PDA

View Full Version : Which Scripture is Paul Talking About?



WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:20 PM
2 Timothy 3:16-17

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Does Paul mean the Hebrew scriptures?

Firefighter
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:29 PM
Specifically, he is referring to the OT.

WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:32 PM
Specifically, he is referring to the OT.

How then should we apply it?

Firefighter
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:37 PM
Like this. (http://sermonplayer.com/download.php?c=11647-count_audio_download-68247) (Link to a sermon)

nzyr
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:40 PM
He could be referring to the Gospels including all of the new testament too. I believe they are scripture.

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:41 PM
In 1 Tim 5:18, Paul quotes both Deuteronomy (muzzle not ox) and Luke 10:7 (the laborer is worthy of his hire).

Paul considered Luke to be Scripture.
Peter later cites to Paul's writings as Scripture.

Appears that Paul is talking about at least the OT and the Gospels, and Peter expands that universe.

WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:43 PM
Like this. (http://sermonplayer.com/download.php?c=11647-count_audio_download-68247) (Link to a sermon)

Tried to find his statement on the passage in question, but seems to be a message on a Numbers passage. Could you point me to the time in the sermon where he speaks on the Timothy passage?

WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:49 PM
He could be referring to the Gospels including all of the new testament too. I believe they are scripture.

When was 2 Timothy written?
When were the other NT books written?

WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:54 PM
In 1 Tim 5:18, Paul quotes both Deuteronomy (muzzle not ox) and Luke 10:7 (the laborer is worthy of his hire).

Paul considered Luke to be Scripture.
Peter later cites to Paul's writings as Scripture.

Appears that Paul is talking about at least the OT and the Gospels, and Peter expands that universe.

But Luke was the one who joined Paul in his missionary journey. Didn't Luke receive the gospel from Paul and not vice versa? If not, and if Paul considered Luke to be Scripture, does this mean Luke was carrying his written gospel with him as he journeyed with Paul?

When were the gospels written, and when was 2 Timothy written?

episkopos
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:55 PM
2 Timothy 3:16-17

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Does Paul mean the Hebrew scriptures?

Yes! Notice here that holiness is not mentioned. But righteousness is!

WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:56 PM
Yes! Notice here that holiness is not mentioned. But righteousness is!

Yes, an important distinction!

episkopos
Mar 2nd 2011, 03:57 PM
The OT is the Scriptures. The NT is a testimony of the fulfillment of the promises of the scriptures.

The first is meant to be studied. The second...to be lived out!

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:04 PM
But Luke was the one who joined Paul in his missionary journey. Didn't Luke receive the gospel from Paul and not vice versa? If not, and if Paul considered Luke to be Scripture, does this mean Luke was carrying his written gospel with him as he journeyed with Paul?

When were the gospels written, and when was 2 Timothy written?

No, Luke did not "receive" the Gospel from Paul. Luke researched and took eyewitness testimony for his Gospel. He didn't get it from Paul. Whenever Luke was written, it predated 2 Tim, becuse Paul quotes from Luke.

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:09 PM
Luke? probably 52-62
2 Tim probably 66-68

-SEEKING-
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:36 PM
Yes! Notice here that holiness is not mentioned. But righteousness is!

Just curious as to why you pointed that out.

Firefighter
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:46 PM
Tried to find his statement on the passage in question, but seems to be a message on a Numbers passage. Could you point me to the time in the sermon where he speaks on the Timothy passage?

Ummmm... it was an example of how we can apply OT scriptures to NT life.

episkopos
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:52 PM
Just curious as to why you pointed that out.

The differentiation between righteousness and holiness is crucial.

The OT teaches righteousness, with holiness being a representation of reality...temple, sacrifices etc....

In the NT Jesus Christ came in holiness to teach holiness. He did not come to call the righteous to repentance, but to follow Him in true holiness.

Those who were not righteous, John the Baptist called upon to repent and get ready for the subsequent calling in Christ.

BrckBrln
Mar 2nd 2011, 07:08 PM
Does Paul mean the Hebrew scriptures?

Yes, it seems so. As has been said 1 Timothy quotes Luke as Scripture, though I'm not sure that Paul is the one who wrote 1 Timothy. And 2 Peter considers Paul's letters as Scripture, though, again, there is some question as to the authorship.

