What is Scripture?

[posthuman]

Romans 1:13 - brethren are compared to other gentiles.

Romans 11:7 - the elect obtained it, but the rest were blinded. By your logic the other elect were blinded even though it just says they obtained it.

1 Corinthians 9:5 - a sister, a wife, and other apostles

OK sure let's look at those examples you put:

​

I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.​

(Romans 1:13)​

​

clearly the 'brothers and sisters' are also Gentiles, because of the word "other"

What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened​

(Romans 11:7)​

​

clearly 'the elect among them' are Israelites just as much as the 'others' -- because of the word 'other'

Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living? ​

(1 Corinthians 9:5-6)​

​

clearly James & Peter are being called apostles, because of the word "other"


well i see that each of your examples bolsters the common interpretation of 2 Peter 3:16, and damages your case.
there is something you have to address, to make the argument for your interpretation:

Peter says "Paul's epistles.. and the other scriptures"
why does Peter say "other" ?

 

[posthuman]

The "other" or "rest of" means all of.

"the other" or "the rest of" categorically does not mean all of.
it means exactly the opposite.

this is really just a vocabulary word you don't seem to understand?
let me give some examples of common usage:

• "are you going to eat the rest of your cake?"
  • indicates you already ate some
  • therefore 'the rest of' is the remainder, not all of the cake
• "i'm going to take the rest of the day off"
  • indicates you worked part of the day
  • therefore 'the rest of' cannot be the whole day
• "i went to the park, but the rest of the time i stayed home"
  • indicates you did not stay home the entire time
  • therefore 'the rest of the time' does not mean all the time
• "my other sister is taller"
  • indicates at least two sisters, one shorter being presently discussed
  • therefore 'other' cannot mean all my sisters
• "i have to clock out & leave on time to get to my other job"
  • indicates i have two jobs, one i'm at, and one i am going to
  • therefore 'other' cannot mean all my jobs
• "we opted for this because all the other choices were too expensive"
  • indicates one out of all the choices was the lowest price
  • therefore 'other' cannot possibly mean 'all'

can you give even one example of "other" not meaning "other" ?

 

[posthuman]

My thread isn't really about semantics, but rather the reason(s) why we call scripture that.

semantics:
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.

your thread is exactly about semantics.
it's concerned with what scripture means, linguistically: what does the word scripture apply to?

You're playing semantics because you keep talking about the word other. Just admit that your interpretation, based off of inference alone, is that Paul's writings are scripture, rather than solid proof.

i am talking about textual evidence because the word "other" appears in the text.
we had to switch to semantics because you do not accept that the word "other" means "other"

I'll humor you. Are Peter's writings scripture too?

you defined it it as part of the Bible.
if your point is that not all of the Bible is scripture, then you are making a semantical argument. that's your whole thread.

as i put earlier, probably the only logical path you can take to say Paul's epistles are not scripture is to discredit Peter.

 

[Runningman]

"the other" or "the rest of" categorically does not mean all of.
it means exactly the opposite.

this is really just a vocabulary word you don't seem to understand?
let me give some examples of common usage:

• "are you going to eat the rest of your cake?"
  • indicates you already ate some
  • therefore 'the rest of' is the remainder, not all of the cake
• "i'm going to take the rest of the day off"
  • indicates you worked part of the day
  • therefore 'the rest of' cannot be the whole day
• "i went to the park, but the rest of the time i stayed home"
  • indicates you did not stay home the entire time
  • therefore 'the rest of the time' does not mean all the time
• "my other sister is taller"
  • indicates at least two sisters, one shorter being presently discussed
  • therefore 'other' cannot mean all my sisters
• "i have to clock out & leave on time to get to my other job"
  • indicates i have two jobs, one i'm at, and one i am going to
  • therefore 'other' cannot mean all my jobs
• "we opted for this because all the other choices were too expensive"
  • indicates one out of all the choices was the lowest price
  • therefore 'other' cannot possibly mean 'all'

Thank you, but I am quite familiar with the word other. There are few, if any, mystreries about the Englsih language to me. I am actually an English teacher part of the time, btw.

can you give even one example of "other" not meaning "other" ?

Yes absoliutely. Let's just point right back to 2 Peter 3:16 where Peter said that Paul's writings are letters and that the "other" scriptures are holy writ Old Testament writings.

