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

by compound complex 88 Replies latest watchtower bible

JosephMalik

FACT: The author of 2nd Timothy references "Jannes and Jambres" in 2nd Timothy 3:8. These two characters are not found anywhere in the Old Testament. They are found in the apocryphal Book of Jannes and Jambres. The writer then goes on to state that, "All scripture is inspired of God..."

CONCLUSION: The fact that 'Paul' referenced an apocryphal book and then declared that all scripture is inspired raises questions as to what 'Paul' believed to be scripture.
Cyrus the Persian,
Did you know that I can read? My eyes are in poor shape but I am still managing. And the scriptures you are using here teach the opposite of what you are saying or concluding. But then you should see what I can still see and it is: 2 Tim 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. Wow, Jannes and Jambres were bad and are being excluded not included to this audience. Timothy would not appoint anyone supporting them the way you do as overseers. And their existence and writings would not be included in the all scriptures are inspired comment made much further down the text. The best that can be made of this is if someone thought their work was scripture but simply hidden from view, then they would not think that anymore. It sounds more like the verses were targeted against men doing what you are doing and not supporting the writings of Jannes and Jambres. We find wrong conclusions everywhere regarding such simple material and much worse on the more difficult texts. Wrong conclusions by theologians abound everywhere on everything. And yet the truth can be found by the simplest of people without much difficulty. What a strange book this Bible is. How many other books are like this? In fact this truth could have been derived long ago by people using the KJV despite all of its shortcomings.
Joseph
compound complex

Thank you, Cyrus:
You could not have stated your point more clearly. Sometimes I get lost in verbage and miss what is so simple. Faith and evidence or credulity and no proof. I appreciate the simplicity of your explanation.
I have faith that there's a rusty rake in your garage ... is it a garden rake or a lawn rake?
For me, raking leaves is therapeutic. It gets my mind off my mind.
Gratefully,
Compound-Complex
orangefatcat

An excellent post indeed. I have to admit I was'nt able to read everything but what I have read was good.( My eyes get glossy so words run together on me).
My son is buying me a Gnostic Bible. (Late Latin Gnosticus , a Gnostic, from Late Greek Gnostikos , from Greek gnostikos , concerning knowledge, from gnosis , knowledge; gnosis .) An itellectual knowledge or superior spritual knowledge.
There are some interesting things to learn from the Gnostics. Especially all the other writings that don't appear in our modern day Cannon of Scriptures. I own many wrtings about the scriptures and several commentaries. Even amony some of the commentaries there are various scriptures that commentator's agree and disagree on.

Pretty much by the 4th Century books were being removed from the biblical cannon. Such as the Gospel of Judas, Mary Magdelene. etc. There is much one can learn from these other gospels and writngs. I think that the early church didn't want people to know what was in these writings as it gave them the spiritual leaders the reasons to make up the rules as they wanted to and many not scriptual at all. Unless you were educated in those early centuries it was good for the church they could tell the people anything and the people would by it. I mean it was only 700 years ago when the first complete English translation appeared. Commoners were at the mercy of the church and they spoke mostly in Latin and Greek. Greek is an amazing language, I loved how the apostle Paul engaged in converstations with the intellecuals of Greece. He was so logical and yet the Greek Philosphers couldn't see how simple things could be. For example the scrpitures says all things are lawfull but to the Greeks that meant anything in life it gave them liberalities to live the way they wanted to rather then the Chrirstian way. Yes all things are lawful but not all things upbuild and edify, but the Greeks couldn't believe it ,well many of them, but others did become believers. Paul was so adapt at speaking and teaching with philosophers because of his own upbringing. He a was a High Ranking Pharissee. He knew how the people of his time thought. The Greeks loved their lives and their liberty. An example Epicureans way of living. Christian life had boundaries but they couldn't see that. They prefered this way of life, (Epicureans followers of Epicurus (who died at Athens B.C. 270), or adherents of the Epicurean philosophy (Acts 17:18). This philosophy was a system of atheism, and taught men to seek as their highest aim a pleasant and smooth life. They have been called the "Sadducees" of Greek paganism. They, with the Stoics, ridiculed the teaching of Paul (Acts 17:18). They appear to have been greatly esteemed at Athens.) and they were Devoted to the pursuit of sensual pleasure, especially to the enjoyment of good food and comfort. They had no regard for rules of any sort.
And the apostle John being the last apostle to die he was well aware of the writings in both Hebrew and Greek that were available at his time. He was also an eye witness to most things that were penned. He was one of Jesus' favourite apostles, the beloved one. He knew more about what happened then any other bible writer. Can you imagine he lived past 50 years plus after Christ was crucified. Imagine the knowlege he had especially when he wrote is own gospel and Revelation.
I am constantly studing the scriptues and not just from any single translation. When I did buy the different translations that I have I got them with refrences and commentarie as well, I have the gospel of Judas . Many of my translations study bibles. I wanted to become an ordained minister in the Anglican/Episcopalian church. However after doing my research I found out that to get my doctorate of divinity would take 8 years and cost me a fortune. A friend of mine in church he is nearly 30 has decided to become a priest. I have good biblical conversations with him and can't wait until he starts so I can see what is required by the Bible College's in Toronto, Trinty and Tyndale and a couple of others. I wanted to go to Trinity however with my life right now it is impossible as most of you know how unwell I am and so I have decided to learn from my friend. Kind of like a method to my madness..
Again I hope I didn't go overboard here but I really love talking about the bible
Orangefatcat.
OnTheWayOut