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 07:13 PM
The differentiation between righteousness and holiness is crucial.

The OT teaches righteousness, with holiness being a representation of reality...temple, sacrifices etc....

In the NT Jesus Christ came in holiness to teach holiness. He did not come to call the righteous to repentance, but to follow Him in true holiness.

Those who were not righteous, John the Baptist called upon to repent and get ready for the subsequent calling in Christ.

So now we are trying to make a differeniation between "holiness" and "righteousness"? You got to be kidding.

There is no practical difference for the believer. Either or both are found in Christ, not in ourselves.

Firefighter
Mar 2nd 2011, 07:52 PM
though I'm not sure that Paul is the one who wrote 1 Timothy.

:o

1 Timothy 1 - Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, To Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 07:56 PM
:o

1 Timothy 1 - Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, To Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Yeah, but that's just what the Bible says. You need to look at the archeological record...

:D

BrckBrln
Mar 2nd 2011, 07:56 PM
:o

1 Timothy 1 - Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, To Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

:)

I'm not opposed to the idea that there may be pseudonymous letters in the NT. The reason why I lean towards Paul not being the author of 1 Timothy is because the author quotes Luke, which I date after Paul's death. But I'm nowhere near certain.

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 08:00 PM
I think Luke is the nom de guerre of Ralphius, the 14th Apostle.

Firefighter
Mar 2nd 2011, 08:02 PM
:)

I'm not opposed to the idea that there may be pseudonymous letters in the NT. The reason why I lean towards Paul not being the author of 1 Timothy is because the author quotes Luke, which I date after Paul's death. But I'm nowhere near certain.

The Bible (or parts of it) is a lie, -OR- you have your dates wrong 2000 years after the fact. Yep... hard decision.:bounce:

BrckBrln
Mar 2nd 2011, 08:06 PM
The Bible (or parts of it) is a lie, -OR- you have your dates wrong 2000 years after the fact. Yep... hard decision.:bounce:

I don't think that saying Moses didn't write the Pentateuch or Paul didn't write 1 Timothy means the Bible is a lie.

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 08:07 PM
I don't think that saying Moses didn't write the Pentateuch or Paul didn't write 1 Timothy means the Bible is a lie.

Well, since Jesus called the Pentateuch the "book of Moses" and since the text claims Paul as the author of 1 Tim, I think that yes, that would mean that the text would be promulgating a lie.

It takes some pretty fancy dancing otherwise.

BrckBrln
Mar 2nd 2011, 08:25 PM
Well, since Jesus called the Pentateuch the "book of Moses" and since the text claims Paul as the author of 1 Tim, I think that yes, that would mean that the text would be promulgating a lie.

It takes some pretty fancy dancing otherwise.

It really doesn't. In the case of the Pentetuch, it's as obvious as obvious could be that Moses didn't write it. But people are restrained by their doctrine of scripture to see the plain truth. 1 Timothy is quite different, and very well may have been written by Paul. But I do think there is a question, one that is never thought about by most Christians because of their doctrine of scripture. If it turns out Paul didn't write the letter, what has changed? Does the Christian faith crumble? Are the scriptures now unreliable? No. The only think that changes is ones doctrine of scripture, and not radically either.

episkopos
Mar 2nd 2011, 08:28 PM
So now we are trying to make a differeniation between "holiness" and "righteousness"? You got to be kidding.

There is no practical difference for the believer. Either or both are found in Christ, not in ourselves.

They are both present in Christ, yes! But the ingredients are available separately. Think of bread. A person who has never made or seen bread being made will think that bread is an element that contains the single ingredient...bread.

But we know bread is both flour and water (basically) OK a bit of oil...

Christ is where judgment and mercy come together.

So a man can be "spirit-filled" and yet be judgmental. He is not like Chist. He is missing the ingredient of humility and love.

A man can be merciful, but lack judgment. He is not like Christ either.

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 08:34 PM
Sorry, but only to some is it "as obvious and obvious could be" that Moses didn't write it. So you'll have to excuse my apparently intentional blindness. You'll excuse me if I take Jesus' opinion over yours.

