Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
Of course when we put this in context we discover a couple of interesting things.
2 Timothy
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy is supposed to have been written by Paul, in fact it starts off making that claim. Now Paul is said to have died in the Nero persecutions in the 60s. Yet Timothy refers to the readers as having known scriptures from childhood. This had to have been at least twenty years earlier, before the earliest dates anyone gives for any of the Gospels having been written and before any of Paul’s epistles. (Ref)
What scriptures is 2 Timothy referring to? It appears that it must be Jewish scriptures! Are Jewish scriptures “able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus”? I suppose if you take a very Jewish view of Jesus that would be the case. And in Matthew, alleged to be the first Gospel written, that is indeed the case. (Ref1)(Ref 2) We may note that the implied timeframe does not allow including the epistles of Paul as being Holy Scriptures 2 Timothy mentions.
So what are the Holy Scriptures 2 Timothy means?
If Paul is the author, it is not the New Testament which would not yet have been written down. It could be the Jewish Scriptures. Or it could be scriptures that no longer exist, containing who knows what.
If Paul is not the author, allowing a later date of writing and the reference to be to the Gospels, then the first sentence of the letter is a lie. This means that what it says cannot be trusted and cannot be used to justify anything.
Another interesting thing about 2 Timothy is that it says that the scriptures (again which ones?) make one “thoroughly equipped for every good work”. So we are supposed to do good works.
Reading in context can lead to a rather different conclusion than out of context one-liners, can’t it?
That would have been almost all the scripture they had when that was penned. Of course they would have had that part of scripture as well. At least Peter calls Pauls writing "scripture'.
Also you are assuming that Paul is speaking only of scripture written before hand and that his proclamation does not apply to any further scripture that God would give us. However you failed to provided any evidence to support such an assumption.
That would have been almost all the scripture they had when that was penned. Of course they would have had that part of scripture as well. At least Peter calls Pauls writing "scripture'
What scripture would have existed twenty years (or more?) before Paul wrote 2 Timothy (assuming he did write it)?
Paul is referring explicitly to scripture that was read by his audience (Timothy) in his childhood, not scripture not yet written. What scripture was that and when did Timothy read it?
And are you saying that Paul calls his own letters Holy Scripture?
What scripture would have existed twenty years (or more?) before Paul wrote 2 Timothy (assuming he did write it)?
Paul is referring explicitly to scripture that was read by his audience (Timothy) in his childhood, not scripture not yet written. What scripture was that and when did Timothy read it?
And are you saying that Paul calls his own letters Holy Scripture?
The point is that the claim applies to all scripture.
I believe interpretations are inspired as well. At one time the vast majority of Christians believed correctly that the Bible supported slavery. We do not believe that now--not because scripture changed, but because we did.
Likewise most of the strongest men in the Bible had many wives--and sometimes concubines--but Christians no longer believe that now--not because scripture changed, but because we did.
Many believed women should never be pastors--but a goodly number of Christians no longer see any moral impediment to that. Women are becoming more prominent in Christian pulpits.
The point is that morality grows or it dies. It in no way remains the same regardless of what the current generation concludes. A hundred years from now the negative view of homosexuality will be dead among existing Christians. Because our morality is evolving even as I write this.
God is a living entity. He reveals not only through the written word, but the spoken word, the inspirational song and music, the beauty of nature, the kindness of a stranger. Each one of these is equally inspired when it make men and women think more on the glory and majesty of God.
If this were not so, then for the first three hundred years after Christ no one could ever have become a Christian because precious few had any written gospels/letters and certainly no canonized scripture. But they kept alive the story of Jesus.
The ones who are in trouble are those who are unable to grow spiritually with God. And, unfortunately, the Bible now as then (the Pharisees) is often the problem.
That would have been almost all the scripture they had when that was penned. Of course they would have had that part of scripture as well. At least Peter calls Pauls writing "scripture'.
Also you are assuming that Paul is speaking only of scripture written before hand and that his proclamation does not apply to any further scripture that God would give us. However you failed to provided any evidence to support such an assumption.
