2 Tim 3:16 which scripture?

[Nicea325]

You bring up an interesting observation of mine. When did it become fashion to take isolated texts and string them togehter. I ask this as studen of thought. There is nothing new under the sun. Oneness Pentacostals are Sabellians and it appears that this method of using Scripture is something that is an ancient practice. Do you know when this began and to whom we owe this crazy way of thinking?

Whew! That is not an easy one to answer. I am not sure one can pin-point to one person or persons as the “founders” of such a practice. However, I am sure the majority of scripture scholars and theologians denounce Biblical eisegesis, but the practice has been employed for centuries. Many Christians today employ it, although they inadvertently, do it as part of their own theology.

 

[Nicea325]

And this is the second half of the point I bring up regarding 2 Tim 3:16, which text was St. Paul saying was inspired? We say the Septuagint, Protestants will say the Hebrew text though both have all the deutrocanonical books thanks to finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Either/or, I’d like to see the justification of keeping those seven books out of their bibles even though they are proven to be inspired.

San Marcos? I am from Escondido… I attended Palomar College and transfered to Cal State San Marcos when the new campus opened up back in 1992. Goes to show how old I am…

:bigyikes:

As for your response. Many will argue that even several church fathers did not want the 7 extra books in the Bible and so on?

 

[Pwrlftr]

And this is the second half of the point I bring up regarding 2 Tim 3:16, which text was St. Paul saying was inspired? **We say the Septuagint, **Protestants will say the Hebrew text though both have all the deutrocanonical books thanks to finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Either/or, I’d like to see the justification of keeping those seven books out of their bibles even though they are proven to be inspired.

To be fair to Protestants, we don’t know how many versions of the septuagint (LXX) there were at that time nor do we know which books may have been contained in the various manuscripts or if the book contained were all considered inspired. So, you can’t really say the LXX was inspired.

What we do have though is the testimony of the Church so regardless of what some ECF’s believed we have what the Church taught and dogmatically declared at Trent. 'nuff said.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

San Marcos? I am from Escondido… I attended Palomar College and transfered to Cal State San Marcos when the new campus opened up back in 1992. Goes to show how old I am…

Nice, what parish you goto? I goto Oceanside St. Margaret’s, Fr. Wallace is our priest. Should drop by sometime when he does the Extraordinary Form.

To be fair to Protestants, we don’t know how many versions of the septuagint (LXX) there were at that time nor do we know which books may have been contained in the various manuscripts or if the book contained were all considered inspired. So, you can’t really say the LXX was inspired.

What we do have though is the testimony of the Church so regardless of what some ECF’s believed we have what the Church taught and dogmatically declared at Trent. 'nuff said.

Interesting point, but what authority was St. Paul speaking from to make such a claim that all scripture, Hebrew or Septuagint, is inspired?

 

[Pwrlftr]

Interesting point, but what authority was St. Paul speaking from to make such a claim that all scripture, Hebrew or Septuagint, is inspired?

If I understand what it is you are asking, Paul was an apostle, that was his authority.

Note that he simply said all scripture is inspired, not limiting himself to OT or NT, simply all scripture. Again, we do not know the contents of the LXX at the time of Christ.

 

[BrianH]

And this is the second half of the point I bring up regarding 2 Tim 3:16, which text was St. Paul saying was inspired? We say the Septuagint, Protestants will say the Hebrew text though both have all the deutrocanonical books thanks to finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Either/or, I’d like to see the justification of keeping those seven books out of their bibles even though they are proven to be inspired.

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not have all the Deuterocanonical books…if that is what you are saying. They have three as I recall

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

If I understand what it is you are asking, Paul was an apostle, that was his authority.

Note that he simply said all scripture is inspired, not limiting himself to OT or NT, simply all scripture. Again, we do not know the contents of the LXX at the time of Christ.

He wasn’t speaking of the NT as we know it today. It’s possible he was speaking of the Gospel of Matthew and Mark but Luke was penned either during his imprisonment while writing his own letters (one being the one in the discussion) or after his death and John was penned well after his death, also Revelation.

So the question still stands, what is the “all” scripture he was referring too? The Hebrew text? Greek text? Both? An argument could be well defended stating both, as he quoted both the Greek and Hebrew.