Peter is not saying that Paul quoted "the rest of" the scriptures because Paul didn't quote the entire Old Testament in his writings. He's specifically talking about people who distort Paul's letters and the "other" scriptures. Paul's letters sometimes contain direct quotes to the Old Testament, therefore Paul includes scripture in his letters. People were distorting Paul's letters and the "other" scriptures in his letters because there are many scriptural references in Paul's writings.

For your interpretation to make sense, Paul would have to quote the entire Old Testament in order to have the "rest of" the scriptures in his letters.

Paul never quoted the entire Old Testament and even if his letters were actaully scripture then Paul never recognized them as such.

Paul made it clear when he was quoting scripture. Every time referring directly back to the Old Testament, never his own writings:

Romans 4:3
3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Galatians 3:8
8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

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

and many more.

 

[Runningman]

semantics:
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.

your thread is exactly about semantics.
it's concerned with what scripture means, linguistically: what does the word scripture apply to?





i am talking about textual evidence because the word "other" appears in the text.
we had to switch to semantics because you do not accept that the word "other" means "other"




you defined it it as part of the Bible.
if your point is that not all of the Bible is scripture, then you are making a semantical argument. that's your whole thread.

as i put earlier, probably the only logical path you can take to say Paul's epistles are not scripture is to discredit Peter.

My OP certainly isn't about semantics. I think our discussion has possibly evolved into semantics, but that wasn't the intention of my thread.

I disagree that the "other" scripture means all of Paul's letters are scripture. Peter is not saying that Paul's letters are scripture, but rather there are people distorting his letters and the other scriptures. I think it means that Paul's letters contain scripture where he quotes scripture and that people are distorting the scripture, and the other scriptures, in his letters.

I think what you're missing to really make your point stick is just any other supporting verses. You just have one verse with the word other in it. I personally reject that as inadmissable. You're, of course, free to believe as you will, but I'll not let this go. There is much more support in favor of my view than there is yours.

 

[Runningman]

Open question to anyone reading this thread:

If 2 Peter 3:16 is the best the New Testament has to offer about Paul’s writings being scripture, based exclusively on the word other, then where is the Biblical evidence to support any other author’s writings being scripture?

 

[Polar]

Friend in Christ, , my question was serious an still remains unanswered, when you do answer, I will gladly do the same.

Peace!

We are waaaaaay past that in this thread. Your question has been answered multiple of multiple times.

peace out

 

[Polar]

Open question to anyone reading this thread:

If 2 Peter 3:16 is the best the New Testament has to offer about Paul’s writings being scripture, based exclusively on the word other, then where is the Biblical evidence to support any other author’s writings being scripture?

As boring as it is, that has been answered many times.

You just do not accept anything but what you believe and are way deep embedded in a lack of biblical understanding regarding your premise.

 

[posthuman]

Peter is not saying that Paul quoted "the rest of" the scriptures because Paul didn't quote the entire Old Testament in his writings. He's specifically talking about people who distort Paul's letters and the "other" scriptures. Paul's letters sometimes contain direct quotes to the Old Testament, therefore Paul includes scripture in his letters. People were distorting Paul's letters and the "other" scriptures in his letters because there are many scriptural references in Paul's writings.

Peter says nothing about Paul's "quotations" he cites Paul's "epistles"

Peter points at Paul's God-given wisdom and speaking of such matters, not Paul's quotes.

You have not given any viable explanation for why Peter says "other scripture" instead of simply "scripture" yet - major flaw in your argument that Paul's letters aren't scripture.

 

[Runningman]

As boring as it is, that has been answered many times.

You just do not accept anything but what you believe and are way deep embedded in a lack of biblical understanding regarding your premise.

So no answer to my question, then. Got it. Thanks.

 

[Runningman]

Peter points at Paul's God-given wisdom and speaking of such matters, not Paul's quotes.

James said that if you don’t have wisdom simply ask God for wisdom. In my experience this is true. Do you believe God wants us to go by “It is written?” If it is written you have a leg to stand on. If it is not written then who’s authority are you speaking by?

By your standard, anyone who gets wisdom from God can write scripture - meaning that prophets can add the to the Bible. Is that right?

James 1:5 KJV
5If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

 

[Jesusfollower]

We are waaaaaay past that in this thread. Your question has been answered multiple of multiple times.

peace out

You will not answer because you cannot do so with certainty, you take the easy way out.

Peace!!!

 

[Jesusfollower]

The part you quoted by me was my admittance that, as a Christian, I believe the New Testament are scriptures. Thanks for recognizing that and understanding what I’m saying. Others have gone off on a tangent and said I’m possessed by an unclean spirit, called me names, said I’m dangling over hell, said I’ve blasphemed God, said I need to repent, tried to slander my character by saying I’m mentally unstable.

