What Constitutes Scriptures?

[Live4Him3]

Sister in law is here....I'll have to get back later

Hey, your comment reminded me of a joke that my brother-in-law (Well, he and my sister are now divorced) once told me.

Q. What's the difference between an in-law and an outlaw?
A. Outlaws are wanted.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Well, Peter certainly accepted Paul's epistles as being authoritative scripture, and they were written in the 1st century.

II Peter chapter 3

[14] Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
[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.

Although there were no printing presses in those days, there were scribes.

Yes I think the key is Paul accepted Peter as an apostle of Christ , and Peter accepted paul as an apostle of Christ.

I’m not sure where the idea of a church of Paul and a church of Peter ever entered in paul regarding the apostles

“After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15:7-11‬ ‭KJV‬

it doesn’t matter which apostle tells us about Jesus and the gospel it whether we believe

 

[Live4Him3]

I find it not a little amusing that Catholics love to take credit for the Bible but they're the ones who ultimately rejected it in favor of the Magisterium and the Catechism.

...while their hierarchy burned those at the stake (Tyndale, Hus, etc.) who translated it into the native tongues of the common people.

In John Wycliffe's case, they exhumed his dead bones and burned them.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

I wish I could have a cannon in Cannada!

cannolis are excellent to have in kannsas too

 

[Pilgrimshope]

How about simply divine inspiration. The canon of 66 books in the Holy Bible consists of books written under the direct divine inspiration of God the Holy Spirit.

I think he’s wondering why other ancient Jewish writings are not included as to be inspired along with the others

for instance why genesis ? But not other books credited to
Moses ?

why not the book of Enoch ? How do we know those aren’t inspired as well ?

 

[Pilgrimshope]

I find it not a little amusing that Catholics love to take credit for the Bible but they're the ones who ultimately rejected it in favor of the Magisterium and the Catechism.

I think they changed the Ten Commandments also to allow for the idolatry and importance of golden crosses and symbolic idols in thier worship

it seems there’s a lot of “Roman government and idolatrous influence “ though subtle in Catholicism but it’s just my opinion

I’m sure there are Catholics who are faithful believers but the religion and doctrine seems distorted to me

 

[Nehemiah6]

for instance why genesis ? But not other books credited to Moses ?

Ever since the time of Joshua, the Torah [called "the Book (scroll) of the Law" by God Himself] consisted of the first five books of the Bible (including Genesis). So anything else would be spurious.

This Book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. (Joshua 1:8)

why not the book of Enoch ? How do we know those aren’t inspired as well

While Jude does quote Enoch, there are some things in it not entirely consistent with the Bible. It is called a pseudepigraph, since someone other than the original Enoch may have written it. However, the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox churches regard it as Scripture.

 

[Runningman]

Look, I like you, I genuinely do, but you're definitely wrong on this one, so I'm hoping that you'll reevaluate your present stance after reading what I'm about to say.

Let's start with what Jesus said as is recorded in Luke chapter 10.

Luke chapter 10

[1] After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
[2] Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.
[3] Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
[4] Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.
[5] And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house.
[6] And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.
[7] And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
[8] And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:
[9] And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

The CONTEXT here is definitely that of Jesus sending 70 laborers out into the spiritual harvest field. As he sends them forth, he instructs them to "carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes", and instead to remain in that house, if they're received, while "eating and drinking such things as they give you; FOR THE LABORER IS WORTHY OF HIS HIRE".

Well. let's pause here and ask ourselves this very important question:

Who were these 70 working for?

Jesus or the people whose houses they might be entering?

The correct answer is Jesus, as he is the one who sent them forth as his laborers in his spiritual harvest field.

With such being the case, their "hire" was his responsibility, and he informed them that he would basically pay them through the people that they were ministering to. You know, sort of like what Paul said here to the Corinthians:

I Corinthians chapter 9

[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
[8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
[9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
[10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
[11] If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
[12] If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.
[13] Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the alter are partakers with the alter?
[14] Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

God has ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel in the sense that those who are sowing spiritual things to others will oftentimes reap carnal or natural things back in return. In fact, Paul quoted Deuteronomy 25:4 here (vs. 9), just like he did in I Timothy 5:18 along with Luke 10:7.

THIS is the context.

Christians who are working for the Lord or the gospel's sake reaping natural provisions from those to whom they are sowing spiritual things.

Now, IN CONTEXT, what does any of this allegedly have to do with either Leviticus 19:13 or Deuteronomy 24:14-15?

"Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning." (Lev. 19:13)

"Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates: At his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it: lest he cry against thee unto the LORD, and it be sin unto thee." (Deut. 24:14-15)

Both of these references are in relation to people who have hired someone to do work for them, and how they're to pay them their wages before the sun goes down, and not to oppress them because they're relying on said wages.

We're talking apples and oranges here in that neither of these two verses have anything even remotely to do with what Jesus actually said in Luke 10:7 or with what Paul consequently quoted in I Timothy 5:18. In both of those instances, the CONTEXT is Christian servitude to Christ.

That's just reality, so I sincerely hope that you reconsider your presently-held belief in this matter.

Honestly you lost me here. You think Leviticus 19:13 and Deuteronomy 24:15 have nothing “remotely” to do with what Jesus said in Luke 10:7?

Let’s ask a question then. So Christians serving are worthy or their wages but workers in general are not worthy of their wages? That seems to be your conclusion. The verses plainly state workers, not “Christian servants”, are worthy of their wages. Christian servants are workers but so are manual laborers. I hope that question helps give you a different perspective.

Again, here's the text, IN CONTEXT:

II Peter chapter 3

[13] Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
[14] Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
[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.

Peter CLEARLY likened the "wresting" of Paul's epistles to the "wresting" of "the OTHER scriptures", and NOT just to the "wresting" of "the scriptures". Again, why "the OTHER scriptures"? The answer is obvious. Paul's epistles were clearly deemed to be "scripture" by Peter.

The evidence for Paul’s writings being scripture is non-existent as far as I can tell. Peter called his writings letters. The “other scriptures” are the Law and Prophets. In the New Testament, the Greek word for scripture is always a reference to the Old Testament writings.

2 Peter 3:16 says that people are distorting Paul’s letters (not the scriptures) and the “other” scriptures (holy writ aka the Old Testament or Law and Prophets.)This is absolutely not saying Paul’s writings are holy writ as much as you seem to be trying to infer or deduce this based off of one flimsy verse.

The New Testament should agree with you on this point in many places, but the realty is that when there is a reference to scripture it’s always about the Old Testament.

 

[Runningman]

One of the 100 tests done on a piece of writing was the 100 year tests. Meaning that a piece of prophecy that was given and written down had to wait 100 years before it could become considered scripture.

And this point was put to the test with Daniel. Now Daniel is a prophet in his own right and a leader of many. But one of the unique things that Daniel did was to consider the writings of Jeremiah to be actually accurate scripture. (Which caused a lot of prayer and fasting on Daniel's part) Especially as Daniel witnessed Ezra begin the migration of the Israelites back to Israel to once again building the Temple. Meanwhile Daniel himself is writing down his prophecies that came from God. One of the numbering prophecies accurately predicted the precise day and hour that sacrifices would resume in Temple worship. Which immediately made his writings instantly respected even though he was a Unich. (He had been castrated and could not gain access to the Temple because of the deformity)

Daniel, the prophet, is unique on several occasions and not just this aspect of his life. The list of oddities in his life are vast and many not limited to this early admission of writings as scripture but also the Nebacadnezzar addition, Aramaic usage, the physical deformity, the advisor position to the King, and many others.

yes exactly. I definitely agree with you on this point about scripture needing to be confirmed and validated before it’s accepted as authentic scripture. Prophecys are always written before the actual prophetic event transpires which is how they get credibility.

 

[Magenta]

I think he’s wondering why other ancient Jewish writings are not included as to be inspired along with the others

for instance why genesis ? But not other books credited to
Moses ?

why not the book of Enoch ? How do we know those aren’t inspired as well ?

The Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical writings were preserved in the Catholic Bible but not canonized in the Hebrew Bible due to a number of reasons, starting with their questionable authorship or authenticity. The Hebrew Bible, known as the Old Testament, was compiled before the Book of Enoch was completed. Also, during the time of these books being written, it is acknowledged their were no prophets. I italicized preserved above because even though Enoch was included in some Catholic Bibles, it was not considered inspired.

 

[Live4Him3]

For anybody else who might be following this conversation, Paul plainly called a portion of what Luke recorded in Luke 10:7 "scripture".

