Is repentance a "one time act" or is it, or should it be "a way of life" (here)...?

[servantofiam]

I’m not talking about general prayer or prayer in general.

I was responding to that specific post I replied to where you seemed to be not draw a conclusion.

I asked if you specifically prayed about that question to God.

The interesting part of believing you understand the meaning of specific scripture is a process where you know the next time you read that same scripture it could change. Not that the scripture itself changes, but a deeper and more complex understanding of that scripture becomes apparent to you. That is the beauty of the Holy Spirit, it's always regulating your spiritual growth. And if there is a reason for any scripture to be revealed to you differently than before, this is the point I do pray. And then after believing my prayer was sufficient, I will reread the same scripture and see if the new meaning/revelation still makes sense in the new context I was made aware of.

But, I have no concerns if I am discussing a scripture and believe I understand its meaning at that current moment. And then later on, see that scripture in a new context, and proceed discussing that scripture how I now believe its meaning to be. And not feel like I was in error the first time discussing that scripture, because I view it as spiritual growth. And with spiritual growth, I believe the original understanding was still correct. It's just my understanding had a (light bulb moment), and now I see the same scripture entirely in a new viewpoint.

 

[servantofiam]

I haven’t done much research on this, but I did find this article by the university that has them.

Please note:

1. “Possibly” in the article title

2. Towards the bottom of the article it admits that most scholars disagree with Thiele and seem to follow and agree with the dating method of someone whose last name is Head.

3. It seems that there are scrolls dated earlier and that this ‘papyrus’ method refers to documents that are not considered scrolls.

The Magdalen Papyrus P64: possibly the earliest known fragments of the New Testament (or of a book!) | Magdalen College Oxford

It is interesting however and I hope to research it more later this week when I have Desktop computer resources, rather than mobile resources.

Interested in your thoughts

Yes, originally the "Magdalen Papyrus P64" was dated mid 2nd century. Later on, it was re-examined and discovered to be dated from mid 50 A.D. to mid 60 A.D. and was settled at around 60 A.D.

Part of why the date jumped 100 years older to the first century, is due to a couple of things. It's content about the viewpoint of Christ, and the fact there is nothing mentioned in the Book of Matthew that relates to what happened in 70 A.D. So clearly, Matthew was written well before Rome attacked and destroyed the Temple.

The interesting issue about the papyrus paper, is that a method of making it can be relative for many centuries until they discover a better process to make it. So people from 500 A.D., could be making it the same way they did around 200 B.C. That is a 700 year period. So, we take the content of what was written and relate that to the current events of that time. And with Matthew, we can relate it to when Yeshua was on earth, and to the 70 A.D. destruction. We know it cannot be written while Yeshua was here, so it gives us a starting date point after His ascension. We know it cannot be written after the 70 A.D destruction, because none of the content relates to the Temple being destroyed, nor the invasion by Rome. So by proxy alone, that gives us a safe period from 40 A.D. to 65 A.D. And then from there, since we know the fragments from Matthew are older than the other Gospels, after we date the other Gospels properly, we can then positively determine when Matthew was written within a +/- 10 year window. And in the case with the "Magdalen Papyrus P64," they were able to concretely settle on around 55 - 60 A.D.

 

[servantofiam]

That doesn't have anything to do with what I've said.

It does actually. This is what you said:

RDKirk said: ↑
First: That's not true.

Second: If it were true, the early church leaders--being a heck of a lot closer to it than we are--would have declared Paul the author.

And what I said, people were not reading others work, personal letters, etc. And if Hebrews happens to be a message preached by Paul, then later on written down by Luke, there would be no guarantee the other Apostles were present while Paul preached to the Gentiles. The other Apostles were majorly involved with the Jews, not the Gentiles. And the Book of Hebrews is dated just before the 70 A.D. destruction by Rome. So, it is highly doubtful anyone was reading the Book of Hebrews during the siege by Rome and the destruction of the Temple. If anything, since we have the Book of Hebrews, it most likely was in possession of someone who escaped and hidden just after it was written as a format compilation.

