It’s not biblical!

[dwb001]

Firstly, what popular version, the one that isn't in any biblical text? Secondly, Luke is not quoting Deuteronomy at all, he is quoting Christ. It is Paul alone who is quoting Deut 25:4.

Deu 25:4 “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain." (ESV)


My argument certainly does hold water. Let's look at it again:

1Ti 5:18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

Yes, the first is the quote from Deut 25:4, but the second is from Luke 10:7:

Luk 10:7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house. (ESV)

"Laborer" and "wages" don't even appear together in the OT. In fact, "laborer" is used only once:

Ecc_5:12 Sweet is the sleep of a laborer, whether he eats little or much, but the full stomach of the rich will not let him sleep. (ESV)

Luke wrote what Jesus said and Paul quoted it, calling it Scripture. And "Scripture" most certainly applies to the second quote, unless we first make "and" cease to mean anything. It is also supported by:

1Co 9:14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. (ESV)

Exactly... the popular version that is not in the Bible... but in the zeitgeist of the Jewish people.
What word is AND in Greek in the verse in question?
OT is Scripture in all NT references. Since those days the idea of what Scripture is has changed.
Just like many words morph over time... the secret is to know the difference between morphed words and stable words. ie "stars" in the Bible not the same as stars in your science textbook.

Can you honestly say that you believe the a 1st century Jew would write a letter to a friend and call such writings as Scripture? Would a 1st century Jew call himself an equal writer to Moses?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So John, Peter, Luke... etc... didn't know if what they wrote was Scripture or not... So why would you trust Peter to validate Paul?

Paul was the superior one in your opinion... so why isn't Paul the Rock on which the Church is built?

Because he was abnormally born. And, IMO, because he persecuted the church.

And I did not know I said the others did know what they wrote was scripture or not.

 

[dwb001]

Because he was abnormally born. And, IMO, because he persecuted the church.

And I did not know I said the others did know what they wrote was scripture or not.

What abnormal birth? Paul persecuted the Church so he would know that he was writing Moses like Scripture?
If Paul was special... why are you looking to Peter to validate Paul? That would be the reverse order of what your logic would imply.

I put it to you that no 1st century Jew would write a letter to a buddy and call it the same value as what Moses wrote.

 

[Free]

Exactly... the popular version that is not in the Bible... but in the zeitgeist of the Jewish people.

And evidence of this is where, exactly? Making such an argument is much weaker than arguing to what is actually written.

What word is AND in Greek in the verse in question?
OT is Scripture in all NT references. Since those days the idea of what Scripture is has changed.
Just like many words morph over time... the secret is to know the difference between morphed words and stable words. ie "stars" in the Bible not the same as stars in your science textbook.

It's kai.

Can you honestly say that you believe the a 1st century Jew would write a letter to a friend and call such writings as Scripture? Would a 1st century Jew call himself an equal writer to Moses?

But that isn't what happened. We have two 1st century Jews (Peter and Paul) referring to letters written by two other 1st century Jews (Paul and Luke) as Scripture--Peter refers to Paul's writings as Scripture and Paul refers to Luke's gospel as such. They might be letters, but they contain doctrine for Christian living.

 

[dwb001]

And evidence of this is where, exactly? Making such an argument is much weaker than arguing to what is actually written.


It's kai.


But that isn't what happened. We have two 1st century Jews (Peter and Paul) referring to letters written by two other 1st century Jews (Paul and Luke) as Scripture--Peter refers to Paul's writings as Scripture and Paul refers to Luke's gospel as such. They might be letters, but they contain doctrine for Christian living.

I believe you are speculating with you last paragraph... an isegesis situation.
I don't read it that way. I would expect you to respect our differences. You have made your points and I mine.
Please leave this topic to die as it appears to be spent.

 

[Free]

I believe you are speculating with you last paragraph... an isegesis situation.

You mean “eisegesis.” You speculated, not me. My understanding is based on a plain reading of Scripture.

I don't read it that way. I would expect you to respect our differences. You have made your points and I mine.
Please leave this topic to die as it appears to be spent.

If you wish.

 

[for_his_glory]

Those verses are great but they do not support scripture as the only authority!

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone…
Where is this written?

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

What other authority is there but only the word of God.

 

[for_his_glory]

Yes of course the Bible, the whole Bible not the ones produced by the tradition of men like the English bible society
But not the 16th century novelty of “the Bible alone” is the sole authority for Christians

Which ones are produced by the tradition of men as I understand that the English Bible society translates the Bible in many different languages. Is there something wrong with other people receiving a Bible that they can read in their own language? What is the sole authority for Christians if not the Holy Bible?

 

[JackrabbitSlim]

What is the “it”?

that post was an experiment to see who would assume they know what the “it” is!

But, you seem to be assuming you know what "it" is as well. Also, you seem to be assuming you know what "it" isn't. Honestly, I think you just want to argue, so, you created a post, then started arguing with what you think people will say before they even said it.

 

[donadams]

How can you even ask this when it plainly says in the verses I quoted that Christ's sacrifice makes it so no more sacrifice for sin is needed, and that one offering of himself has made us perfect for all time? That sounds pretty eternal to me! There's nothing left to do in regard to the work of redemption. It's done. It's finished. Christ finished it!

There is only one sacrifice!
But the office of a priest is to offer sacrifice, and Christ is eternal priest heb 7:17 so it is an eternal sacrifice once bloody on the cross but for all times offered to the Father

1 cor 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Jesus commands his priests to offer the sacrifice

Even found in prophecy

Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

Rev 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

Christ appears as a sacrificial lamb!

