What did Paul mean?

by AK - Jeff 19 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AK - Jeff

  He stated;

  "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16,17

  At the time of his writing this, much of what the universal [catholic] church later included in the now accepted NT canon was not written. Many other writings that were rejected by the chuch later had been written. Was he just referring to the old Jewish writings - or did he have in mind contemporary writings and even future ones.

  As a jdub we automatically took this to mean that the Bible we held in our hands was what he meant - but literally thousands of other documents could have been considered 'scripture' by Paul - perhaps his own letters were not 'scripture' in his mind at the time? Maybe he referred to just the Jewish writings?

  Poses some interesting thoughts to masticate. Thoughts?

  Jeff
• 

  Undecided

  You would have to be Paul to know what he really was talking about. An interesting question though. Too bad we don't know what "all scripture" really is that was supposedly inspired.

  Ken P.
• 

  BlackSwan of Memphis

  considering I think Paul had a jewish upbringing, my guess is that he was speaking of the Law and the Prophets and well, ot stuff. (in my very non scholar-ly explanation haha)

  BSoM
• 

  Shazard

  Is it Paul or Holy Spirit who speaks the words. And if HSpirit, then he is not bound by Paul's knowledge and considerations!
• 

  Narkissos

  As has been pointed out a number of times,

  (1) the Pastorals, from which this statement is taken, are widely acknowledged as the later strata of post-Pauline writings;

  (2) the definition of "Scripture" is quite open indeed -- cf. the reference to "Jannes and Jambres" in v. 8f which cannot be found in the canonical OT but in non-canonical Jewish literature. Whether it applies to Christian literature is doubtful imo -- much of the Pastorals is devoted to anti-Gnostic polemics and if recent Gnostic Christian writings had been thought of as possible candidates for a "scriptural" status the author would probably not make such a potentially embracing statement. The earliest NT allusion to the Pauline letters as "Scripture" is in (the probably still later) 2 Peter 3:15f.
• 

  BlackSwan of Memphis

  mmkay, Narkissos, I'm going to go ahead and sound uneducated for a moment:

  1) the Pastorals, from which this statement is taken, are widely acknowledged as the later strata of post-Pauline writings;

  (2) the definition of "Scripture" is quite open indeed -- cf. the reference to "Jannes and Jambres" in v. 8f which cannot be found in the canonical OT but in non-canonical Jewish literature. Whether it applies to Christian literature is doubtful imo -- much of the Pastorals is devoted to anti-Gnostic polemics and if recent Gnostic Christian writings had been thought of as possible candidates for a "scriptural" status the author would probably not make such a potentially embracing statement. The earliest NT allusion to the Pauline letters as "Scripture" is in (the probably still later) 2 Peter 3:15f.

  Huh?

  thx

  BSoM
• 

  lovelylil

  Paul was referring to the Hebrew scrolls only and not what we now consider as the New Testament. As you realized, they did not have the NT in Paul's day.

  This is not to say that the Apostles and others were not guided by holy spirit when they wrote their letters, etc. but there is a difference in their writings and the OT. The purpose of the NT is to show in the gospel accounts that Jesus was the promised Messiah who the Jews were awaiting, to show the early history of the church and how it combat false teachings even in its infancy, and to show the future (revelation). But unlike the OT, the Apostles and such did not say that God specifically directed them with holy spirit to write his words. Although they did base their words on the holy scripture and are in full agreement with the OT, We have to realize that again Paul simply could not have been referring to the NT when he wrote that statement.

  Also, many books were available to the early Christians that most church goers today do not accept because the "early church fathers" weeded them out. I personally have Enoch, Baruch, Jashar, among others. They give a lot of information from the perspective of those who were alive during the OT times and therefore, although they do not claim to be inspired, are certainly historical works. Jude quotes from Enoch, therfore we know at least some in the early church read this book. I also like the Didache (teachings of the 12 Apostles)

  Many today shy away from these as being "not inspired" but we need to realize that God did not edit every comma and period in the OT either. Yes, the writers claimed inspiration but I am sure as humans wrote from their personal perspective of things also. Hope this helps.

  Good point that you bring out with this thread, thanks. Lilly
• 

  greendawn

  Surely the New Testament was not yet gathered together, plus there were many books/letters circulating that were later rejected as being uncanonical and very likely there were other canonical writings that were lost. In my view the apostles and the people they personally consecrated as their successors wrote a lot more letters than we have today.
  
  But I don't know why letters attributed to Paul by tradition have their authorship disputed by scholars. In my view when they say it can't be Paul's because of its writing style I think that's pseudoscience since a writer can change his style over time and with psychological circumstances.
• 

  AK - Jeff

  IN agreement with the above thinking - my point is that when a dub [or for that matter most Christian churchgoers] read Paul's words - or the similar statements by Peter - they go into autopilot and assume that all the accepted Biblical canon is 'inspired'. This includes all the rules and regs [or purported legalistic applications of such].

  The reality would seem to be to me - that although many Christians outside of Catholicism have attacked that church - it is that church and it's early church fathers - who have decided what they will or won't believe as Christians to be the word of God.

  Nark - point taken - it may be true that Paul was not the author. This is widely debated it seems. The timing and true author aside - I doubt he meant his own words were inspired. If that is so, the acceptance of automatic 'inspiration' of those epistles and indeed most of the NT as binding seems somewhat credulous.

  Some scholars have attributed as instance, very little of Jesus' words to the historical man. That's another thread.

  I just find it interesting that those who condemn the early Catholic church as apostate [as the WTS has often alluded or openly stated], have assumed that they got the canon right.

  Jeff
• 

  the dreamer dreaming

  all scripture [everything ever written] is inspired by God [the search for ultimate reality]