When the Church of that era was putting the canon of the NT together you can bet some editing was done. And it certainly would look good if Saint Peter, the prince of the Apostles said that.
Sola Scriptura folks are a bit naive. But, I get it---------------it is religion and in religion anything goes.
Moderator cut: deleted The Bible is the message of God (assuming there is one). But, the bible is not the word of God word by word. You need to give a lot more credit to God. The Bible was written by men that are fallible.
The problem is that without the Bible your church has nothing.
Last edited by june 7th; 01-21-2015 at 06:37 PM..
Reason: Rudeness.
The point is that the claim applies to all scripture.
The point is that if Paul really write 2 Timothy he is referring to scripture read by Timothy in his childhood. No canonical NT scripture would have existed yet when Timothy was a child. Either Paul is referring to Jewish scripture or to some unknown non-canonical scripture, which changes the complexion of what Paul is saying.
Or 2 Timothy was not written by Paul as it claims but sometime later when there would have been a body of NT Holy Scripture. Which raises the question of why we should trust 2 Timothy since the opening sentence is a lie.
The point is that if Paul really write 2 Timothy he is referring to scripture read by Timothy in his childhood. No canonical NT scripture would have existed yet when Timothy was a child. Either Paul is referring to Jewish scripture or to some unknown non-canonical scripture, which changes the complexion of what Paul is saying.
Or 2 Timothy was not written by Paul as it claims but sometime later when there would have been a body of NT Holy Scripture. Which raises the question of why we should trust 2 Timothy since the opening sentence is a lie.
I believe you should have used the word "wrote" rather than "write".
The scripture that Paul is referring to when he mentions what Timothy read in his childhood was the scripture they had at the time. This is not the issue.
When Paul says "ALL scripture is given......" he means "ALL", Not what we had 20 years ago or have now but "ALL Scripture". That sentence is not limited to any part of the scripture but includes all. That is the phrase and meaning we are discussing. If I say you should always ware clothes and some other time mention what you wore as a child, that does not limit my comment to mean you should only ware the clothes you wore as a child.
Your last paragraph is a weak strawman at best. You need to work on that.
When Paul says "ALL scripture is given......" he means "ALL", Not what we had 20 years ago or have now but "ALL Scripture". That sentence is not limited to any part of the scripture but includes all. That is the phrase and meaning we are discussing.
Then clearly if I write the book of "Capo: the First Fret" you will accept that it is inspired by God as well? After all, just like Revelations, the book of Capo did not exist when Paul wrote his letter, but he must have known that someday I would write it and it would contain vital revelations from God...
How in the world can you conclude that Paul is confirming the divine revelation of books that had not been written, by authors unknown to him? And if you do think that how in the world can you limit it to only those things that the Councils of Carthage decided? Why not Marcion's canon? Origen of Alexandria's canon?
It stands to reason that the only things Paul could be referring to were things known to him as scripture, that is the Hebrew scriptures. He didn't have anything else...
Then clearly if I write the book of "Capo: the First Fret" you will accept that it is inspired by God as well? After all, just like Revelations, the book of Capo did not exist when Paul wrote his letter, but he must have known that someday I would write it and it would contain vital revelations from God...
How in the world can you conclude that Paul is confirming the divine revelation of books that had not been written, by authors unknown to him? And if you do think that how in the world can you limit it to only those things that the Councils of Carthage decided? Why not Marcion's canon? Origen of Alexandria's canon?
It stands to reason that the only things Paul could be referring to were things known to him as scripture, that is the Hebrew scriptures. He didn't have anything else...
-NoCapo
Go find a dictionary and look up the word "all". Post it in a new thread and tomorrow when I have time I will try and help you with it.
The sentence being discussed is not affirming some books and letters as scripture. It is simply saying that "ALL Scripture is.............". Nothing more.
All post are moderated. Now does that mean all past post? All current post? only new post? It means "ALL". Now look the word up and have a good night.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
