in which we can. Seems to me that discussion has reached an impasse and a dead end.

Could we, perhaps, attempt to discuss "inspiration," Just about everyone in these discussions would agree that the Bible is "God's inspired word to us." Am I correct? But what do we mean by "inspired?"  Without trying to accuse anyone of holding a particular position (and trying to defend that accusation) I suggest that there are several possible meanings of "God's inspired word."

1) That when God inspired the men who wrote what we now accept as the Bible, God dictated word for word what they would write so that they acted not as authors but as scribes. So far as I know, nobody in these discussions actually holds this view.

2) That the authors of the Biblical Books were inspired by their religious experiences and wrote under that inspiration. Others found those writings also inspiring and they came to be more widely accepted as authoritative and collected as such.

3) A variation on 2), God has chosen to use writings inspired by the authors' experiences to convey and revel His intentions and actions towards us, especially His gracious intentions to save lost humanity. The inspiration and authority of the Bible is that God has chosen (adopted?) to use these writings to bring people to faith in the Bible. The specific Biblical writings have been generally found to be useful for conveying the Gospel and bringing people to faith, but other religious writings, such as sermons are similarly inspired.

4) God chose to work through some human to revel Himself, His will, and His intentions, so that the human authors own personality, knowledge, and thinking were a part of the process, what they wrote still originated from God. This is basically my position. From the Christian Cyclopedia, LCMS "Inspiration"
Quote2. To say that the Bible is the work of the Holy Spirit as Author does not imply suspension or extinction of the personality or individuality of the writers. God's Spirit used each writer with his endowments and his background of grammar, style, knowledge of nature and hist., etc.

3. That the Holy Spirit suggested to the writers the whole content and the words (plenary and verbal inspiration) is est., e.g., by Is 59:21; 1 Co 2:13; Gl 3:16; 1 Th 2:13. Accordingly, inspiration is a special, potent activity of the Holy Spirit which He exercised on those whom He chose as His instruments for writing the Biblical documents.
How would others in this discussion describe their understanding of "Inspiration" in regards to Scripture?
I've gone over this before, but here is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in Greek with English. Comments below.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
 
16πᾶσα γραφὴ all/every, writing/Scripture [is]
θεόπνευστος God-breathed
καὶ ὠφέλιμος and [is] valuable/useful/beneficial
πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, for teaching
πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, for refutation of error
πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, for correcting faults/improvement
πρὸς παιδείαν for discipline/instruction/training
τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ,in righteousness
17ἵνα ἄρτιος ᾖ so that complete/fully qualified/proficient might be
ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος, the person of God
πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν for every good work
ἐξηρτισμένος.having been completed/equipped/become proficient

First of all, it states that "the writings" are "God-breathed," not the "writers."

The "writings/Scripture" at the time was the Old Testament, but this verse also gets applied to the New Testament.

If it is the writings that are "God-breathed," their authors don't really matter. We don't know who wrote Hebrews. It doesn't matter. It is still "God-breathed." Many scholars do not believe that Paul wrote the pastorals. It doesn't matter. The writings are still "God-breathed."

It is the "God-breathed-ness" of the writings that gives them the power and authority to be valuable/useful/beneficial for teaching, refuting error, correcting faults, disciplining/instructing/training in righteousness. That is, the "God-breathed-ness" is not so much about what the writings are, but what they do to the people of God, namely, making us complete/equipped/proficient in every good work. 

Similarly, when folks talk about a sermon, devotion, hymn, etc. being "inspirational," it is more about the effect those words had on their life. There was a power in the words that did something to them. 

I use similar definitions for Law and Gospel. It is not so much the words we speak or read; but how God uses those words to do something to us. For example, the Law convicts us of sin and should produce a measure of fear of God's judgment for those sins. The Gospel brings freedom, assurance of forgiveness, God's acceptance, and the removal of fear of punishment. 

God's Spirit is called "Power" in Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:8. Thus, "inspired" or "God-breathed" or "Spirit-filled" is about the power that comes through the words that does something to the hearers/readers.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

George Rahn

#114
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 24, 2024, 12:58:49 PM
Quote from: Dan Fienen on February 24, 2024, 12:21:59 PMWe have kicked around "inerrancy" in these discussions here a great deal. We have not even arrived at a mutually agreed upon meaning for the term. Brian insists that it must mean that for the Bible to be inerrant that must mean that the copies which we have on our shelves and desks must themselves be inerrant. Which, of course, none of us assert. Our standard understanding of inerrancy is that the original autographs of the Biblical Books were without error, which, since those autographs no longer exist and all we have are copies of copies which so variations, Brian insists is meaningless. We disagree. We are not even talking about the same thing when we talk about inerrancy, and there seems to be no way in which we can. Seems to me that discussion has reached an impasse and a dead end.

