All scripture is God-breathed

[logical bob]

2 Timothy 3:16 gets quoted a lot round here to show that the Bible is authoritative. I have two thoughts on this.

First, it's entirely circular. We know the bible is reliable ...because the Bible tells us so. This is only persuasive if you're already willing to believe something because it's in the Bible.

Secondly, if this letter is really by Paul then since he says Timothy has known the scriptures in question since infancy this verse says nothing about the New Testament

 

[Mysteryman]

2 Timothy 3:16 gets quoted a lot round here to show that the Bible is authoritative. I have two thoughts on this.

First, it's entirely circular. We know the bible is reliable ...because the Bible tells us so. This is only persuasive if you're already willing to believe something because it's in the Bible.

Secondly, if this letter is really by Paul then since he says Timothy has known the scriptures in question since infancy this verse says nothing about the New Testament

Hi Bob

The Word was "God breathed" before anyone put a pen to it. The "authority" is of God, not our bibles !

Our bibles are translations from many copied texts.

The Word of God is within our bibles however. But the authority is not what is on a piece of paper. It is in the revealing power of God for some to understand the spiritual Word of God.

IN Christ - MM

 

[glorydaz]

2 Timothy 3:16 gets quoted a lot round here to show that the Bible is authoritative. I have two thoughts on this.

First, it's entirely circular. We know the bible is reliable ...because the Bible tells us so. This is only persuasive if you're already willing to believe something because it's in the Bible.

Secondly, if this letter is really by Paul then since he says Timothy has known the scriptures in question since infancy this verse says nothing about the New Testament

How can one know that God exists?

 

[Godfrey]

2 Timothy 3:16 gets quoted a lot round here to show that the Bible is authoritative. I have two thoughts on this.

First, it's entirely circular. We know the bible is reliable ...because the Bible tells us so. This is only persuasive if you're already willing to believe something because it's in the Bible.

Secondly, if this letter is really by Paul then since he says Timothy has known the scriptures in question since infancy this verse says nothing about the New Testament

1. Agreed: the verse is written by a Christian to a Christian. It is not an argument made to an unbeliever for the authority of scripture, it is - if we put it back in its context - commending all scripture as useful to a believer:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2. Also agreed.

 

[Elijah674]

I see it as the Testimony of Holy men of God 'penning' it in their own words to describe what the Holy Spirit gave then. All 66 Books are as this Eternal Word of Christ in their testimony.

OK: There is Isa. 8:20 to tell us that The Law of God was alone spoken & penned by Him. These were even testing's for Truth. And surely we know that court testimony is Sworn as Truthful, yet is seen differently in every exact detail. That is why we need the complete court case. Or the Matt. 4:4's Every Word to get the FULL PICTURE! ;)

--Elijah

 

[reigningfish]

How can one know that God exists?

By the Spirit that cries out within us, "Abba, Father!"

Which is why, not matter how good ones argument is AGAINST God, I will not be shaken. Because He has given me a Spirit that longs for Him and cries out to Him.

 

[Free]

Secondly, if this letter is really by Paul then since he says Timothy has known the scriptures in question since infancy this verse says nothing about the New Testament

While Paul may be referring only to the OT, in at least one other passage he quotes from another NT book by another author, implying that it is authoritative.

 

[logical bob]

While Paul may be referring only to the OT, in at least one other passage he quotes from another NT book by another author, implying that it is authoritative.

Can you give me the reference there? Thanks.

 

[Free]

While Paul may be referring only to the OT, in at least one other passage he quotes from another NT book by another author, implying that it is authoritative.

Can you give me the reference there? Thanks.

Sorry, can't find it. I saw it as a footnote very recently but I don't remember the passage. However, worth noting is Peter's implication that Paul's writings were on par with the OT:

2 Pe 3:15-16, 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (ESV)

Also, much can be said for the times when NT writers state that they are speaking on God's behalf, even giving commandments. They actually considered their words to be authoritative.

 

[logical bob]

Yes, I knew that bit of 2 Peter. I believe it's one of the reasons scholars tend to think that epistle is pseudographica from the second century. It would have taken time for Paul's letters to be copied out and distributed widely enough to be functioning as scripture.