RollTide21
Mar 2nd 2011, 08:42 PM
It really doesn't. In the case of the Pentetuch, it's as obvious as obvious could be that Moses didn't write it. But people are restrained by their doctrine of scripture to see the plain truth. 1 Timothy is quite different, and very well may have been written by Paul. But I do think there is a question, one that is never thought about by most Christians because of their doctrine of scripture. If it turns out Paul didn't write the letter, what has changed? Does the Christian faith crumble? Are the scriptures now unreliable? No. The only think that changes is ones doctrine of scripture, and not radically either.No...it wouldn't change.

I have seen several people on this site reference Lee Stroebel as a prominent voice of our Faith. Well, Stroebel and the biblical scholars that he cites in his books have pretty much this same outlook. I'm not sure of their outlook specifically on Paul writing 1 Timothy, but, in general, they understand the problems with the stringent requirements that Christians tend to place on Scripture as if the writings themself are God rather than God using them to speak to His Children.

BrckBrln
Mar 2nd 2011, 08:47 PM
You'll excuse me if I take Jesus' opinion over yours.

I assume, on your view, Jesus flipped his divinity switch to know for sure Moses wrote the Pentetuch. Is that correct? :)

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 08:52 PM
I'll trust his divinity switch over yours any day.

WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 10:30 PM
It's interesting, Paul's reference Jannes and Jambres in 2 Tim 3:8. Here Paul appears to endorse an unbiblical but popular tradition (earliest surviving citation in the Damascus Document, 1st century BC). So was this citation by Paul considered "scripture" by Paul? Additionally, Jude's revelation that Michael and the devil fought over the body of Moses (Jude 1:9) whereas in Deuteronomy 34:6 it states that God buried Moses on an unknown location somewhere in Moab. Jude is citing an extra-Biblical source, The Testament of Moses. Does this extra-scriptural source become scripture when recorded by Jude?

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 10:38 PM
It's interesting, Paul's reference Jannes and Jambres in 2 Tim 3:8. Here Paul appears to endorse an unbiblical but popular tradition (earliest surviving citation in the Damascus Document, 1st century BC). So was this citation by Paul considered "scripture" by Paul? Additionally, Jude's revelation that Michael and the devil fought over the body of Moses (Jude 1:9) whereas in Deuteronomy 34:6 it states that God buried Moses on an unknown location somewhere in Moab. Jude is citing an extra-Biblical source, The Testament of Moses. Does this extra-scriptural source become scripture when recorded by Jude?

Lot's of extra-scriptural sources contain truth. Harry Potter cites Scripture in a couple of places, but that doesn't make it Scripture. Paul cites the Greek poets on the Hill of Asparagus ( :D ) but that doesn't elevate their poems and philosophies to Scripture.

Why can't Jannes and Jambres be accurate. They are simply unnamed in the Exodus account. The exclusion doesn't make a later inclusion "unbiblical". Jude's revelation is in addition to, not contrary to, the Deuteronomy statement.

Citing an extra-Biblical source doesn't make the extra-Biblical source "Scripture," but it likewise does not mean that the statement cited by Scripture as truth is anything other than truth.

WSGAC
Mar 2nd 2011, 11:28 PM
Lot's of extra-scriptural sources contain truth. Harry Potter cites Scripture in a couple of places, but that doesn't make it Scripture. Paul cites the Greek poets on the Hill of Asparagus ( :D ) but that doesn't elevate their poems and philosophies to Scripture.

Why can't Jannes and Jambres be accurate. They are simply unnamed in the Exodus account. The exclusion doesn't make a later inclusion "unbiblical". Jude's revelation is in addition to, not contrary to, the Deuteronomy statement.

Citing an extra-Biblical source doesn't make the extra-Biblical source "Scripture," but it likewise does not mean that the statement cited by Scripture as truth is anything other than truth.


Ok, but what I'm wanting to know is this. If the Testament of Moses was not regarded as holy scipture by the Jews of Jude's time, or any time, then it must have been regarded as somewhat authoritative, for why would Jude cite the text? You or I would probably not cite the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas when telling others about Christ, yet Jude does something like this with his reference to The Testament of Moses.

Additionally, when Jude cites an extra-biblical tradition/work where Michael and the devil fight for the body of Moses, does this *tradition* now become authoritative? ...ie, Michael and the devil did in fact fight over the body of Moses?

BroRog
Mar 2nd 2011, 11:58 PM
2 Timothy 3:16-17

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Does Paul mean the Hebrew scriptures?He means any writing that can truly be called scripture. This would include what was already written and what was about to be written. Whatever is genuine scripture, it is God breathed.