All I can say is that when you stand on the truth it’s genuinely a threat to some people. You’ll notice in many of my threads, if you look at my profile, I often get a lot of attacks like that. I get attacked a lot here, but I’m happy anyway.

From my perspective, I see fruits of the Holy Spirit in your response; it’s gentle, patient, and has self-control.

thank you for your kind words, you are like me in search of the truth.

We are commanded to ""test or put to the test" knowledge and be certain that it follows the words of GOD, I am in the pursuit of the truth about everything in the bible, I question everything look at the origins of texts, I want to know Who wrote what and for what reason etc...If I am nor completely certain will omit books or writings of the bible until I can prove them right . It is my training as a scientist and the love of GOD that compels me to do so..

GOD commands us to be truthful, i will not follow blindly the majority and be wrong even if everyone is against me, I will defend the truth always.

Whoever attacked you are wrong to do so and are NOT Christians!



Blessings,

 

[Runningman]

thank you for your kind words, you are like me in search of the truth.

We are commanded to ""test or put to the test" knowledge and be certain that it follows the words of GOD, I am in the pursuit of the truth about everything in the bible, I question everything look at the origins of texts, I want to know Who wrote what and for what reason etc...If I am nor completely certain will omit books or writings of the bible until I can prove them right . It is my training as a scientist and the love of GOD that compels me to do so..

GOD commands us to be truthful, i will not follow blindly the majority and be wrong even if everyone is against me, I will defend the truth always.

Whoever attacked you are wrong to do so and are NOT Christians!



Blessings,

Wow we are so similar. May our God Yahweh bless you brother!

Ecclesiastes 4:12 KJV
12And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.

 

[John146]

James said that if you don’t have wisdom simply ask God for wisdom. In my experience this is true. Do you believe God wants us to go by “It is written?” If it is written you have a leg to stand on. If it is not written then who’s authority are you speaking by?

By your standard, anyone who gets wisdom from God can write scripture - meaning that prophets can add the to the Bible. Is that right?

James 1:5 KJV
5If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Did James say this or was your quote inspired by God?

 

[posthuman]

If it is written you have a leg to stand on

"other" is written.

"quotations" is not written.

QED

 

[posthuman]

By your standard

I don't know what you're talking about.
I have one question: Peter says "other scripture" instead of just "scripture" - why?

 

[XavierJesusLovesIndia]

Well, the Bible is without any doubt the Word of God, but it also equally certainly did not fall down from Heaven with the 27 Book New Testament Canon complete in a Single Book, as we have it today. If we study Church History, the Early Church Fathers went by Apostolic Tradition in discerning the Bible Canon. Incidentally, 1 Peter was universally accepted early on, but 2 Peter was disputed for some time, with some claiming it was not from Peter. The Church ultimately ruled that it was. The Church Father Eusebius said this:

"Eusebius of Caesarea was an early historian of the Church. In his Ecclesiastical History (written about A.D. 324) he discusses questions of canonicity in several places ...

Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 3.—The Epistles of the Apostles.
1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. 1 And this the ancient elders 2 used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. 3 But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; 4 yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures. 5

2. The so-called Acts of Peter, 6 however, and the Gospel 7 which bears his name, and the Preaching 8 and the Apocalypse, 9 as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, 10 because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them. 11" Taken from: http://www.bible-researcher.com/eusebius.html

Fourth Century Councils like that of Carthage (397 A.D.) finally settled the matter, with the 27 Books we all have today, and 46 Books of the Old Testament (including the 7 Deuterocanonical Books that some call "Apocrypha"). God Bless. Source below:

"It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, 3 two books of Paraleipomena, 4 Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, 5 the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, 6 two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept." http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

 

[Runningman]

"other" is written.

"quotations" is not written.

QED

Okay hang your hat on the word other. Enjoy that.

How about any of my questions? Do you have answers for those, sir?

 

[Polar]

You will not answer because you cannot do so with certainty, you take the easy way out.

Peace!!!

You sound like a kid going nah nah nah nah. This thread is 7 pages long and this post is #140. Several people here, including myself, have given this proof you find so evasive and you, Mr Jesus Follower, ignore it. Kindly don't create nah nah posts at me again. You have nothing to offer as to why you believe the NT is not scripture, so unless and until you do, there is no point in responding to someone who ignores all that has transpired and offers a repetitive nothing burger.