There are many factors involved in the Book of Hebrews outside who was the author of it. Like when it was dated to be written (papyrus method), what was happening at that time (siege of Rome/war/destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple), and common sense has to be a factor (would this Book have had enough time to circulate to the Council and Apostles while they were running for their lives, being tortured for believing in Christ, and murdered)(OBVIOUSLY NO), which brings us to where we found it centuries later (in a cave). Therefore, we know it most likely never was read by any other Apostle/Council Member, but the author himself at that time appears that he or someone close was able to escape and took the scroll with them.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The interesting part of believing you understand the meaning of specific scripture is a process where you know the next time you read that same scripture it could change. Not that the scripture itself changes, but a deeper and more complex understanding of that scripture becomes apparent to you. That is the beauty of the Holy Spirit, it's always regulating your spiritual growth. And if there is a reason for any scripture to be revealed to you differently than before, this is the point I do pray. And then after believing my prayer was sufficient, I will reread the same scripture and see if the new meaning/revelation still makes sense in the new context I was made aware of.

Wisdom there.

The Holy Spirit of Truth teaches God’s Own.


John 14:26
26But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.

 

[ToBeLoved]

And what I said, people were not reading others work, personal letters, etc. And if Hebrews happens to be a message preached by Paul, then later on written down by Luke, there would be no guarantee the other Apostles were present while Paul preached to the Gentiles. The other Apostles were majorly involved with the Jews, not the Gentiles. And the Book of Hebrews is dated just before the 70 A.D. destruction by Rome. So, it is highly doubtful anyone was reading the Book of Hebrews during the siege by Rome and the destruction of the Temple. If anything, since we have the Book of Hebrews, it most likely was in possession of someone who escaped and hidden just after it was written as a format compilation.
.

Did Jesus leave them alone and on their own or send God Himself, the Holy Spirit?

Would God, through the Holy Spirit have revealed to the Otger Apostles that Paul was one of them, if he was off preaching a rogue gospel?

Things that make you go #hmmmm ....

 

[servantofiam]

Did Jesus leave them alone and on their own or send God Himself, the Holy Spirit?

Would God, through the Holy Spirit have revealed to the Otger Apostles that Paul was one of them, if he was off preaching a rogue gospel?

Things that make you go #hmmmm ....

Peter in one of his epistles claims he does not actually understand Paul, but he does not doubt that Paul was sent by Christ. To me, this is a big clue that there were 2 forms of the same message being preached. Christ instructed His Disciples He was sent to have Mercy upon them, so they naturally would see their salvation from the point of God's Mercy. In Matthew 28:19, Christ commands the Disciples to go into ALL nations and teach what they have learned, which would have been the Mercy of God. And ALL nations includes both Jew and Gentile receiving this message of Mercy.

Paul does not specify his Grace message was from Christ like the Disciples could concerning their Mercy message. However, since Paul was Saul and killed Christians, being saved by Christ could appear to Paul as being an act of Grace. I still see it as an act of Mercy, but nonetheless, I am not Paul and did not experience what he did to conclude it was out of God's Grace.

Therefore, I don't feel the Grace message is wrong, just out of context how it is being used today. This is why I follow the WORDS of Yeshua because He is God. And I know I cannot go wrong following the direction and commands of Yeshua/God!!

 

[ToBeLoved]

Paul does not specify his Grace message was from Christ like the Disciples could concerning their Mercy message.

I'm not sure if you are being funny or serious, but Paul emphasizes Christ more than any other apostle.

Not sure where you are getting that from. Paul's message is CLEAR. Paul's speaks of grace more than any of them. Please share your scriptures.