BroRog
Mar 3rd 2011, 12:07 AM
It's interesting, Paul's reference Jannes and Jambres in 2 Tim 3:8. Here Paul appears to endorse an unbiblical but popular tradition (earliest surviving citation in the Damascus Document, 1st century BC). So was this citation by Paul considered "scripture" by Paul? Additionally, Jude's revelation that Michael and the devil fought over the body of Moses (Jude 1:9) whereas in Deuteronomy 34:6 it states that God buried Moses on an unknown location somewhere in Moab. Jude is citing an extra-Biblical source, The Testament of Moses. Does this extra-scriptural source become scripture when recorded by Jude?

No, it doesn't work this way. In the case of the Apostles, Jesus told them that he would send the Spirit of truth to guide them into truth and to help them remember what he said. This means that the Apostles were able to know what Jesus taught and to know the implications of what he taught. For them to cite another work is not to appeal to the other work as an authority, but to understand that the small section of the work rightly understood the implications of what the Apostles were trying to say.

WSGAC
Mar 3rd 2011, 12:35 AM
No, it doesn't work this way. In the case of the Apostles, Jesus told them that he would send the Spirit of truth to guide them into truth and to help them remember what he said. This means that the Apostles were able to know what Jesus taught and to know the implications of what he taught. For them to cite another work is not to appeal to the other work as an authority, but to understand that the small section of the work rightly understood the implications of what the Apostles were trying to say.

So is Jude 1:9 authoritative or not?

Servant89
Mar 3rd 2011, 12:51 AM
I am sorry, please forgive me for the drive by post....

1 Cor 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

2 Pet 3:16 As also (Paul) in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Shalom

BroRog
Mar 3rd 2011, 12:53 AM
So is Jude 1:9 authoritative or not?Yes, it is; but not because the source is inspired but because Jude's epistle is inspired.

Firefighter
Mar 3rd 2011, 01:46 PM
I assume, on your view, Jesus flipped his divinity switch to know for sure Moses wrote the Pentetuch. Is that correct? :)

You mean like He did when He was 12 and amazing scholars in the Temple???

Br. Barnabas
Mar 3rd 2011, 04:00 PM
Paul is referring to the OT as Scripture here most likely the Law and the Prophets as the canon on the Writings were still to be completly decided, or he was refering to the Septiugent (LXX).

Just because Paul "quotes" something that also appears in Luke does not mean that Luke had completed or written his Gospel at that time. Being friends and travel buddies, Luke most likely interviewed a lot of people while he was out with Paul, and took notes or had a type of oral tradition going.

Heck there is the possibility that "the worker deserves his wages" is a common phrase at that time and we are not really to understand it as Paul quoting the Gospel of Luke, but something he or someone else said. He might have been quoting directly from Jesus, having heard this statement/story from one or more of the 72 who were sent out.

Where the average composition date of Luke-Acts is considered to be 70 to 80, it seems a lot more likely that Paul who is usually thought to have died at 65 is most likely not actually quoting from Luke's Gospel but one of the number of other options out there.

WSGAC
Mar 3rd 2011, 04:42 PM
Paul is referring to the OT as Scripture here most likely the Law and the Prophets as the canon on the Writings were still to be completly decided, or he was refering to the Septiugent (LXX).

Just because Paul "quotes" something that also appears in Luke does not mean that Luke had completed or written his Gospel at that time. Being friends and travel buddies, Luke most likely interviewed a lot of people while he was out with Paul, and took notes or had a type of oral tradition going.

Heck there is the possibility that "the worker deserves his wages" is a common phrase at that time and we are not really to understand it as Paul quoting the Gospel of Luke, but something he or someone else said. He might have been quoting directly from Jesus, having heard this statement/story from one or more of the 72 who were sent out.

Where the average composition date of Luke-Acts is considered to be 70 to 80, it seems a lot more likely that Paul who is usually thought to have died at 65 is most likely not actually quoting from Luke's Gospel but one of the number of other options out there.

