Paul's Letters: Part of "All Scripture ..." ?

by compound complex 88 Replies latest watchtower bible

inkling

What establishes the weight and divine authority of the NT...?
Ok, I think the idea is that God foresaw the writing of the rest of the scriptures, and guided not only their writing, but their preservation, and the selection of which ones made into the cannon. In that model, the "All Scripture" statement would be prophetic, and would apply to the "Finished" work, the modern OT and NT. (with God's final spit-shine being reflected in the NWT, of course.) I don't see how this theory accounts for typographical errors, translation errors, massive disagreement about what books actually made it in, the fact that the "Evil Apostate Church" was the one who assembled the final cannon, etc.... But then, I suppose God works in mysterious ways, right? He sure has a knack for making things look a dead ringer for a work of blundering humans. [inkling]
AGuest

May you have peace!
What were the scriptures to which Paul referred in 2 Timothy 3:16, viz, "All Scripture is inspired of God, ..." ?
At the time, Paul was referring to "Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets" (please see Luke 24:27, 32, 44, 45), which did NOT include the histories of the Israelite kings (1 and 2 Kings), the chronologies of Israelite lineage (1 and 2 Chronicles), and the "wisdom" of Solomon/Lemuel (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes).
He could only be referencing OT writings, correct?
Correct.
What establishes the weight and divine authority of the NT, as Paul could not logically be speaking of future writings?
Actually, with the exception of the Revelation and John's gospel account, there really is none. "Scripture" is that which is written while men are "in spirit" (inspired) and "borne along" (guided) by the Holy Spirit, Christ, who TOLD them to write what they did. Hence, the Revelation and John's account of the gospel are "scripture." The other gospels, epistles (letters of Paul, Peter, John, Jude and James, to various congregations, persons and groups), and the Acts of the Apostles were not "inspired" and, therefore, are not scripture.
That is not to say that there is NO wisdom in the other writings; truly, there is some... but what is there, whether inspired or not... is for unbelievers... not believers.
How would one who accepts the Bible understand this?
Actually, the PROBLEM with most who claim to be "christian"... and/or those who "accept" the Bible... is just that: their faith in the Bible... VERSUS in the One about whom the Bible bears witness:
"You are searching the scriptures because you THINK... that by means of THEM... you WILL have everlasting life. And these are the very ones... that bear witness... ABOUT ME... and yet... you do not WANT to come... TO ME... that you might HAVE life." John 5:39, 40
Because SO many put their faith IN THE BIBLE... rather than IN THE ONE about whom the Bible bears witness... they are easily misled due to all of the interpretations, misinterpretations, translations, mistransliterations, tampering, omissions, errors, inclusion, additions, commentaries, contradictions, and versions. I am not judging: I was among these.
I have since learned and hope that these, too, will one day learn, that if they would only put their faith IN CHRIST... and GO TO HIM... the SOURCE of ALL TRUTH... they would not NEED the Bible. That is because, as Christ, the ONE ABOUT WHOM THE BIBLE BEARS WITNESS is recorded to have said... THE HOLY SPIRIT...(and NOT "the Bible")... WILL LEAD YOU... INTO ALL TRUTH.
Unfortunately, because they cannot SEE the Holy Spirit, Christ, with their eyes of flesh... they continue to put their faith in an idol, a "golden calf," a VISIBLE REPRESENTATION... of God/Christ on earth. They lack the faith to BELIEVE... and thus, they are UNbelievers and so need to "see it in writing."
I hope this helps and, again, I bid you peace.
A slave of Christ,
SA
AllTimeJeff

Because SO many put their faith IN THE BIBLE... rather than IN THE ONE about whom the Bible bears witness... they are easily misled due to all of the interpretations, misinterpretations, translations, mistransliterations, tampering, omissions, errors, inclusion, additions, commentaries, contradictions, and versions. I am not judging: I was among these.
I would be remiss to point out that if the main source of knowledge and information of "the one" (Jesus) is clearly compromised, it calls into question Jesus himself! Where do such claims about Jesus being our savior come from? If the source is compromised, then the very idea of him being god is to.
I wouldn't expect you to agree with this AGuest, but as always, the readers of these threads can decide for themselves, as they often do.
Coco, all the best on your discovery. I am on my own quest for spiritual AND intellectual honesty and integrity. It can shake you up sometimes.
hmike

Coco,
Did I overlook it, or has anyone mentioned 2 Peter 3:15-16?