 

[ToBeLoved]

[QUOTE="servantofiam, post: 73532464, member: 415339"]
Peter in one of his epistles claims he does not actually understand Paul, but he does not doubt that Paul was sent by Christ. To me, this is a big clue that there were 2 forms of the same message being preached. [/QUOTE]
I don't mean to be rude, but you have to start including Bible proof texts (scripture) if you want to be taken seriously in a discussion of theology. No one knows what you are talking about or which verses without you listing them.

If you are going to 'summarize' your understanding of scripture or make allegations, you should at least take 5 min to copy and paste your scripture references.

I'm not responding to any more of your posts until you start providing scripture. If you show yourself serious, then I will ask more questions because I have more.

 

[servantofiam]

[QUOTE="servantofiam, post: 73532464, member: 415339"]
Peter in one of his epistles claims he does not actually understand Paul, but he does not doubt that Paul was sent by Christ. To me, this is a big clue that there were 2 forms of the same message being preached.

I don't mean to be rude, but you have to start including Bible proof texts (scripture) if you want to be taken seriously in a discussion of theology. No one knows what you are talking about or which verses without you listing them.

If you are going to 'summarize' your understanding of scripture or make allegations, you should at least take 5 min to copy and paste your scripture references.

I'm not responding to any more of your posts until you start providing scripture. If you show yourself serious, then I will ask more questions because I have more.

My post is quoted along with your own response for scripture reference. More specifically, the portion of my post you have highlighted in Red concerning Peter not always understanding Paul. Here is that scripture reference for you showing I came to this conclusion that Peter did not always understand Paul's message.

2 Peter 3:
15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. ((His letters contain some things that are hard to understand)), which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

I have highlighted portions of verse 15 showing Peter is speaking about Paul, and verse 16 I have both highlighted and added parenthesis ((...)) showing where Peter states ((His letters contain some things that are hard to understand)).

And since we have verse 16 available, look at the end of it "((His letters contain some things that are hard to understand)), "which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Now let's specifically concentrate on this section of verse 16, "which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

This is my view of how people are misinterpreting Paul's Grace message. To me, this is a caution from Peter, like he saw in some vision concerning our day and time 2,000 years into the future, where people would claim we have a "license to sin" from distorting the Grace message that will eventually lead to their own destruction. Just like Peter claims and warns us in the last part of verse 16!!

 

[servantofiam]

2 Peter 3:
15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. ((His letters contain some things that are hard to understand)), which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Using these same 2 scriptures, there is something else I believe that these 2 verses obviously verify.

We know that Peter's original responsibility was preaching to the Jews, we also know that later in his ministry, before the 70 A.D. destruction and his own death around 68 A.D., Peter began traveling more to the Gentiles at times with Paul and on his own evangelizing.

Since we know that Peter's 2 Epistles were written while he was in Rome, it's safe to conclude that Peter was addressing a message towards the Gentiles.

But what is interesting is what is written in 2 Peter 3:16, specifically the last part of verse 16: "which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

What this tells me, is that Peter witnessed the churches started by Paul, doing things, preaching things, practicing things that Peter clearly thought was incorrect. In my estimation (I feel this is the Holy Spirit giving me insight concerning the "why" for this verse in how Peter writes it), Peter addressed these churches and asked, "who taught you this doctrine?" I believe they gave Peter a letter written by Paul, possibly the letter that speaks about the message of Grace that we have in our New Testament within the Book of Romans.

Maybe they were practicing a LICENSE TO SIN 2,000 YEARS AGO???

I believe Peter took the letter and read it. I believe he saw how it was/could be hard to understand. I believe he considered that by what he had witnessed being practiced, preached within the Roman Gentile churches, he knew the Gentile converts misunderstood Paul, and by result, was distorting Paul's message.

And I believe this is why the Holy Spirit led Peter to write both Epistles to the Gentile converts, specifically, pointing out that they were distorting Paul's message and it would lead to their destruction, thus is why we have 2 Peter 3:16 ending with "which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

And just like when Peter addressed the Jews by holding them accountable for the crucifixion of Christ, he now holds the Gentiles accountable for DISTORTING Paul's message by calling them "ignorant and unstable people."