Those are my thoughts too! The Timothy passage couldn't be referring to the New Testament graphe/writing of scripture, as the NT hadn't been compiled yet...not even the gospels. The oral traditions given by the apostles to Paul, could not have been considered *scripture* by Paul, as there was no graphe/writings of those gospels.

keck553
Mar 3rd 2011, 04:50 PM
Those are my thoughts too! The Timothy passage couldn't be referring to the New Testament graphe/writing of scripture, as the NT hadn't been compiled yet...not even the gospels. The oral traditions given by the apostles to Paul, could not have been considered *scripture* by Paul, as there was no graphe/writings of those gospels.

I think you are in error. Jesus gave His apostles authority to be His emissaries and empowered them at Shau'ot with His Spirit, specifically instructing them that the Spirit of God would direct their words and actions. The Apostles had a unique stamp of authority right from God, that is why their teachings are Canonized. Paul would certainly have recognized they had the same source of authority as Moses did, and would have considered their words inspired by God. Anyway, that's my thought, as muddled as it may seem.

Br. Barnabas
Mar 3rd 2011, 05:06 PM
I think you are in error. Jesus gave His apostles authority to be His emissaries and empowered them at Shau'ot with His Spirit, specifically instructing them that the Spirit of God would direct their words and actions. The Apostles had a unique stamp of authority right from God, that is why their teachings are Canonized. Paul would certainly have recognized they had the same source of authority as Moses did, and would have considered their words inspired by God. Anyway, that's my thought, as muddled as it may seem.

In that case when, if ever, would an apostle speak or write and it not be considered Scripture? If we found a letter from Andrew the Apostle that in many ways affirmed Paul's teachings but in several other ways contridicted Paul's teachings would we have to consider the whole thing Scripture because it had the stamp of Apostleship on it. Or if some more of Paul's personal letters were found that had nothing to do with the Gospel, the life of the Church, or anything Christian, just saying hi to people and asking how they were doing? Would we consider them to be Scripture just because he wrote them? Would Paul and the other Apostles have ever been able to teach, preach, or say anything that was not "inspired" or had the same authoritiy as Moses?

RogerW
Mar 3rd 2011, 05:12 PM
So is Jude 1:9 authoritative or not?

Greetings WSGAC,

Is the text from Jude 9 speaking literally of the physical body of Moses, or could "body" be referring to the covenant body linked to Moses by faith? The Old Covenant remnant according to election of grace!

Da*10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Da*12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Re*12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Re*12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
Re*12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

WSGAC
Mar 3rd 2011, 06:45 PM
Greetings WSGAC,

Is the text from Jude 9 speaking literally of the physical body of Moses, or could "body" be referring to the covenant body linked to Moses by faith? The Old Covenant remnant according to election of grace!

Da*10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Da*12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Re*12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Re*12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
Re*12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


I suppose that could be, but there is no reference in the Hebrew Scriptures of the devil and Michael contending over Moses' body, or Moses in general. Indeed, the name Moses is never mentioned in conjunction with this spiritual battle between the devil and Michael. Jude is quoting from a tradition not found in his Hebrew scriptures as if it were authoritative.

BroRog
Mar 3rd 2011, 09:01 PM
In that case when, if ever, would an apostle speak or write and it not be considered Scripture? If we found a letter from Andrew the Apostle that in many ways affirmed Paul's teachings but in several other ways contridicted Paul's teachings would we have to consider the whole thing Scripture because it had the stamp of Apostleship on it. Or if some more of Paul's personal letters were found that had nothing to do with the Gospel, the life of the Church, or anything Christian, just saying hi to people and asking how they were doing? Would we consider them to be Scripture just because he wrote them? Would Paul and the other Apostles have ever been able to teach, preach, or say anything that was not "inspired" or had the same authoritiy as Moses?You can bury yourself in a quicksand pit of hypotheticals. One thing to bear in mind is that the Apostles only had authority in so far as they were speaking for Jesus Christ. The apostleship was not an office to fill such that anyone in that office is an apostle. The authority of an apostle is not derived from his office, but derived from the truth he brings. This is how Paul understood his role. Notice what he says to the Galatians for instance,

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is [really] not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!Not only would Paul not accept a man called Andrew who purported to be an apostle and taught things contrary to what Paul already taught, but he would disagree with himself for the same reason. Fidelity to the original message is the basis for an Apostle's authority and Paul is saying that even if he were to come later and preach a message that was contrary to the original, even he should be accursed.

It's the message, not the man, that has belief authority over us.