Here are the pertinent portions of Luke 10:7 and I Timothy 5:18 in the underlying Greek of the New Testament:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/10-7.htm

514 [e]
axios
ἄξιος
worthy [is]
Adj-NMS

1063 [e]
gar
γὰρ
for
Conj

3588 [e]
ho
ὁ
the
Art-NMS

2040 [e]
ergatēs
ἐργάτης
workman
N-NMS

3588 [e]
tou
τοῦ
of the
Art-GMS

3408 [e]
misthou
μισθοῦ
wages
N-GMS

846 [e]
autou
αὐτοῦ .
of him
PPro-GM3S

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_timothy/5-18.htm

514 [e]
Axios
Ἄξιος
Worthy [is]
Adj-NMS

3588 [e]
ho
ὁ
the
Art-NMS

2040 [e]
ergatēs
ἐργάτης
workman
N-NMS

3588 [e]
tou
τοῦ
of the
Art-GMS

3408 [e]
misthou
μισθοῦ
wages
N-GMS

846 [e]
autou
αὐτοῦ .
of him
PPro-GM3S

Here they are again:

ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ (Luke 10:7)

Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ (I Timothy 5:18)

There's no doubt whatsoever that Paul was quoting from a portion of Luke 10:7 in I Timothy 5:18, and Paul called this portion of Luke 10:7 "scripture":

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

THIS is reality, so don't ever let anybody deceive you into believing otherwise.

 

[Runningman]

For anybody else who might be following this conversation, Paul plainly called a portion of what Luke recorded in Luke 10:7 "scripture".

Here are the pertinent portions of Luke 10:7 and I Timothy 5:18 in the underlying Greek of the New Testament:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/10-7.htm

514 [e]
axios
ἄξιος
worthy [is]
Adj-NMS

1063 [e]
gar
γὰρ
for
Conj

3588 [e]
ho
ὁ
the
Art-NMS

2040 [e]
ergatēs
ἐργάτης
workman
N-NMS

3588 [e]
tou
τοῦ
of the
Art-GMS

3408 [e]
misthou
μισθοῦ
wages
N-GMS

846 [e]
autou
αὐτοῦ .
of him
PPro-GM3S

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_timothy/5-18.htm

514 [e]
Axios
Ἄξιος
Worthy [is]
Adj-NMS

3588 [e]
ho
ὁ
the
Art-NMS

2040 [e]
ergatēs
ἐργάτης
workman
N-NMS

3588 [e]
tou
τοῦ
of the
Art-GMS

3408 [e]
misthou
μισθοῦ
wages
N-GMS

846 [e]
autou
αὐτοῦ .
of him
PPro-GM3S

Here they are again:

ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ (Luke 10:7)

Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ (I Timothy 5:18)

There's no doubt whatsoever that Paul was quoting from a portion of Luke 10:7 in I Timothy 5:18, and Paul called this portion of Luke 10:7 "scripture":

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

I like you, I really genuinely do, but you have the cart in front of the horse. you need to first establish that the New Testament was considered Holy Write Scripture at the time it was written and then everything else you're saying will make perfect sense.

Let's see what we know:

1. We know for a fact that the Old Testament are scriptures.

2. We don't know for a fact that the New Testament was considered scripture at the time it was written. I.e., the New Testament never calls itself scripture nor does the Old Testament call it scripture.

3. We know that there is a scripture being quoted in 1 Timothy 5:18.

4. 1 Tim. 5:18 says "Scripture" in the singular form then quotes two sentences which is plural. Therefore there is only one scripture being quoted in 1 Tim. 5:18

5. The only direct quote to a scripture in 1 Tim. 5:18 is "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn." a direct reference to Deuteronomy 25:4.

6.. "The labourer is worthy of his reward." is not a direct quote of scripture since it is not found in the Old Testament, but this concept is described in Leviticus 19:13 and Deuteronomy 24:14–15.

7. In conclusion, the only scripture (singular) being quoted in 1 Tim. 5:18 is "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn."

The reason you are having difficulty proving the point you're trying to make is that the point you want to make is not easily proven. I am not saying you're wrong, but I just dug up enough evidence to contradict your point completely so that should give you pause.

THIS is reality, so don't ever let anybody deceive you into believing otherwise.

Your ad hominem against the character of sincere and honest Bible scholars as being deceivers is unfortunate, but noted.

 

[Nehemiah6]

2. We don't know for a fact that the New Testament was considered scripture at the time it was written. I.e., the New Testament never calls itself scripture nor does the Old Testament call it scripture.

Since Peter placed all of Paul's epistles alongside the OT Scriptures in his second epistle, over half the New Testament was already regarded as Scripture while the apostles were alive. The Gospels would have also been circulating among the churches, and we do not even know about some of the other books. What we do know is that (a) almost the entire New Testament was regarded as Scripture by the 2nd century AD through the Muratori Canon, and (b) the Bible had been translated into Syriac by the same time also. It is called the Syriac Peshitta.

 

[Runningman]

Since Peter placed all of Paul's epistles alongside the OT Scriptures in his second epistle, over half the New Testament was already regarded as Scripture while the apostles were alive.

Verse(s)?

I hope you aren't referencing 2 Peter 3:16, which says the "other" scripture but repeatedly calls Paul's writings "letters."

The Gospels would have also been circulating among the churches, and we do not even know about some of the other books.

Verse(s)?

What we do know is that (a) almost the entire New Testament was regarded as Scripture by the 2nd century AD through the Muratori Canon, and (b) the Bible had been translated into Syriac by the same time also. It is called the Syriac Peshitta.

You didn't establish that the New Testament was regarded as scripture at the time it was written. I am not asking what your feelings, beliefs, and/or strong desire for what you want the truth to be.

The New Testament proves the Old Testament are the scriptures. I haven't even formed a thesis to prove this...yet. I am simply looking for anyone who seems to know fact this at the moment.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I hope you aren't referencing 2 Peter 3:16, which says the "other" scripture but repeatedly calls Paul's writings "letters."

So because they are called "epistles" they suddenly become "non-Scripture"? What kind of a nonsensical response is that? Open your Bible and see that over half the New Testament consists of Paul's epistles. So tell us -- Do you reject them all because they are called epistles?

 

[Nehemiah6]

You didn't establish that the New Testament was regarded as scripture at the time it was written. I am not asking what your feelings, beliefs, and/or strong desire for what you want the truth to be.

If Peter said that over half the New Testament was Scripture BY DIVINE INSPIRATION, who are you to contest that? Just goes to show that you love lies rather than the truth. This is not about my personal feelings, but about your rejection of Scripture, and your attempts to plant doubts in the minds of others.

 

[Runningman]

So because they are called "epistles" they suddenly become "non-Scripture"? What kind of a nonsensical response is that? Open your Bible and see that over half the New Testament consists of Paul's epistles. So tell us -- Do you reject them all because they are called epistles?

That’s not what I am saying. I am saying Peter calls Paul’s writings letters not scripture which means Holy Writ. Therefore there’s clearly a difference between letters and scripture or Peter wouldn’t have made that distinction.

You’re basing your conclusion off of one word, “other”, and trying to build a doctrine off that, but that’s highly interpretive and isn’t corroborated by any other passages in the Old Testament or New Testament.

I can’t prove a negative, but you’re making a positive claim and haven’t provided solid proof. Just show me a verse that says “Paul’s letters are scripture” if you can’t then I must ask you to kindly stop twisting the words of the Bible to fit your unproven narrative.

 

[Runningman]

If Peter said that over half the New Testament was Scripture BY DIVINE INSPIRATION, who are you to contest that? Just goes to show that you love lies rather than the truth. This is not about my personal feelings, but about your rejection of Scripture, and your attempts to plant doubts in the minds of others.

2 Tim. 3:16,17 is about the Old Testament writings hence the word “scripture.” In the New Testament, all places where the word scripture was used is in reference to the Old Testament. This isn’t difficult to confirm.

I’m not creating any doubt about anything. I am a good steward of the word of God. I stick to what the Bible says, you are creating a false narrative. If you distort the Bible you can possibly come under judgement for that. You’ve been warned.

 

[Runningman]

If Peter said that over half the New Testament was Scripture BY DIVINE INSPIRATION, who are you to contest that? Just goes to show that you love lies rather than the truth. This is not about my personal feelings, but about your rejection of Scripture, and your attempts to plant doubts in the minds of others.

You aren’t understanding.

In the days of Jesus, the New Testament did not exist. Where there was a reference to the “scripture(s)” it was talking about the Old Testament. The New Testament letters were written years apart from each other many years after His death.

By the time letters were being produced and sent to the churches, this was all second-hand information aside from a handful of blessed eyewitnesses who still remembered Jesus. Not many people would have been alive to remember Jesus in the flesh.

They primarily needed to use the Old Testament and miracles in order to prove what they were saying is true. Do I need to show you verses where people are converted to Christianity again and again by missionaries using Old Testament scriptures or miracles?

 

[JohnDB]

Hey, your comment reminded me of a joke that my brother-in-law (Well, he and my sister are now divorced) once told me.

Q. What's the difference between an in-law and an outlaw?
A. Outlaws are wanted.

Sissy-in-law is very sweet and nice. She is a millennial so that means she is in need of special handling. Stuff we think is "duh" is absolutely a new Revelation for her.