Could we, perhaps, attempt to discuss "inspiration," Just about everyone in these discussions would agree that the Bible is "God's inspired word to us." Am I correct? But what do we mean by "inspired?"  Without trying to accuse anyone of holding a particular position (and trying to defend that accusation) I suggest that there are several possible meanings of "God's inspired word."

1) That when God inspired the men who wrote what we now accept as the Bible, God dictated word for word what they would write so that they acted not as authors but as scribes. So far as I know, nobody in these discussions actually holds this view.

2) That the authors of the Biblical Books were inspired by their religious experiences and wrote under that inspiration. Others found those writings also inspiring and they came to be more widely accepted as authoritative and collected as such.

3) A variation on 2), God has chosen to use writings inspired by the authors' experiences to convey and revel His intentions and actions towards us, especially His gracious intentions to save lost humanity. The inspiration and authority of the Bible is that God has chosen (adopted?) to use these writings to bring people to faith in the Bible. The specific Biblical writings have been generally found to be useful for conveying the Gospel and bringing people to faith, but other religious writings, such as sermons are similarly inspired.

4) God chose to work through some human to revel Himself, His will, and His intentions, so that the human authors own personality, knowledge, and thinking were a part of the process, what they wrote still originated from God. This is basically my position. From the Christian Cyclopedia, LCMS "Inspiration"
Quote2. To say that the Bible is the work of the Holy Spirit as Author does not imply suspension or extinction of the personality or individuality of the writers. God's Spirit used each writer with his endowments and his background of grammar, style, knowledge of nature and hist., etc.

3. That the Holy Spirit suggested to the writers the whole content and the words (plenary and verbal inspiration) is est., e.g., by Is 59:21; 1 Co 2:13; Gl 3:16; 1 Th 2:13. Accordingly, inspiration is a special, potent activity of the Holy Spirit which He exercised on those whom He chose as His instruments for writing the Biblical documents.
How would others in this discussion describe their understanding of "Inspiration" in regards to Scripture?
I've gone over this before, but here is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in Greek with English. Comments below.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
 
16πᾶσα γραφὴ all/every, writing/Scripture [is]
θεόπνευστος God-breathed
καὶ ὠφέλιμος and [is] valuable/useful/beneficial
πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, for teaching
πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, for refutation of error
πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, for correcting faults/improvement
πρὸς παιδείαν for discipline/instruction/training
τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ,in righteousness
17ἵνα ἄρτιος ᾖ so that complete/fully qualified/proficient might be
ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος, the person of God
πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν for every good work
ἐξηρτισμένος.having been completed/equipped/become proficient

First of all, it states that "the writings" are "God-breathed," not the "writers."

The "writings/Scripture" at the time was the Old Testament, but this verse also gets applied to the New Testament.

If it is the writings that are "God-breathed," their authors don't really matter. We don't know who wrote Hebrews. It doesn't matter. It is still "God-breathed." Many scholars do not believe that Paul wrote the pastorals. It doesn't matter. The writings are still "God-breathed."

It is the "God-breathed-ness" of the writings that gives them the power and authority to be valuable/useful/beneficial for teaching, refuting error, correcting faults, disciplining/instructing/training in righteousness. That is, the "God-breathed-ness" is not so much about what the writings are, but what they do to the people of God, namely, making us complete/equipped/proficient in every good work.

Similarly, when folks talk about a sermon, devotion, hymn, etc. being "inspirational," it is more about the effect those words had on their life. There was a power in the words that did something to them.

I use similar definitions for Law and Gospel. It is not so much the words we speak or read; but how God uses those words to do something to us. For example, the Law convicts us of sin and should produce a measure of fear of God's judgment for those sins. The Gospel brings freedom, assurance of forgiveness, God's acceptance, and the removal of fear of punishment.

God's Spirit is called "Power" in Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:8. Thus, "inspired" or "God-breathed" or "Spirit-filled" is about the power that comes through the words that does something to the hearers/readers.


I quibble with one item:  that the Scriptures in reference are the Old Testament.  By the time of the pastoral letters, esp. 2 Tim., there were many New Testament manuscripts circulating and available.  Probably the early Pauline letters and perhaps the passion narratives and that of the Gospel of Mark.

Rev. Edward Engelbrecht

A divide I see in discussions of the Walkout is perhaps illustrated by some classical examples. The conservatives write about undoing the SOPHISTS who had ill motives for their actions. The liberals/moderates write about the DEATH OF SOCRATES, as though synod leadership was foolishly reactive (or, duped by outside influences). It's that kind of mistrust and perhaps misunderstanding of what really happened.