Rev 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
Revelation 11:19
And the temple of God was opened inheaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Why is there a temple in heaven with an altar and the ark?

These are for offering sacrifice
Thanks

 

[jaybo]

Canon was decided in late 4th century, yes, but there were criteria used in determining which books to include in the canon. Among those criteria was catholicity, whether or not the books were accepted by the church at large.


And yet Peter referred to Paul's writings as Scripture. Paul also quotes from Luke's gospel in 1 Tim 5:18, calling it Scripture--"For the Scripture says . . . 'The laborer deserves his wages.'"

1 Timothy 5:18 is quoting from the OT. The Scripture here refers to Hebrew Bible.

2 Peter 3:16b, "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures." Taking two words -- other scriptures -- to claim that Peter regarded Paul's writings as part of the Bible is really a stretch. This idea occurs nowhere else in the Bible.

Jesus said to Peter, "Get behind me Satan" in Matthew 16:23. Did Jesus actually think that Peter had become the devil? Reading Scripture requires understanding: how does a phrase fits in with the overall message? Peter's supposed claim that Paul was writing part of the Bible is clearly a misinterpretation.

 

[Free]

1 Timothy 5:18 is quoting from the OT. The Scripture here refers to Hebrew Bible.

There are two quotations in 1 Tim 5:18:

1Ti 5:18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

Yes, the first is a quote from Deut 25:4, but the second is from Luke 10:7:

Luk 10:7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house. (ESV)

"Laborer" and "wages" don't even appear together in the OT. In fact, "laborer" is used only once, in Ecc 5:12.

Luke wrote what Jesus said and Paul quoted it, calling it Scripture. And "Scripture" most certainly applies to the second quote in 1 Tim 5:18, unless we first make "and" cease to mean anything. It is also supported by:

1Co 9:14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. (ESV)

2 Peter 3:16b, "There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures." Taking two words -- other scriptures -- to claim that Peter regarded Paul's writings as part of the Bible is really a stretch. This idea occurs nowhere else in the Bible.

Three words would be better--"the other Scriptures." That the idea occurs nowhere else in the Bible is irrelevant as to whether or not it occurs here.

Peter's supposed claim that Paul was writing part of the Bible is clearly a misinterpretation.

How do you think it should be interpreted?

 

[donadams]

Lacking for what?
His suffering and death were sufficient to fulfil the presages and prophesies concerning forgiveness of past sins.
His resurrection was the final proof of His divinity and a testimony that men can walk in their skin and bones perfectly before God.

What is lacking or behind in the sufferings of Christ?
Our participation

Colossians 1:24
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind ofthe afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is thechurch:

 

[donadams]

What is our part?

Suffering for the sake of Christ!

Colossians 1:24
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

Phil 1:29
For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

 

[GodsGrace]

Suffering for the sake of Christ!

Colossians 1:24
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

Phil 1:29
For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Paul meant that those that believed in Christ would suffer for His sake, and indeed they did.

Do you know about the Mass?
What do you think Colossians 1:24 means?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There is only one sacrifice!
But the office of a priest is to offer sacrifice, and Christ is eternal priest heb 7:17 so it is an eternal sacrifice once bloody on the cross but for all times offered to the Father

1 cor 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Jesus commands his priests to offer the sacrifice

Even found in prophecy

Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

Rev 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

Christ appears as a sacrificial lamb!

Rev 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
Revelation 11:19
And the temple of God was opened inheaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Why is there a temple in heaven with an altar and the ark?

These are for offering sacrifice
Thanks

The Sacrifice is in heaven and therefore must be partaken BY FAITH, believing in it, not literally as the Catholics erroneously claim.

Hebrews 11:1

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What abnormal birth?

This one:

7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 1 Corinthians 15:7-9

Paul persecuted the Church so he would know that he was writing Moses like Scripture?

This response does not connect to anything I said.
I was answering this question for you:

Paul was the superior one in your opinion... so why isn't Paul the Rock on which the Church is built?

The answer I offered was probably because he persecuted the church. That made him an 'abnormal' Apostle, but an Apostle nonetheless. Quite capable of writing scripture to comfort and educate millions and millions of Christians through history. Which he did.

If Paul was special... why are you looking to Peter to validate Paul? That would be the reverse order of what your logic would imply.

You're missing the point by a mile. One's own testimony does not mean as much, if anything, to a scoffer. So it's actually quite good that Peter is testifying to the writings of Paul and not Paul himself. Not for believers sake, but for the sake of scoffers like yourself. That was the whole point that you missed completely.

John 8:13-18 NIV

13The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”

14Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid...

 

[JackrabbitSlim]

How much longer will y'all entertain this evilness.

 

[Hopeful]

This one:

7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 1 Corinthians 15:7-9



This response does not connect to anything I said.
I was answering this question for you:

The answer I offered was probably because he persecuted the church. That made him an 'abnormal' Apostle, but an Apostle nonetheless. Quite capable of writing scripture to comfort and educate millions and millions of Christians through history. Which he did.



You're missing the point by a mile. One's own testimony does not mean as much, if anything, to a scoffer. So it's actually quite good that Peter is testifying to the writings of Paul and not Paul himself. Not for believers sake, but for the sake of scoffers like yourself. That was the whole point that you missed completely.

John 8:13-18 NIV

13The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”

14Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid...

I wonder how your version of the bible came up with "abnormally born" from the KJV's "out of due time" ?
"And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." (1 Cor 15:8)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I wonder how your version of the bible came up with "abnormally born" from the KJV's "out of due time" ?
"And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." (1 Cor 15:8)

The NIV.

Born abnormally, not of normal vaginal birth, but ripped from the womb in an untimely matter.