15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
That's what's used to put Paul's writings on a par with the OT.
inkling

Now who the hell are Jannes and Jambres?? They are mentioned nowhere in what we today call the Bible. But they ARE mentioned in the apocrypha.
*** w01 9/15 p. 30 Enoch Walked With God in an Ungodly World ***
Does the Bible Quote From the Book of Enoch?
The Book of Enoch is an apocryphal and pseudepigraphic text. It is falsely ascribed to Enoch. Produced probably sometime during the second and first centuries B.C.E., it is a collection of extravagant and unhistorical Jewish myths, evidently the product of exegetical elaborations on the brief Genesis reference to Enoch. This alone is sufficient for lovers of God’s inspired Word to dismiss it.
In the Bible, only the book of Jude contains Enoch’s prophetic words: “Look! Jehovah came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment against all, and to convict all the ungodly concerning all their ungodly deeds that they did in an ungodly way, and concerning all the shocking things that ungodly sinners spoke against him.” (Jude 14, 15) Many scholars contend that Enoch’s prophecy against his ungodly contemporaries is quoted directly from the Book of Enoch. Is it possible that Jude used an unreliable apocryphal book as his source?
How Jude knew of Enoch’s prophecy is not revealed in the Scriptures. He may simply have quoted a common source, a reliable tradition handed down from remote antiquity. Paul evidently did something similar when he named Jannes and Jambres as the otherwise anonymous magicians of Pharaoh’s court who opposed Moses. If the writer of the Book of Enoch had access to an ancient source of this kind, why should we deny it to Jude?—Exodus 7:11, 22; 2 Timothy 3:8.
How Jude received the information about Enoch’s message to the ungodly is a minor matter. Its reliability is attested to by the fact that Jude wrote under divine inspiration. (2 Timothy 3:16) God’s holy spirit guarded him from stating anything that was not true.
[Footnote]
The disciple Stephen also provided information found nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures. It concerned Moses’ Egyptian education, his being 40 years old when he fled Egypt, the 40-year duration of his stay in Midian, and the angelic role in transmitting the Mosaic Law.—Acts 7:22, 23, 30, 38.
A collection of extravagant and unhistorical Jewish myths? Well, we certainly wouldn't want any of THOSE in our Bible, now would we?
[inkling]
R.Crusoe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl8b4_0ZAoo
And he evidently disappeared after death - the tomb was empty!
AGuest

May you have peace!
I would be remiss to point out that if the main source of knowledge and information of "the one" (Jesus) is clearly compromised, it calls into question Jesus himself!
Assuming the Bible is the "main" source, you would be correct. It is not, however, and so your premise that I would not agree with you is also correct.
Where do such claims about Jesus being our savior come from?
While it is true that most know of "Jesus" from the Bible, the knowledge of our Savior, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH, comes from God Himself. By means of holy spirit, THROUGH the Holy Spirit. That is how everyone belonging TO Christ... from Abel to this day... know about him.
Otherwise, everyone else, unfortunately, learns what they do either from the Bible... or those who claim to be "teachers/scholars" of it, yes. Which is why they lack faith and/or are confused.
If the source is compromised, then the very idea of him being god is to.
If the source is the Bible, yes. I absolutely agree with you. If, however, the source IS the TRUE Source himself, no compromise exists. Instead, one simply receives the truth, without taint, FROM the Truth.
I wouldn't expect you to agree with this AGuest,
That could be because you believe, perhaps, that I put my faith in the Bible. I do not, however, and I have tried to emphasize that from day one...
but as always, the readers of these threads can decide for themselves, as they often do.
Praise JAH that that is so, and that some have decided to stop following others and instead follow ONLY the Fine Shepherd himself.
I bid you the greatest of peace, dear ATJ!
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
compound complex

Many Thanks!
Jag, Mary, inkling, AGuest, AllTimeJeff and RCrusoe.
I look forward to examining your comments further and connecting to the links provided.
This is so much better than being you-know-where!
With gratitude,
CoCo
CyrusThePersian

15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
hi hmike,
Actually, this scripture is one that shows that 2nd Peter is probably pseudepigrapha. The early church fathers didn't consider ANY of what we call the New Testament to be scripture until well into the second century. If Peter had actually written this, why didn't the church fathers such as Clement or Polycarp, who came after Peter, consider Paul's writings to be scripture? This fact, as well as the reference in 2nd Peter 3:2, which seems to indicate that the apostles are dead by referring to them in the past tense, provides evidence that the book of Second Peter postdates the life of Peter by many years.
CyrusThePersian
Abandoned

The mind boggles as I begin, haltingly, to fathom what many of you have already learned and shared here on JWD: the authenticity of the Bible is seriously in question.
Yes. I am completely convinced that the Bible is simply the oldest (or one of the oldest) cult handbooks. It teaches obedience through fear in the guise of love.

Paul's Letters: Part of "All Scripture ..." ?

Share this