When did it become scripture?

[Grazer]

When did Paul's letters, the gospels and other new testament documents become scripture; when they were first written or when they were brought together with the old testament documents to form the bible? Indeed, when were the old testament documents considered scripture? What about the sources Luke used? Could they have not been inspired by the spirit and therefore also could be considered scripture?

I know that the council of nicea pretty much just ratified already held views that Romans, Corinthians et al were authentic in that they were actually written by Paul and other gospels were dismissed as they were just collections of sayings, written much later, clearly made up or could not be shown to be written by who they were claimed to be.

 

[Deborah13]

I cannot believe that once God had His inspired words written down He just ignored the rest of the process in putting them together as the Bible (the Scripture).
God is not a God of confusion. I believe He was right there directing the compilation of His Word to us. He would not leave His children without guidance that He Himself had not directed.

 

[Grazer]

I cannot believe that once God had His inspired words written down He just ignored the rest of the process in putting them together as the Bible (the Scripture).
God is not a God of confusion. I believe He was right there directing the compilation of His Word to us. He would not leave His children without guidance that He Himself had not directed.

I don't doubt any of that Deborah but that hasn't answered the question really.

 

[jasoncran]

it does. the jews did it that way. for when we quote david in the psalms on that thy law is a lamp unto my feet. all he had was the torah, job and ruth and judges if that.He orchastrated the bible up to that point.

 

[Deborah13]

I don't doubt any of that Deborah but that hasn't answered the question really.

Hmmm....I knew what I meant, why didn't YOU?? LOL

Using this definition of scripture as "the inspired words of God"
That's my definition. Others may see it differently.

When the apostles and the OT authors wrote down the inspired words of God, they became scripture. Whether is OT or NT.

What sources Luke used?

 

[jasoncran]

what he saw and also he used the septuagiant lxx.

 

[Grazer]

Hmmm....I knew what I meant, why didn't YOU?? LOL

Using this definition of scripture as "the inspired words of God"
That's my definition. Others may see it differently.

When the apostles and the OT authors wrote down the inspired words of God, they became scripture. Whether is OT or NT.

What sources Luke used?

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

 

[P31Woman]

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Inspiration deals with the Holy Spirit of God helping the writer select the exact words within the writters own vocabluary God wanted penned.
That leads to your first question. The books of law were scripture when they were penned just as Pslams, Job and Hebrews

Scripture is scripture because it's God breathed not because man said it's scripture.

We have our complete bible because of God divine intervention
not because of anything in particular man did. It's an act of God.

 

[Deborah13]

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Please give me the scripture or at least what version you are quoting from so I can look it up easily, Thanks

 

[P31Woman]

Please give me the scripture or at least what version you are quoting from so I can look it up easily, Thanks

That's Luke 1 I think.

 

[Grazer]

Please give me the scripture or at least what version you are quoting from so I can look it up easily, Thanks

Sorry, missed that. It's Luke 1:1-4

 

[P31Woman]

What about the sources Luke used? Could they have not been inspired by the spirit and therefore also could be considered scripture?

Again it's the WRITTEN WORDs of scripture that are inspired.

God did not need a human to write the bible. Even if a goat had written the scripture they were inspired because they were God breathed.

 

[Deborah13]

IMO Luke is saying that he has been very careful in his writing. Those who were eyewitnesses and heard were mainly the apostles themselves and although others(besides the apostles) may have done their best to write down the truth that he had investigated all things so that all would know in consecutive order that the things taught were true. Making sure that he had the facts straight. He did not rely on others writings. I can see him talking to witnesses and laying out his case. Luke as a physician would be inclined to be thorough in everything he did, rather as a scholar. Knowing that Luke's writings are the inspired word of God I can see this as God saying to us that you can be confident in the word I have given to you through this man Luke.

 

[Grazer]

IMO Luke is saying that he has been very careful in his writing. Those who were eyewitnesses and heard were mainly the apostles themselves and although others(besides the apostles) may have done their best to write down the truth that he had investigated all things so that all would know in consecutive order that the things taught were true. Making sure that he had the facts straight. He did not rely on others writings. I can see him talking to witnesses and laying out his case. Luke as a physician would be inclined to be thorough in everything he did, rather as a scholar. Knowing that Luke's writings are the inspired word of God I can see this as God saying to us that you can be confident in the word I have given to you through this man Luke.

He used Mark as a source. I just don't see Luke saying that. He's saying "people have written accounts, I've checked what they've written, done my own investigations and double checked and here is what I've found out"

Craig Blomberg gives a good overview, I think its in the second video

http://publicchristianity.org/library/can-we-trust-the-bible

 

[Deborah13]

He used Mark as a source. I just don't see Luke saying that. He's saying "people have written accounts, I've checked what they've written, done my own investigations and double checked and here is what I've found out"

Craig Blomberg gives a good overview, I think its in the second video

http://publicchristianity.org/library/can-we-trust-the-bible

I think that's pretty much what I said??

 

[mondar]

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you;
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

In the above reference, Peter equates Paul's epistles with "other scriptures." He is acknowledging Paul's Epistles to be scripture long before Nicea, before collections of NT books were made (example Hippo), in fact before other books in the NT were even written (some of John's writings).

If I might add, the verbal teachings of the apostles were to be considered just as authoritative as the written word of the apostles. This can be seen by cross referencing 2 Thes 2:15 with 2:5.
2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
Note how the content of the Epistle of 2 Thessalonians was verbally taught. Paul claimed that when he was with them, "I told you these things."
The "scripture" was authoritative from the moment it was spoken.

 

[Grazer]

I think that's pretty much what I said??

Not unless I've misread you which is very likely since I wrote that before I'd had coffee.....and I should never be doing anything without having at least 1 cup of coffee lol

 

[Deborah13]

Not unless I've misread you which is very likely since I wrote that before I'd had coffee.....and I should never be doing anything without having at least 1 cup of coffee lol

LOL me either, and I had not had a cupa yet either when I responded. I believe Luke read what others had written about what they had heard and seen but then he did a thorough investigation and made sure that what he wrote would be correct and absolute. Two or three witnesses, etc. From this I would have to assume that the authors of the scriptures did not know that God had given the inspired words that they wrote and would see that they (the inspired words) would be compiled together into what we call the Bible (the Scripture). God is faithful in His care for us. I love how He included this explanation from Luke about his investigation. Thanks for bringing this up I had never thought about this scripture really.

 

[CORE]

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you;
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

In the above reference, Peter equates Paul's epistles with "other scriptures." He is acknowledging Paul's Epistles to be scripture long before Nicea, before collections of NT books were made (example Hippo), in fact before other books in the NT were even written (some of John's writings)..

Spot on...thanks for posting 2 Peter.

 

[CORE]

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Please give me the scripture or at least what version you are quoting from so I can look it up easily, Thanks

No offense Deborah, but it's 2013...all you have to do is copy and paste into google and viola, lol. ; - p