2 Timothy 3:15 - the "Scriptures" that Timothy had known "from a child." This prepositional phrase would appear to have Paul not taking his own writings into account in the statement that follows in verse 16.
So it wasn't until the New Testament canon was established that Paul's writings were considered 'scripture'?
The Scriptures that Timothy would have studied... was it the Old Testament as we know it? The Torah? Something different altogether?
The Torah includes just the first 5 books of the OT. This would have been the "canon" of the Sadducees. What the early Christians studied included all of the books of our OT plus some other writings such as the apocryphal Book of Enoch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*
So it wasn't until the New Testament canon was established that Paul's writings were considered 'scripture'?
No. What I was saying was that Paul himself wasn't appealing to his own writings nor even the writings of any of the other NT writers in 1 Timothy 3:16. He was only referring to the "Scriptures" Timothy had known from a child.
This doesn't discount the inspiration of the NT itself. It's just what Paul was talking to Timothy about - the Scriptures Timothy had known from his childhood.
Peter would later refer to Paul's writings as "Scripture."
The Torah includes just the first 5 books of the OT. This would have been the "canon" of the Sadducees. What the early Christians studied included all of the books of our OT plus some other writings such as the apocryphal Book of Enoch.
No. What I was saying was that Paul himself wasn't appealing to his own writings nor even the writings of any of the other NT writers in 1 Timothy 3:16. He was only referring to the "Scriptures" Timothy had known from a child.
This doesn't discount the inspiration of the NT itself. It's just what Paul was talking to Timothy about - the Scriptures Timothy had known from his childhood.
Peter would later refer to Paul's writings as "Scripture."
your assuming alot on 2 Peter as even divine inspired.
Allegedly Peter says...
2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.
your assuming alot on 2 Peter as even divine inspired.
Allegedly Peter says...
2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.
"writings" or "scipture" choose what you will.
On the subject of the history of the NT canon, you make a great point about 2 Peter. This was one of the books that was held suspect in many parts of early Christendom.
My statements concerning "what is Scripture" generally follow the traditional or most ecumenically accepted canon. Of course within that context, there is a lot of history and debate; one can't qualify every statement. Everything I say here is just "IMHO" and spoken in generalities unless otherwise qualified.
On the subject of the history of the NT canon, you make a great point about 2 Peter. This was one of the books that was held suspect in many parts of early Christendom.
My statements concerning "what is Scripture" generally follow the traditional or most ecumenically accepted canon. Of course within that context, there is a lot of history and debate; one can't qualify every statement. Everything I say here is just "IMHO" and spoken in generalities unless otherwise qualified.
A LOT of history and debate. And how people treat the canon intrigues me. Some Christians think it a crime of God to read apocryphal books. Others see in the letters passed around to the churches, and those books that make up our Old Testament as a religious relic full of mystic codes, that one need only bible school creativity to sermonize from. I prefer, in the tradition of Judaism, to see it as a Story.
your assuming alot on 2 Peter as even divine inspired.
Allegedly Peter says...
2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.
"writings" or "scipture" choose what you will.
Here is what is important.
Paul was an Apostle.
Paul wrote what was given to him by God.
That makes what he wrote inspired by God.
Peter affirms what Paul wrote is inspired.
That is important because as an Apostle Peter understood they were commissioned to build the church and teach what God taught them through inspiration, directly by Jesus and later by the Holy Spirit
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
That is important because as an Apostle Peter understood they were commissioned to build the church and teach what God taught them through inspiration, directly by Jesus and later by the Holy Spirit
What about present-day apostles? Are their writings inspired? Should they be in the canon?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
What about present-day apostles? Are their writings inspired? Should they be in the canon?
???
The foundations of the church are apostles and prophets, Jesus as the chief cornerstone. While there are men who function in apostolic duties, I do not believe there are any Apostles (in the primary sense of the word).
The foundations of the church are apostles and prophets, Jesus as the chief cornerstone. While there are men who function in apostolic duties, I do not believe there are any Apostles (in the primary sense of the word).
You may not, but a lot of people do. Just sayin'. (And I don't think many of those folks distinguish between "primary" sense and otherwise. Just guessin'.)
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
So it wasn't until the New Testament canon was established that Paul's writings were considered 'scripture'?
no,
Peter referred to some of Paul's writings as "scripture" in 2 Peter 3:15-16
Also Paul considered some of his writings to be God's Word in 1 Corinthians 14:36-38 where he refuted some of the Corinthians for quoting Jewish oral tradition to try to enforce women keeping silence in the congregation.
Hybrid Mode