It looks to me like a struggle over who would decide the synod's doctrine and thereby its future. Left to the faculty, the Synod definitely would have changed over time. (I'm not saying anyone was proven a false teacher at the time---a sore point---but that there was definitely a change in direction in the teaching---a new trajectory.) Left to the administration, the Synod would return to earlier standards, which it ultimately did. The Age of Lutheran Orthodoxy became a renewed touchstone,
which it still is today. The Synod as an institution was effective at protecting itself. It has been less effective at healing itself, which is why debate continues.

MaddogLutheran

#116
Quote from: RDPreus on February 24, 2024, 11:53:45 AM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 24, 2024, 11:34:16 AM
Quote from: Rev. Edward Engelbrecht on February 24, 2024, 11:29:42 AMThere was an agreed upon step into the historical-critical method, led by a Scharlemann publication as I recall. But what sparked the Walkout more specifically, I think, was that the faculty majority wanted academic freedom. They wanted the right to teach about these matters and methods as they believed the evidence was leading them. Did the synod ever commit to academic freedom? I don't think it did. And that seems to be the real dividing point.
As I recall, being at an ALC seminary at the time, an example we heard was that a professor was not allowed to even present as a possibility that Jonah was not a historical writing.

Since Jesus Himself tied the historicity of Jonah to His own resurrection from the dead, it seems reasonable to me to expect seminary professors to agree with Jesus and teach the historicity of Jonah.
This is a bad/flawed methodology, which could be interpreted as rooted in insecurity.

The historicity of Jesus' resurrection is not undermined if the particulars of the story of Jonah aren't historical fact.  Just like it doesn't matter whether George Washington cut down that cherry tree (almost certainly did not), because the legend merely testifies to his truthfulness.  Of course, this is a same insecurity that mistakes particular attempts at bounding the possible meaning of the creation story: if it isn't a literal 6 day/24 hours span, then Christianity is a falsehood.  Being so fixated on defending its truthiness, you blow right past the reality that what is important about the narrative is that who instructs us (1) who is responsible for creation, and (2) how sin and death entered the world.  Those are the parts of the story that rightly require defending.  It doesn't need to be a binary proposition, which are the terms both sides have agreed upon.

Instead of acquiescing to mystery, you accept the presumptions of those who wish to discredit the faith.  We start with Jesus and his resurrection, and work our way both forwards and backwards.  We need to accept the farther away we get from that, the murkier the meaning of revelation becomes.  At the end, with Revelation the book, and the beginning with the Genesis creation.
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

Steven W Bohler

How is it "bad/flawed methodology" and possible "insecurity" when it is merely following Christ's own words (Matthew 28 -- see below)?  Jesus speaks as if Jonah as a real person.  He speaks of Jonah literally being in the belly of the great fish for three days and nights.  He says this is the sign to the Jews of His own impending death and resurrection after three days in the belly of the earth. 
--------------------

38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees told Jesus, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from you."

39 But he replied to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves a sign. Yet no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah, 40 because just as Jonah was in the stomach of the sea creature for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. 41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment and condemn the people living today, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah. But look—something greater than Jonah is here!

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: George Rahn on February 24, 2024, 03:05:34 PMI quibble with one item:  that the Scriptures in reference are the Old Testament.  By the time of the pastoral letters, esp. 2 Tim., there were many New Testament manuscripts circulating and available.  Probably the early Pauline letters and perhaps the passion narratives and that of the Gospel of Mark.
True, Paul's letters and James were probably written before 2 Timothy. However, if one holds a Pauline authorship for Timothy, Mark hadn't been written yet. γραφή nearly always refers to passages in the OT. I don't find any place in the NT where it is used to refer to a quote from Jesus or Paul. Perhaps there are extra-biblical writings from the 1st century that do, but I don't find γραφή  used as a term for NT books by the time of 2 Timothy.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

George Rahn

Quote from: Steven W Bohler on February 24, 2024, 04:36:20 PMHow is it "bad/flawed methodology" and possible "insecurity" when it is merely following Christ's own words (Matthew 28 -- see below)?  Jesus speaks as if Jonah as a real person.  He speaks of Jonah literally being in the belly of the great fish for three days and nights.  He says this is the sign to the Jews of His own impending death and resurrection after three days in the belly of the earth. 
--------------------

38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees told Jesus, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from you."

39 But he replied to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves a sign. Yet no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah, 40 because just as Jonah was in the stomach of the sea creature for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. 41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment and condemn the people living today, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah. But look—something greater than Jonah is here!


Yes.  This is where I stand.  Jesus said it. 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk