Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

1Timothy 5:18  For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that 
treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. 

2Timothy 3:15  And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, 
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in 
Christ Jesus. 

 16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for 
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 

James 2:8  If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt 
love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 

James 2:23  And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed 
God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the 
Friend of God. 

James 4:5  Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that 
dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? 

1Peter 2:6  Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay 
in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him 
shall not be confounded. 

2Peter 1:20  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any 
private interpretation. 

2Peter 3:16  As also 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. 

    As Paul told the Romans, May God's Word be true and may I be a liar.
    
    

    Jesus Himself called it "Scripture."

    I believe Peter also affirmed Pauls authority as a prophet.  Now I
    realize not all prophets wrote scripture.  However, it would stand to
    reason as a prophet must be 100% accurate and is a spokesperson for
    God.
    
    Note: I said spokesperson.   :-) 
                       ^^^^^^
    
    -Jack

    My question is What is the body of literature that these writings are
    aluding too!
    
    What is scripture?
    What is Cannon.
    
    Exactly what is Timothy refering to when he says "All Scripture"

>    Jesus Himself called it "Scripture."
    
    What did Jesus call scripture?

>    What is Cannon.
 

    An old TV show that starred William Conrad as a private detective named
    "Cannon".





 Jim   
     
 

.5
    
    >    What is scripture?
    >    What is Cannon.
    
    >    Exactly what is Timothy refering to when he says "All Scripture"

The Canon is confined to the texts an ancient gathering of men decided
upon.  In fairness to them, the texts had been in circulation in the
churches for quite some time before the convention.

Richard

    But was there a specific body of text considered "scripture" when
    Timothy refers to "all scripture".
    
    Was Timothy refering to text that was already existent?  Text already
    canonized?  Already in common usage?  Was he refering to the Hebrew
    Scrolls or the Septuaguent(sp).  Was he refering to text that might be
    written in the future?  text that might be canonized in the future?
    
    was he talking about the Torah?  The Torah and the writings of the
    prophets?  The Torah, the writings of the prophets and the narratives
    about the prophets?   Was the Song of solomon included in what he was
    quoting?  Was the book of Job?  Was all the psalms as we know them
    today includes?
    
    What did Timothy mean when he said "scripture".
    
                                   Patricia

.6
    
>    What did Jesus call scripture?

Jesus mostly quoted Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and the Psalms.  Jesus would have
been familiar with what is called the Septuagint, a translation of the
Masoretic texts.

Richard

    >    What did Jesus call scripture?
    
    The Tanach (i.e., Old Testament).

    Re: .10 & Richard
    
    Don't forget the major and minor prophets Jesus referred to as well. 
    Daniel is one that immediately comes to mind that Christ quoted
    (passage on the abomination of desolation from Daniel's 70 weeks).
    
    Mike

    Also Zacheriah and entering Jerusalem on a colt...a foal of a donkey.
    However, it does seem most of the prophecy fulfillments center on
    Isaiah and Psalms.
    
    -Jack

    Mike,
    
    When was the first edition of the"Tenach" published?
    
    "Tenach" as tenach that is!
    
    A collection of the Laws, Prophets, and Writings in a single canonized
    collection!
    
                                       Patricia

    Now if Jesus was speaking of scripture as the old Testament, would it
    not be a gross distortion for people to add a whole new testament
    to the Bible and pretend that when Jesus or Timothy were talking about
    scripture that it included this New Testament.
    
    So when we quote Jesus let's make sure we define the term Scripture the
    same way that he defined the term.  
    
     

.12 Mike

I said:

>Jesus mostly quoted Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and the Psalms.  Jesus would have
       ^^^^^^
>been familiar with what is called the Septuagint, a translation of the
>Masoretic texts.

Richard

Note 1147.13

>    Also Zacheriah and entering Jerusalem on a colt...a foal of a donkey.
>    However, it does seem most of the prophecy fulfillments center on
>    Isaiah and Psalms.

I don't have my finger on the page, but as I recall it wasn't Jesus who
quoted these.  Let's try to avoid convolution, if at all possible.