I was out of town for the time this thread was posted. I hadn't read it until just now.
I had never thought about this before- What was [Paul] referring to? Obviously, [he]
was not thinking of the letters and the (as yet) unwritten Gospels. Such a simple
thought that JW's got right past me.
If further writings would be included, would that include the Gospel of Thomas or the
other "lost" gospels? Would the Maccabees be included?
compound complex

with my life right now it is impossible as most of you know how unwell I am and so I have decided to learn from my friend. Kind of like a method to my madness..
Again I hope I didn't go overboard here but I really love talking about the bible
Orangefatcat.
Your post is a delight, Ms. OFC! Neither have you gone overboard nor been driven to madness by great learning. There's alot to be said for autodidacticism as well as getting a little help from your friends.
I'm so grateful for research (such as yours and that of other posters to this thread) that takes me into a whole new world of understanding. Thanks for the info on Gnosticism.
I hope that you're feeling better.
Love,
CoCo
funkyderek

JosephMalik:
Wow, Jannes and Jambres were bad and are being excluded not included to this audience. Timothy would not appoint anyone supporting them the way you do as overseers. And their existence and writings would not be included in the all scriptures are inspired comment made much further down the text.
That's a pretty poor attempt at obfuscation. You're right that Jannes and Jambres were being mentioned as bad examples rather than good, but they were being mentioned as people who opposed Moses, in a way that suggested Timothy was familiar with the story. It seems clear that the text seemed to the author - and his intended audeience - to be part of a true account of the life of Moses. I don't see how anyone can justify excluding the only possible scripture that Paul quoted from his later definition, while simultaneously including not only Paul's writings themselves, but other books not yet written at the time.
If in "all scripture" Paul wasn't including the very document he had just referred to, on what basis is the text meaningful? Who is to say he meant to include any of the books you now consider scripture?
JosephMalik

That's a pretty poor attempt at obfuscation. You're right that Jannes and Jambres were being mentioned as bad examples rather than good, but they were being mentioned as people who opposed Moses, in a way that suggested Timothy was familiar with the story.
Funkyderek,
Good or poor it is my testimony and was supported well. The words of Paul did not support Jannes and Jambres or any influence they still had on others. It was offered to Timothy for what reason? So Timothy would be alert to them and look out for them. Why? For the purpose of identifying them and rejecting them and/or minimize their influence on others. It was part of the on the job training Paul was giving Timothy. Paul personally appointed Timothy to make appointments in the faith under the authority of a true Apostle. This was part of the effort Paul was making which Timothy enjoined to put a stop to such Jewish apostasy infecting the faith. You read Paul’s comments regarding such men. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts. Beneath their veil of sincerity and Jewish superiority supported by their genealogy there was this hidden reality. The meeker ones suffered under their domination. It was time to put a stop to it.
You said: I don't see how anyone can justify excluding the only possible scripture that Paul quoted from his later definition, while simultaneously including not only Paul's writings themselves, but other books not yet written at the time.
What makes you think it was scripture? It was hidden text and not that well know to Gentiles if at all? The very point being made was to not included it as scripture and not to appoint anyone doing so. It was causing trouble in the faith. There are multiple texts written by others that would include the works of Paul.
Joseph
hmike

Inspired or not, you cannot help but see the I Enoch in the New Testament (Son of Man, Messiah, Chosen One, Elect One, Gabriel, judgement, etc. etc.).
funkyderek

JosephMalik:
Good or poor it is my testimony and was supported well.
No, it wasn't supported well at all.
The words of Paul did not support Jannes and Jambres or any influence they still had on others.
Of course not. Nobody said they did. It's a given that they are being referred to as a bad example.
What makes you think it was scripture?
Well, Paul referred to it, it involved an incident in the life of Moses and it appears Timothy was familiar with it. Why would Paul refer to such a writing if he did not consider it scripture?
The very point being made was to not included it as scripture and not to appoint anyone doing so.
No it wasn't. Not at all. That's just such unbelievable nonsense that it seems like you haven't even read the verses in question. Paul was not saying: "ignore the writings that mention Jannes and Jambres because those writings are apocryphal", he was saying "look at the writings that mention Jannes and Jambres because they provides a useful example of what I'm talking about."
Exactly what do you think Paul meant by "all scripture"? Or do you accept that without some separate independent way to verify the canon, his statement is essentially meaningless?
JosephMalik

The very point being made was to not included it as scripture and not to appoint anyone doing so.
No it wasn't. Not at all. That's just such unbelievable nonsense that it seems like you haven't even read the verses in question.
funkyderik,
Well at least you have good company. It does not look like anyone else on the forum understands what is going on either. What we are plowing through is one of the major events, the most important thing taking place in the NT letters besides our salvation and the humanity and return of Christ. You find it everywhere and no one sees it. But for those that do get it now this is the reason that Paul appointed Timothy to fight this war with him. He said: 1Ti 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; Why? Because this is what was really going on. 1Ti 6:20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, 21 which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith. Grace be with you. And Paul authorized Timothy to fight it by using his authority as Apostle and allowing Timothy to appoint Bishops (overseers) and deacons that would avoid such men and limit their influence. No one else was doing this for such reasons. It was unique to Paul's ministry. 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. And Paul continued such training in his second letter as well. So if you think this to be unbelievable that is not a problem with me. No one that I know that came out of the WT has a clue as to what is really going on either. Makes no difference if they were in it 50 years or more, they know nothing about what it really teaches. So for those that want to know and learn, it is your responsibility to study it for yourselves.
Joseph

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

Share this