I don't doubt that Paul believed he was teaching authoritatively and that his message was given to him by God. I think the idea that his letters would one day be bound in one volume with the Torah would have surprised him. I can't help thinking that otherwise he'd have included fewer personal messages and queries about people's health. You also wouldn't see the fantastic 1 Corinthians 1: 14-16 which clearly shows Paul dictating at speed and not bothering to get it rewritten to correct an error.

 

[Elijah674]

Yes, I knew that bit of 2 Peter. I believe it's one of the reasons scholars tend to think that epistle is pseudographica from the second century. It would have taken time for Paul's letters to be copied out and distributed widely enough to be functioning as scripture.

I don't doubt that Paul believed he was teaching authoritatively and that his message was given to him by God. I think the idea that his letters would one day be bound in one volume with the Torah would have surprised him. I can't help thinking that otherwise he'd have included fewer personal messages and queries about people's health. You also wouldn't see the fantastic 1 Corinthians 1: 14-16 which clearly shows Paul dictating at speed and not bothering to get it rewritten to correct an error.

Titus 3:9-11 finds one of us in Paul's verse from my end anyhow!
--Elijah

 

[logical bob]

Titus 3:9-11 finds one of us in Paul's verse from my end anyhow!
--Elijah

Sorry, you'll have to explain that for me.

 

[Free]

Yes, I knew that bit of 2 Peter. I believe it's one of the reasons scholars tend to think that epistle is pseudographica from the second century. It would have taken time for Paul's letters to be copied out and distributed widely enough to be functioning as scripture.

I don't doubt that Paul believed he was teaching authoritatively and that his message was given to him by God. I think the idea that his letters would one day be bound in one volume with the Torah would have surprised him. I can't help thinking that otherwise he'd have included fewer personal messages and queries about people's health. You also wouldn't see the fantastic 1 Corinthians 1: 14-16 which clearly shows Paul dictating at speed and not bothering to get it rewritten to correct an error.

Titus 3:9-11 finds one of us in Paul's verse from my end anyhow!
--Elijah

:gah

 

[Tabasco Breath]

To be sure, I don't think what those in that day considered scripture were as anal as when the church took control and applied their seal of approval as to what is official scripture. We see the popularity of the 1Enoch. We see the Gospels have Jesus quoting from scripture that didn't make the cut. I think for sure we can conclude the Tanach, but who knows what else they had in mind.

 

[francisdesales]

To be sure, I don't think what those in that day considered scripture were as anal as when the church took control and applied their seal of approval as to what is official scripture. We see the popularity of the 1Enoch. We see the Gospels have Jesus quoting from scripture that didn't make the cut. I think for sure we can conclude the Tanach, but who knows what else they had in mind.

Anal? :gah

The reason why the Church came up with a definitive canon was because of men like Marcion and other Gnostics. Marcion wanted to get rid of the ENTIRE Old Testament as Scriptures for Christians, as well as the majority of the New Testament. He claimed, and had a number of followers, that the God of creation was not the same as the God of Jesus Christ. A cursory reading of the OT might bear that out. Luke, and some of Paul's writings, that's the entire Bible, in his mind. Gnostics, writing about the same time, 100-200 AD, were claiming the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Peter or the Acts of Paul were also Scriptures.

When WE read these other apocrypha, it becomes quite evident WHY the Church became "anal". They were defending the gospel once given to the saints and their understanding of it. remember, we are dealing with Divinely revealed teachings, not philosophical statements from men.

Regards

 

[Tabasco Breath]

To be sure, I don't think what those in that day considered scripture were as anal as when the church took control and applied their seal of approval as to what is official scripture. We see the popularity of the 1Enoch. We see the Gospels have Jesus quoting from scripture that didn't make the cut. I think for sure we can conclude the Tanach, but who knows what else they had in mind.

Anal? :gah

The reason why the Church came up with a definitive canon was because of men like Marcion and other Gnostics. Marcion wanted to get rid of the ENTIRE Old Testament as Scriptures for Christians, as well as the majority of the New Testament. He claimed, and had a number of followers, that the God of creation was not the same as the God of Jesus Christ. A cursory reading of the OT might bear that out. Luke, and some of Paul's writings, that's the entire Bible, in his mind. Gnostics, writing about the same time, 100-200 AD, were claiming the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Peter or the Acts of Paul were also Scriptures.