Richard

    Re: Tanach Publishing
    
    For completeness it's probably the Masoretic Text, but the DSS predates
    it.  Other fragments may as well.
    
>    Now if Jesus was speaking of scripture as the old Testament, would it
>    not be a gross distortion for people to add a whole new testament
>    to the Bible and pretend that when Jesus or Timothy were talking about
>    scripture that it included this New Testament.
>    
>    So when we quote Jesus let's make sure we define the term Scripture the
>    same way that he defined the term.  
    
    Patricia, Jesus Christ is the Living Word so everything He did/said
    would have to be in the New Testament at a minimum (Matthew, Mark,
    Luke, John, Acts, Revelation all have direct quotations).  He not only 
    defined it for us, He provided it as well.  
    
    The only debate you may have is in the apostle's epistles, and even
    that is a stretch.
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    I believe that you are mixing up questions.
    
    There is a question of authority and accuracy of both the New Testament
    and Old Testament accounts.  That is not the question I am asking.
    
    I have had many persons in here quote Timothy to me.  The quote saying
    all scripture is for teaching and reproach.  They then quote the
    passage regarding women in light of all scripture being for teaching
    and reproach.
    
    I believe that it is important to define the term scripture as the term
    is used in quoting Jesus and as it is used by the author of Timothy. 
    What did Jesus understand to be scripture and what did he say about
    that scripture and what did the author of Timothy mean by scripture.
    
    Indirectly we may then build a theory of Biblical authority, but that
    is not the initial question.
    
    I don't recall what your answer to the question, what makes you believe
    that the Bible is the innerrant word of God.  If it is based on what
    Jesus or "Timothy" use as scripture, then you must use the same
    definition they use.

      I haven't read this string, but did anyone mention the text
      where it speaks of Christ reading to a couple disciples the
      O.T.?
    
      Luke 24:27
      And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto
      them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself.
    
      I think there's another one that specifically mentions the 
      psalms.
    
      But, I realize its a catch-22.  Someone can always say the 
      scripture that says 'such and such' is inspired is itself not
      (necessarily) inspired and thus is insufficient validation 
      anyway!
    
    						Tony

>    I believe that you are mixing up questions.
    
    My apologies, I guess I misunderstood.
    
>    I have had many persons in here quote Timothy to me.  The quote saying
>    all scripture is for teaching and reproach.  They then quote the
>    passage regarding women in light of all scripture being for teaching
>    and reproach.
    
    You might have to prove where 2 Timothy 3:16 disagrees with an OT
    passage, say Psalm 119.
    
>    I believe that it is important to define the term scripture as the term
>    is used in quoting Jesus and as it is used by the author of Timothy. 
>    What did Jesus understand to be scripture and what did he say about
>    that scripture and what did the author of Timothy mean by scripture.
    
    A good start might be in Strong's.  What Greek words were used and what
    do they mean?
    
>    Indirectly we may then build a theory of Biblical authority, but that
>    is not the initial question.
    
    Possibly, but I don't believe the Bible deals in theories ;-)
    
>    I don't recall what your answer to the question, what makes you believe
>    that the Bible is the innerrant word of God.  If it is based on what
>    Jesus or "Timothy" use as scripture, then you must use the same
>    definition they use.

    I don't recall answering it either.  Bob might not have enough
    diskspace either for me to answer it ;-)  
    
    Seriously, the Bible has proven to me to have enough self-validating
    features that I never really thought the use of the word "scripture" to
    be an issue.  Knowing what I know now, I'd be surprised if it was
    anything more than a non-issue.
    
    Mike

 Does the fact that Peter referred to Paul's writings as scripture mean
 anything?

    It sounds like a good reason to believe that Peters writings are dated
    after paul's writings?
    
    Which verse are you referencing and which of Paul's writings does it
    reference?
    
                                   Patricia
    
    
                                    

2Peter 3:15  And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; 
even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him 
hath written unto you; 

** 16  As also 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. 

    It is evident that the  author of Peter, the Author of Timothy and
    Jesus were each referring to something different when they used the
    term scripture.
    
    I do find the quote from 2 Peter interesting.
    
