What are scriptures? .... Seriously

by wannabefree 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  wobble

  I think Shelby makes agreat point about the word translated by many, but certainly not all as "Scripture" in 2 Peter 3v16, a number use "writings".

  Young's Literal Translation capitalises the W of Writings, to show that the writer of 2nd. Peter was referring to something more important than mere scribblings, but this does not prove that "Peter" thought Pauls letters were equal to Holy Writ. The use of the capital W is only Young's opinion.

  I would humbly suggest, dear Wannabe free, that you use the search button on here and read the threads that show how the bible canon was established, then go and read Terry's "Copies of copies" type thread, it will free you of any misunderstanding as to the authenticity and authority of "Scripture".

  It is also helpful to research when the books were most likely written, it is an eye opener to realise how late the Gospels (post the 70CE Temple destruction) were written, and Luke and Acts come to that.
• 

  AGuest

  It is referring to Christ, the only Word of God, dear Wannabefree.

  Peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  sir82

  the author of this epistle made such a definite claim to be the apostle Peter himself that it would have been grossly fraudulent and deceptive on his part if the epistle were not authentically Petrine."

  Ermm, that's kind of exactly the point.

  Suppose you're a 2nd or 3rd century dude - you "know" where your church is wrong, and you know how to "fix it".

  But, while literate, you're just an average schlub. Who's going to listen to you?

  But...hey wait a minute....if you were to write a document, expressing your views, but plaster a few "Hey, I'm Peter, I wrote this" throughout the document, and drag it through the mud a few times so it looks old....then go to your bishop and say "hey look what I found under a rock in my field!"....

  This description of course is more than a bit hyperbolic, but essentially is the reason why there are numerous early documents attributed to Peter, to Paul, to Judas, to John, to Thomas, to....

  That's exactly why councils were needed to determine an "official" canon - there were dozens of writings floating around, all claiming to be scripture.

  Modern scholarship (which you may or may not accept) has determined that 2 Peter is a better forgery than most - it fooled those early church fathers well enough that it was accepted as being from Peter.
• 

  designs

  Those clever rascley rabbits (Bishops)
• 

  Ding

  Regarding Wannabefree's original question about whether Paul considered his own writings to be scripture, there's this comment in 1 Corinthians 15:36-37: "Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command."
• 

  Leolaia

  That statement is at the conclusion of a lengthy discussion of gifts of the spirit (ch. 12-14, cf. the similar phraseology in the concluding statement in 11:16) and in context Paul is appealing to those who claim to have spiritual gifts to recognize the "command of the Lord" (kuriou entolé) in what he wrote. This is parallel to the other times when Paul declared that his apostolic exhortations are authorized by the Lord or represent a dominical command (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 [= Mark 10:11-12], 9:14 [= Luke 10:7], 11:23-26 [= Mark 14:22-25], etc.), and Paul (just as in the LXX) uses entolé in the singular to refer to the individual commandments of the Law or the specific teachings of Jesus (cf. Romans 13:9, 1 Corinthians 7:10, Galatians 5:14, etc.), not his own directions per se. Paul is thus probably alluding to the same "commandment" (entolé) he quoted in Romans 13:8-10 and Galatians 5:13-14 (= Matthew 22:39-40), i.e. the command of reciprocal love (cf. also the golden rule in Matthew 7:12, which "sums up the Law and the Prophets", which agrees with what Paul says in Galatians 5:13-14 about the command to love "fulfilling the entire Law"). This is the theme especially of ch. 13 which exhorts those with spiritual gifts to display mutual love, and this theme continues in 14:1, 3, 12, 26, 33. The reference to the dominical command in v. 37 establishes that all this follows from what is commanded by the Lord. So we find the same evaluation of people with spiritual gifts who do not abide by God's will in Matthew 7:21-23 (with the Law summed up in v. 12 by the golden rule). The connection with Matthew 7:21-23 is especially prescient because Jesus warns that such people with spiritual gifts will be ignored in judgment ("I never knew you, away from me you evildoers") which matches Paul's warning in 1 Corinthians 14:38 about those who ignore the Lord's command ("They will themselves be ignored").

  Even though Paul generally claims to speak "in Christ" (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:17, 12:19) and that Christ speaks through him (2 Corinthians 13:3), he makes a clear distinction between what is said "by the Lord" and what a person says "in the Lord", as seen in his opinions being distinguished from what the Lord says, e.g. 1 Corinthians 4:9 ("it seems to me"), 7:10, 12 ("I say, not the Lord"), 7:25 ("I have no charge from the Lord but I give my own opinion"), 7:40 ("in my judgment"), 2 Corinthians 8:10 ("here is my judgment on this matter"), 11:17, 21 ("speaking not as the Lord would but as a fool"), etc. It is thus unwarranted to think that Paul regarded his own epistle (containing many of his own opinions being distinguished from what the Lord says) to be itself a "command" given by the Lord (as opposed to referencing and containing commands of the Lord alongside his own opinion). And even if he did, it is a further leap to conclude that this means that Paul believed that his own epistles should be classed on par with the books of the OT as sacred scripture.
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  Scriptures are any non evidential text that people in authority choose to take seriously and decree to be Holy.

  People in high places even get to add a capital 'H' to Holy just to give it The Divine Seal of Approval.

  Don't ya just love magic - and all that jazz.
• 

  PSacramento

  The apostolic fathers and the first generation viewed the OT as scriptures, they tend to quote them quite a bit since they apostles and most of their direct converts were Jewish to begin with.

  The tended to quote scriptur ein the typical way, "It was written".. and when the quotes Jesus they tends to say "the Lord said.." or when they quoted an apostle said, "Paul said or paul wrote"..

  I think that it was the second and third generation that started to reference the Gospels and Epistles more, but there was never any mention of them being "scripture per say, but their authority was obvious and in the case of the saying sof Jesus, oever ruled what could be viewed as a contridiction in the OT scriptures.

  As time went by and more works were circulated and used in the various churchs, they naturally began to be viewed as "scriptures".

  See The Canon of the New testament by Bruce Metzger for a complete view.
• 

  AGuest

  Dear Leolaia... MUAH!! And peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Those of you who are athiests, you are free to answer, but I do believe in God and in Jesus, so one really should answer with the assumption that they are real, even if you don't believe that, please humor me and offer a logical thought based on that assumption.

  You have a good concern here, but it's too open to debate even with your restriction. If you were to ask a Jew, a Catholic, a Lutheran, and an Ethiopian Christian what Paul meant, you would already be getting into a difference of such severity that you have to check the weapons at the city gate before starting the debate. (The Jew probably would dismiss Paul's writing, but would still want to say what is and is not 'scripture.')

  I could say that it is pretty obvious that Paul was refering to the Old Testament and not to his own writings. Already, some would object. Even getting past that, was the Book of Enoch part of this? The Book of Jude quotes the Book of Enoch. How can it be dismissed? How about Esther? Jubilees? (There are more, but you get the point.)

  And even assuming the "Bible" is the word of God, and then assuming that Paul's writing of 2Timothy is real and then that it extends to the New Testament, well then, we have a much larger can of worms there with the Gnostic Gospels. If we go with what's most widely distributed and known, then do we count all those barely looked at Gideon Bibles in hotel rooms? ...or maybe the NWT leads the count since they heavily distribute literature.