When WE read these other apocrypha, it becomes quite evident WHY the Church became "anal". They were defending the gospel once given to the saints and their understanding of it. remember, we are dealing with Divinely revealed teachings, not philosophical statements from men.

Regards

I understand there were a myriad of Jesus following sects including Marcion. I guess my point was those of Jewry prior to what the later church considered the need to developed cannon, were not as fixated to distingish one from the other. Again, who knows what the author of Tim had in mind. For some to infer they were specifically speaking of the Bible they so happen to adhere to is kind of puzzling.

 

[francisdesales]

I understand there were a myriad of Jesus following sects including Marcion. I guess my point was those of Jewry prior to what the later church considered the need to developed cannon, were not as fixated to distingish one from the other. Again, who knows what the author of Tim had in mind.

Seems like the Jews had the same problem, but the "pseudo" works were not considered as heretical during the time of Christ to the 2nd century. Only a few books are questioned, seems to be a pretty good agreement across the board, even before an "official" canon.

I would think the author of Timothy would have explained himself through oral preaching and teaching. These guys got out of the ivory tower and got their hands dirty. The followers of these men would likely have known what this literature meant.

Regards

 

[Tabasco Breath]

I understand there were a myriad of Jesus following sects including Marcion. I guess my point was those of Jewry prior to what the later church considered the need to developed cannon, were not as fixated to distingish one from the other. Again, who knows what the author of Tim had in mind.

Seems like the Jews had the same problem, but the "pseudo" works were not considered as heretical during the time of Christ to the 2nd century. Only a few books are questioned, seems to be a pretty good agreement across the board, even before an "official" canon.

I would think the author of Timothy would have explained himself through oral preaching and teaching. These guys got out of the ivory tower and got their hands dirty. The followers of these men would likely have known what this literature meant.

Regards

Not sure what you mean by Jews having the same problem. To me even though they selected various writings to make up the Tanach; even though "pseudo" works were pretty common, I don't understand them as rigid in what they took in as meaningful outside of cannon. They may not have been official, but they found them useful in shaping their views and ultimately some aspects of Christianity.

 

[francisdesales]

Seems like the Jews had the same problem, but the "pseudo" works were not considered as heretical during the time of Christ to the 2nd century. Only a few books are questioned, seems to be a pretty good agreement across the board, even before an "official" canon.

I would think the author of Timothy would have explained himself through oral preaching and teaching. These guys got out of the ivory tower and got their hands dirty. The followers of these men would likely have known what this literature meant.

Not sure what you mean by Jews having the same problem. To me even though they selected various writings to make up the Tanach; even though "pseudo" works were pretty common, I don't understand them as rigid in what they took in as meaningful outside of cannon. They may not have been official, but they found them useful in shaping their views and ultimately some aspects of Christianity.

During Jesus' day, the Sadducees only considered the Torah Sacred Scriptures. The Pharisees included more works, the Writings and the Prophets. Other sects, like the Essenes, had their own Sacred Scriptures, as found at Qumran. That's what I mean by "same problem".

I doubt that the Pharisees took the Essene-specific "war scriptures" as Sacred from God, since they belittled those who remained in Jerusalem as untrue to God and His Covenant.

Regards

 

[Tabasco Breath]

Seems like the Jews had the same problem, but the "pseudo" works were not considered as heretical during the time of Christ to the 2nd century. Only a few books are questioned, seems to be a pretty good agreement across the board, even before an "official" canon.

I would think the author of Timothy would have explained himself through oral preaching and teaching. These guys got out of the ivory tower and got their hands dirty. The followers of these men would likely have known what this literature meant.

Not sure what you mean by Jews having the same problem. To me even though they selected various writings to make up the Tanach; even though "pseudo" works were pretty common, I don't understand them as rigid in what they took in as meaningful outside of cannon. They may not have been official, but they found them useful in shaping their views and ultimately some aspects of Christianity.

During Jesus' day, the Sadducees only considered the Torah Sacred Scriptures. The Pharisees included more works, the Writings and the Prophets. Other sects, like the Essenes, had their own Sacred Scriptures, as found at Qumran. That's what I mean by "same problem".

I doubt that the Pharisees took the Essene-specific "war scriptures" as Sacred from God, since they belittled those who remained in Jerusalem as untrue to God and His Covenant.

Regards

Ahhh....thanks for the clarification.

~take care