The salient point I was endeavoring to make is that I do not know how anyone can cite "
organizing" texts ignoring the beginning. Assuming there is a rational rationale for that neglect, I'd like to know how and why that was not done.
When I use it I mean the religion. Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Religions. I use "Tanakh" to separate the "Jewish" scriptures from the religion. You've probably read me say something like, "
Tanakh is always correct, but Judaism was often incorrect," more than once. Sometimes I'll say "the Old Testament" but that misses the point there are not two testaments for Judaism and focuses the separation on the Jewish religion, Judaism. For Christians, we use the language of "
Old..." and "
New...," but we also view the two as parts of a whole (with varying degrees of contiguity and continuity, depending on one's theological and doctrinal affiliations).
It's relevant to this op because this op asserts small portions of larger narratives in three epistles are "organizing" of the whole Bible AND implicitly starts with eschatology. In other words, the
end, end times, are supposedly organizing the whole Bible AND it does so absent ay beginning text. The unwritten premise is the end times define the whole in neglect of the beginning.
I disagree.
I disagree on two counts. First the Bible is not about us. It is about Jesus. Second, if we're going to consider one doctrine a doctrine that organizes the whole then it would be soteriology, not eschatology. Eschatology is a subset of Soteriology (which, in turn, is a subset of Theology (the doctrine of God). Normally, the only ones who elevate eschatology above soteriology are the Dispensationalists but I do not recall
@EarlyActs being a dispy (my recall may be wanting), so I'm curious how these matters are explained.
