by beenthere2 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
been
considering today there are literally dozens of bibles'with different books aswell'as some with additional chapters and verses, the question becomes what scriptures? the catholic bible is different from the ethiopian,'which is different from the christian and i didnt even mention the multitude of variety from xian churches like the nwt.
if i photocopy the kjv and add a few scriptures do they become holy ?
I rambled on another thread that Paul may well have looked at "scripture" in the way it was generally by his learned Jewish contempories. The "instruction" came from interpreting the stories found in any books considered scripture in a way that had relevance to them then, living under Roman rule.
They did not use the stories as literal history, but as allegory that they could adapt, sometimes even changing stories to suit, very far from the literal interpretation used by the WT and others.
Of course, we today may not approve of that method of exegesis, which in fact went far deeper than merely looking at scripture as allegory, as Paul showed, they would often pull phrases out of the writings of many men, and then cobble together a teaching from the combination they have put together, a bit like the WT does with random phrases.
But regardless, it is doubtful in the extreme Paul meant Timothy to use scripture as Bible literalists do.
Not counting the prophesies recorded in the gospel accounts, wouldn't it stand that inspiration was involved in the other letters where prophesy exists, particularly Revelation?
Paul may have been referring to the old Hebrew writings when he said, "all scripture", but I don't think that necessarily demands the Greek sciptures are any less valid; inspired.
By the time Paul wrote that to Timothy,
there were in play several writings by the true "anointed" Apostolic Fathers.
These were being used by "congregations" as holy texts,
and some were not included in Constantine's Bible.
As if by GOD, these "words" did not pass away;
they've just been unattainable to most languages over the centuries.
great topic best one i have seen this week....
If "all scripture is inspired" would that not include apocryphal books, as well? After all, the Bible canon was decided centuries after the last book was written. Not to mention, it was a council of church leaders who basically voted on what books to put in and which to leave out.
What is "written" and what is written "about" are two different things.
Both instances are writing, but, one is writing about writing and not the writing itself.
So, when Paul writes about the holy writings we can't automatically make that recursively holy as well.
"Michaelangelo was a great artist."
Was that sentence great art?
If we take the word "inspired" or "inspiration" we can ask ourselves how are those words much different from a description of "emotionally wrought" heartfelt utterances inscribed for others to read? In other words, how can we automatically inject the Living God into our own words, thoughts, emotions just because those words, thoughts and emotions are passionate and ABOUT God?
Paul himself might quote from an apocryphon as "scripture" in 1 Corinthians:
"We teach what Scripture calls: 'The things that no eye has seen and no ear has heard, things beyond the mind of man, all that God has prepared for those who love him' " (1 Corinthians 2:9).
There is a strong similarity with Isaiah 64:3 but the wording and thought is quite different and much closer to that found in the Ascension of Isaiah 11:34 and, apparently, in a lost portion of the Apocalypse of Elijah. Origen (Commentarius in Matthaeum, 27.9) and Jerome (Commentarius in Isaiam, 17; Epistulae, 57:9) claimed that Paul was quoting the Apocalyse of Elijah and Jerome noted the similarity with the Ascension of Isaiah as well. Origen similarly claimed that the Apocalypse of Elijah was quoted in Ephesians 5:14 and Epiphanius (Adverses Haereses, 42) agreed.
In this thread, I put together the case that James 4:5 quotes from a lost apocryphal book as "scripture", possibly the Book of Eldad and Modad:
I'm going to try again to reply......I couldn't get my replies to actually appear....(thanks for the tip Black Sheep)
and "yes" N. Drew, that is what I meant. I appreciate the replies. It's given me a lot to consider. (Especially the ones from Leolaia)
Related to this is how 1 Corn. 1:10 ("you should all speak in agreement") is used by the org. to support the stance for unity (by conformity). To me, in this scripture Paul was exhorting the brothers to be in agreement about who they were following (the Christ). It was not a command that they be in agreement about everything. In fact he even starts the verse by using the expression "I exhort you...". So, I think, if one believes the writings of the NT are all inspired by God then even the "exhortations" seem like commands. If one does not necessairly believe all writings in the NT are inspired by God (with all due respect to Paul since he was an apostle) then the exhortations carry less weight and do not have to be viewed as commands. Am I making a valid point? Trying to explain this makes me feel like a dog chasing its tail. I do believe that the commands of Jesus as related in the NT are inspired.
One of the reasons I left the org. was that I felt like the org. did not have authority to dictate so much of my life for the sake of unity. What bothers me is that there is a lot about the org. I actually like, but that I cannot really associate with them because I am expected to comply 100% or I'm out.
Hello again Terry;
I've been enjoying and "benefiting from your comments this month. I agree with your last post here (as usual). Yet my post was not geared to wards emotional writings, or suspicious prophetic toned books. To be exact it was: Didache, Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, and Polycarp to The Philippians; that I had in mind. This because they read as inspired books, rather then the fanciful and flowery type.
Hi beenthere2;
I'm glad to see you browser is behaving again!
