Agreed that the principle applies to all of the book in the canon. Also I agree with you that he was referring to the Septuagint as that is most likely what Timothy had had since childhood and what the Apostle to the Gentiles would have been using in most of his travels etc.
In my view, this passage has nothing to do with the Canon of Scripture - what book should be in the Bible and what books shouldn’t, what books are inspired and what books are not, what future books are inspired. whether or not the Greek Septuagint was inspired etc. etc.
But the writings included in the Canon aren’t included because they are the only ones considered inspired. A lot of the Council and many Bishops wanted to include the St Clement writings. In the end, they decided to limit the Canon to certain of the OT writings and those writings that came from Apostles or from “Apostolic times” as I was taught.
I’m sorry maybe we got off on the wrong foot here but I thought I gave a very profound Deep answer to these questions. It is the Christ that matters. All scripture has a human author but its the Word who speaks with His own voice through them. because of this all scripture that is recognized as inspired has as its subject God himself and therefore is seamless in its assertions having no contradictions in it. But no body read my post so I guess you did not notice that what the Pope was generally saying is that in this kind of discussion where we take one phrase and search for its historical roots outside of what we know about the rest of scripture, removed from the context of the faith and the greater bible, you loss the plot a little. In a way you miss the point by changing the subject. The subject of the bible and theology is and should be God. Not the various authors and there little times in history but how what they wrote applies to God and his relationship with You. Read the Popes words again just a few posts up they are profound. He said it better than I could have.
I agree that Paul is not making this into a canonical issue, as I reread my post I do sound as if that is what I meant. My point that I was aiming at was that the Scriptures as Paul was referring to does not bind us in any way to what was canonical to him at that time because the canon was to be worked out as time went on. And I doubt that he had a defined standardized canon in the sense that we think of today, otherwise we would have had a definition given by the Apostles. My point is that, what Paul had in mind as “all scripture”, and what the Holy Spirit had in mind, was not a list. But I do believe that Paul had in mind a body of Scriptures that were inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice.
Well this is kind of the point. Julie Mae refers to his point as well.
Well this is kind of the point. Julie Mae refers to his point as well.
Paul is saying Scripture is inspired. The issue can therefore be said to be what constitutes scripture. and what does ‘inspired’ mean? My take on this is Paul could be understood to be saying anything that is inspired constitutes scripture, and to be guided by inspired writings rather than human reasoning?
(Emphasis mine)
…THIS…
Where this begins to become an issue is in discussions with our “Bible Only” friends. Particularly those who DO try to make a clear distinction between canonical (fully inspired) and extra -canonical (not inspired) writings.
Peace
James
Did Jesus ever once quote anything from the Septuagint ? If He didn’t would not that have spoken something to Paul, being a “new creature” and not bound from his “upbringing”, which led him astray on other things ?
To be completely honest - I don’t know. But I have been told that there are a number of OT books that Jesus never quoted from…so if that were to be the test for inclusion…the bible would be even thinner.
Not sure what you are saying here…
But “scripture” in all these cases simply means “writing” or “writings.”
That kind of just about sums it up and I would agree with your statement - there is no scholarly consensus in relation to the actual ‘books’ Paul was referring to when he stated ‘all scripture.’
Of course anything is possible but is it plausible ? What “other” writings would you be referring to that are not in the Canon ( CC or P) ?
All the more since there were no verses or chapters to speak of.Paul would be referring to that scripture Timothy ( a Greek / Jew), like Paul, would of considered kosher…minus the circumcision verses …
The ‘Gnostic’ Gospels - The Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter. There may be more I personally don’t know of. Do you think these books were inspired? Do you think St Paul thought they were inspired? What is the reason for your answer? What do you think is plausible, and why would you say this?