James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude

Bauckham, Richard

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511555152.020

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Accordingly, the prophetic word is viewed as an equally reliable witness to the validity of the parousia, with no measure of superiority being afforded to either source of authority. Although the roots of the elative interpretation stretch all the way back to the time of the Reformation, 7 it has made the most significant impact on scholarship over the last few decades, as indicated by the growing number of interpreters who now subscribe to the view (e.g., Bauckham 1983: 223; Neyrey 1993: 179-81; Watson 1998: 342; Horrell 1998: 158; Richard 2000: 343; Kraftchick 2002: 115; Reese 2007: 142; Witherington 2007: 331; Green 2008: 226; cf. de Ru 1970: 48-50; Lønning 1971: 135; Bénétreau 2005: 183; Shepherd 2013: 7-10).…”

Section: Assessing the Elative Function Of βεβαιότερονmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confirming Scripture through Eyewitness Testimony (2 Peter 1.19a): Resolving a Crux Interpretum

Williams

2021

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responding to objections raised against the parousia, the author of 2 Peter seeks to defend the validity of Jesus’ return by pointing to the experience of the apostles at the Transfiguration (1.16-18) and to prophetic scripture (1.19-21). But how these two proofs relate to one another has been a matter of dispute since the earliest days of critical scholarship. Standing behind this disagreement is a difficult grammatical construction involving the comparative adjective βεβαιότερον (2 Pet. 1.19a). This article seeks to bring resolution to the debate through a comprehensive assessment of the force and function of this key term.

show abstract

Section: Assessing the Elative Function Of βεβαιότερονmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confirming Scripture through Eyewitness Testimony (2 Peter 1.19a): Resolving a Crux Interpretum

Williams

2021

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ancak, burada hemen bir tezat göze çarpar; Tanrı Krallığı"nın, gelecekte kurulacağı fikri ile halihazırda mevcut olduğu fikri, Yeni Ahit"te yan yana bulunmaktadır. 120 Bu durumu yorumlarken, teologlar, Tanrı Krallı"ğının, Kral-Mesih olan İsa"nın zatında mevcut olduğunu ve Son Gün ise tam olarak yine onda tecelli edeceğini iddia ederler. 121 Eski Ahit olmadan, İsa Mesih tam olarak anlaşılamaz.…”

Section: Tanrı Krallığıunclassified

The Perception of Religion in The Bible

ÜZÜM¹

2015

KAÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, the perception of religion as the fondation of Christianity seen in the Bible, i.e., the Old Testament and the New Testament has been delth with. When the religion in the Hebrew Bible is mentioned the divine commentments come to mind in the Tanah, there is no distinction between the religion and the temporal life. Everything is included into the religion and all the degrees are expressed in the divine orders. Jesus Christ cannot be understood without the Old Testament. The Christianity can be understood only when the old and new testaments are combined. The term of Christian is repeated three times in the Bible. Each of them refers to the followers of Jesus. Primitive Christians wished to discriminate themselves from the Jews by adding new hymns and songs to the psalms. Everything is formed and explained around the Jesus Christ in the Christianity. Thefore, Jesus Christ was sent to the human beings as an savior. Godhead is incarnated into Jesus Christ for the sake of humanbeings. So, biblical

show abstract

“…According to Bauckham, while the scoffers point out that everything continues as it always has been, '[t]here is no assertion that the nature of the universe is such that everything must go on as it has always done'. 54 But in using the world's freedom from major catastrophe during the period from creation to the present moment as an argument against the parousia, the opponents evidently assume that the world's unswerving continuity from past to present ensures its future constancy: the stability that the cosmos has evinced up till now serves as a guarantee of its stability in time ahead. That this is a stable, immutable world is their premise.…”

Section: The Second Objection: 'All Things Remain 'mentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Where is the Promise of his Coming?’ The Complaint of the Scoffers in 2 Peter 3.4

Adams

2005

New Test. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A close analysis of the report of 2 Pet 3.4, paying attention to its precise wording, and a careful reading of the author's response to it in the verses that follow show that the prevailing interpretation of the scoffers' eschatological mockery is unsound. The target of the scoffers' criticism was not so much the parousia of Jesus as the OT promise of a final, eschatological irruption underlying it. Their scepticism was founded neither on the failure of Jesus to come back within a generation, nor on a denial of divine intervention. Rather, it was based on the long period of time that had elapsed since the promise was originally made and the assumption that the eschatological promise involved the prospect of cosmic destruction, which the scoffers rejected on philosophical grounds.

show abstract

James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Confirming Scripture through Eyewitness Testimony (2 Peter 1.19a): Resolving a Crux Interpretum

Confirming Scripture through Eyewitness Testimony (2 Peter 1.19a): Resolving a Crux Interpretum

The Perception of Religion in The Bible

‘Where is the Promise of his Coming?’ The Complaint of the Scoffers in 2 Peter 3.4

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About