You need to explain this as from Genesis to Revelation is what God gave to the Prophets and Apostles to write that have made up the cannon we call the Bible.
You are the first person I have ever heard say this.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
It’s not biblical!
- Thread starter donadams
- Start date
You are the first person I have ever heard say this.
You're right.
BUT
By the time the NT was canonized, the two verses were placed in the NT
and it was understood that it also applied to the NT.
The NT was canonized just before 400AD.
Maybe you haven't critically looked at how the Bible is constructed.
How does Paul say all Scripture is for teaching... and that includes this letter that I am referencing Scripture as an external body of knowledge?
Genesis to Deuteronomy... is the law... then there are histories, wisdom books, prophecies, NT biographies, NT teachings(letters), and NT prophecy.
Not all these are "Scripture".
Last edited by a moderator:
Jethro Bodine
Member
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!
Last edited:
And you need to stop personally criticizing everybody.
I gave you the TOS rules...(not as a moderator)
But they apply to YOU too.
you still break them.
And like I did not already know all of that!!! I don't have to analyze, scrutinize or put the word of God under a microscope dividing out the various parts of it, but to only read it, study it and believe what has already been written from Genesis to Revelation for what God wants us to learn. Without the OT we would not have the NT.
God said it, I believe it and that's good enough for me.
Hi wondering,
Well right, of course. That's what is happening here. The OP is asking 'what' Jesus was referring to as the subject for 'it' in his call to his Father that 'It' is finished.
Now, I have read the Scriptures through a number of times and what seems obviously plain to me is that when God called Abram of Ur, through the promises and covenants that He made with Abram, God was setting into a motion a great plan that was going to be worked out upon the earth, first among His people, Israel, and then released as salvation unto the uttermost parts of the earth. It was a plan!
So Abram (Abraham) did his part and God did bless him and make his generations as uncountable as the sands of the seashore. But throughout all of those hundreds of generations of God's blessing to Abraham, God was having an account written to tell mankind who He is and all that He has done and that He wants us be in a relationship of love and trust and dependence with Him. Throughout that accounting, God interspersed little snippets of a Savior who was to come. That a day was going to come when sin would be atoned for and everlasting righteousness would come to us.
It was all a plan that God exposed to us through His written testimony to us. When Jesus died on that cross God's plan of bringing salvation to the earth was completed. It's all written down in God's testimony to us. Jesus cried out, "It is finished!" The story had been written and read and was being told one to another. The story of a Messiah to come from the people of Israel who could save us from our sin. It was finished!!! We can now be righteous before our God!!!!!
God bless,
Ted
Jethro Bodine
Member
Paul's writings were considered scripture even in his own day:
2 Peter 3:15-16 BSB
15Consider also that our Lord’s patience brings salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him. 16He writes this way in all his letters,g speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort,h as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
So you see two things here. 1) Peter acknowledges that Paul wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and 2) his writings are included with "the rest of the Scriptures." So 2 Timothy 3:16 does indeed apply to the NT as well as the OT.
Then please apply the verses in their correct context.
Incorrect use of the language.
Paul's works are not included with "the rest of scripture"... but compared with "the rest of scripture".
A minor difference, but that is the difference between error and understanding some times.
Is this what Calvinism teaches you!!! The downfall of man is that they walk in disobedience to truth as they are led around like a bull with a ring in its nose.
Jethro Bodine
Member
If that were true Peter would have said "as they do the scriptures" (making a clear delineation between Paul's writings and the scriptures), not "as they do the rest of the Scriptures".
I am not Calvinist. I don't even begin to know what all that includes.
Would not your post violate ToS 1.4?
Because I am thinking for myself I am led like a bull with a nosering?
Greek vs English
Paul's works are not included with scripture?
What does that mean?
Paul wrote about 1/3 of the NT.
Right... So when did Paul's writing get added to "scripture"?
At the time of writing? At the time of canonisation? When 51% of the churches in the ancient world had quoted them?
If someone writes something inspired by God... why is it not included in Scripture?
Do we add every modern vision and dream(from God) into the Bible and call it Scripture?
Scripture is a particular piece of the Bible. Not all of the Bible would be considered Scripture by a 1st century Jew.
So Paul... as a 1st century Jew... would be referring to what a 1st century Jew would consider scripture.
Paul's letters were circulating BEFORE the gospels.
About approx. 20 to 30 years after Jesus resurrection.
They were considered authoratative and they were copied and passed from church to church.
If you mean that when Paul mentioned scripture, he meant the OT, this is correct.
But, as I've stated, by the time the bible was canonized in about the late 300's, the writers
understood the scriptures to be what was going into the NT as part of the entire bible.
So when we say that scripture is useful, we can mean the OT or the NT.
As Christians, I'd say we mean the NT more.
Jethro Bodine
Member
I knew you would not accept what I said so after I posted I collected this for you so you can search it out for yourself:
G3062 - loipos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)
G3062 - λοιποί loipoí, loy-poy'; masculine plural of a derivative of ; remaining ones:—other, which remain, remnant, residue, rest.
www.blueletterbible.org
The English translators are entirely in accordance with the Greek word used. You can see for yourself that this is true. The people Peter is referring to twist Paul's writings just as they do the other, or remaining, or the rest of scripture. It's quite clear and can not be honestly interpreted any other way. You'll have to get rid of the word 'loipos' to make what you say true.
That logic falls apart.
Paul did not included his own writings as scripture... before they were scripture... so that when someone made it scripture... it then could refer to it's self.
If Paul was referring to the OT... who are we to say it refers to the NT?
That would be like saying the Rev 1:3 and Rev 22:18-19 refer to the entire Bible.
That would be gross mishandling of the text.
Like the quote "where two or three are gathered there am I in the midst..." being applied to congregational gatherings.
Gross incompetence at best.