                                    Patricia

    .25  Yes, but what I think Patricia is getting at is that the general
    epistle of Peter doesn't name which letters of Paul are being spoken
    of.  In other words, the letter to the Ephesians, for example, isn't
    cited specifically.
    
    In the broadest sense, anything written can be called scripture.
    
    Also, the authorship of the two letters attributed to Peter is not
    without question.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re Note 1147.27 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     In the broadest sense, anything written can be called scripture.
  
        Yes, I often think we lose some of the value of more recent
        great writings because we don't recognize them as the more
        recent scriptures.

        My favorite candidate for latter-day scripture is Hans
        Christian Anderson's "The Emperor's New Clothes".

        Bob

>    It is evident that the  author of Peter, the Author of Timothy and
>    Jesus were each referring to something different when they used the
>    term scripture.
    
    Patricia, I assume you verified this in the Greek.  What is the word
    used and what does it mean?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    re -25
    
    Jim,
    
    I learned a lot from your question.  thanks.
    
    Last night I looked up 2 Peter.  The allusion to Paul in 2 Peter does
    show that Paul's letters were collected and recognized as scripture by
    the author of 2 Peter.  
    
    I learned that many scholars consider 2 Peter to be the last book
    written to be included in the NT.  Scholars assume that 1 Peter and 2
    Peter are NOT written by the same author or even by disciples of each
    other.  Scholars recognize the similarities of Jude and 2 Peter and
    believe that the author of one had the other as a model.
    
    The conclusion in the text that I used was that Jude was written first
    and 2 Peter was modelled at least in part after some of the material in
    Jude.  A date of about 150 CE was cited.
    
    At least one reason for this conclusion was an allusion in Jude 
    1:16-18 that referenced prophecy made in the book of Enoch which was
    not cannonized along with the rest of scripture.
    
    The Author of Peter was himself editing out an allusion to scripture in
    Jude that was considered questionable by the time of the writing of 2
    Peter.
    
    Understanding some of the history of Jude and 2 Peter demonstrates how
    a correct dating and understanding the process of the biblical writings
    teach us much about the early church.
    
    We can see in 2 Peter that the institutional church has been
    developed, a body a scripture has been defined, and the church itself
    is also in a process of refine and redefining what is acceptable as
    scripture and what is not.  It also adds evidence to the assumption
    that the writings of Paul were the first writings of the New Testament. 
    In a later writing of a NT book we have a concrete reference to the
    Epistles of Paul and other scripture.
    
                                 Patricia

    Who are these scholars?  I've never seen such outlandish assumptions
    from mainstream scholars.
    
    Since Patricia made assumptions without verifying the original languages, 
    I checked out the Greek NT term for scripture last night.  Of the 31 
    occurrences of "scripture" and 21 occurrences of "scriptures" in the 
    NT (52 total), 51 of them all use the same Greek word - "graphe."  This
    word means "Holy Writ or Scripture."  The lone exception is II Timothy
    3:15 and its use of the word "scriptures."  Here the Greek word used is
    "gramma" which can mean "Letter or Scripture."  The only occurence of
    "scripture" in the OT is in Daniel 10:21 and uses the Hebrew word
    "kathab" which means "Writing or Scripture."  
    
    Since you can say that Jesus Christ, Paul, Peter, and Timothy all used
    the same exact Greek word for Scripture, obviously they meant to apply
    it and define it the same way.  This is pretty much as I had expected,
    so arguments to the contrary are void.
    
    Another interesting study is the use of the term "Word" as in John 1,
    which is "Logos" in the Greek.  An affirmation of the Living Torah.
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    Thanks for the assistance with the Greek.
    
                                            Patricia

    ZZZ    In the broadest sense, anything written can be called scripture.
    
    Considering the hebrew culture of that time and their reverence for
    scripture, it is unlikely.
    
    -Jack

    .33
    
    I don't know what era you're speaking of when you say "Hebrew
    culture of that time," but I don't find it all that preposterous.
    
    Granted not everything written would be considered holy and inspired.
   
    Richard
    

    True...
    
    Back in the days of Christ for example, was the term "scripture" used
    primarily to describe the Torah, The Poetics, and the Prophets...and
    nothing else?
    
    -Jack