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not have all the Deuterocanonical books…if that is what you are saying. They have three as I recall

Thank you for that catch. All in the Septuagint and three in Dead Sea Scrolls, four for orthodox communion.

 

[Pwrlftr]

He wasn’t speaking of the NT as we know it today. It’s possible he was speaking of the Gospel of Matthew and Mark but Luke was penned either during his imprisonment while writing his own letters (one being the one in the discussion) or after his death and John was penned well after his death, also Revelation.

So the question still stands, what is the “all” scripture he was referring too? The Hebrew text? Greek text? Both? An argument could be well defended stating both, as he quoted both the Greek and Hebrew.

You are correct that there were some books of the NT that probably had yet to be written but there was already a concept of NT canon, but certainly not as developed as we have today. Paul likely had in mind the OT but note that he isn’t discussing the canon but describing scripture in general.

Let’s say that Paul quote exclusively from the Greek, that still wouldn’t prove our Church was correct in canonizing the DC’s. I think this is just a bad argument. The conclusion is correct, the DC’s are part of the OT canon, but not logical and impossible to defend. It’s a bad argument because we don’t know enough about the LXX to make that leap.

We have four manuscripts of the LXX available to us today. All of them have different books and all of the them are Christian manuscripts dating from around the fourth century. As far as I know, that’s what we have available to us with regards to the LXX and we have nothing that allows us to go back to the first century and make claims with any certainty about the boooks of the LXX.

I was a Protestant and often would hear folks use the above verse to discredit sola scriptura. While I no longer accept ss it has nothing to do with this verse. There are several reasons for this. One, Paul was describing the nature of scripture and not the extent of it so even if all he had available to him at the time was the OT it really wouldn’t affect ss one way or the other. Secondly, most ss proponents will realize that you have to have the scriptura fully developed before the sola can become operative. In other words ss would not have been the norm while the scriptures were being written.

Thanks for taking the time to chat with me.

 

[CompSciGuy]

May you please provide an example of Catholics proof-texting?

An example would be when Catholic apologists use the phrase “full of grace” to mean that Mary was without sin, when in other parts of scripture it is used to describe, for example, Stephen, and others who were not necessarily without sin.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Matthew 16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Read on:

"I give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[wmscott]

that’s a mind boggler…i fear my answer may be too liberal but for me:
anything where people have the Lord in mind (even music lyrics!) that is supposed to bring others closer to God and His son…but there are many “inspired works” that I can think of that meant well but weren’t friendly to Catholic Doctrine

Take a look at the next verse 17 “so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work” not only does it tie into the following form 2 Peter but also addresses good works, so now the theory of Faith Alone is in the hot seat.

2 Peter 3:15-17 “And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things* as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability”

 

[CopticChristian]

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not have all the Deuterocanonical books…if that is what you are saying. They have three as I recall

Were the Essenes a Christian community?

Did the Bible exist prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Are the Dead Sea Scrolls complete, there are no more?

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not validate any canon!

 

[BrianH]

Were the Essenes a Christian community?

No.

Did the Bible exist prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

 

[Nicea325]

Nice, what parish you goto? I goto Oceanside St. Margaret’s, Fr. Wallace is our priest. Should drop by sometime when he does the Extraordinary Form.

Interesting point, but what authority was St. Paul speaking from to make such a claim that all scripture, Hebrew or Septuagint, is inspired?

Well I actually attended St.Mary’s for a few years and did my 1st Holy Communion there. Later my family and I attended Resurrection for many years and I served as a alter server for years. Now I currently live in Riverside,CA since separating from the Air Force in 2002.

 

[wmscott]

No.

 

[Newsy]

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not validate any canon!

True. The dead sea scrolls did give credence to some books in the Deuterocanonicals by being written in Hebrew. My understanding is that was a major of argument, the Deutero’s were written in Greek. When we found the Dead Sea Scrolls, we found older transcripts written in Hebrew, therefore that facet of the argument should be overturned.

The focus of the OP’s text is a call to action in Charity. It calls us to teach and correct others “in justice” by using the scriptures, not our own reasoning or bludgeoning someone with half truths. The text is a defense of using scripture, not abusing scripture.

As for the OP’s question, I thought it was referencing the OT and foreshadowing the NT. By its date, it couldn’t be a direct reference to the Books written later. Until the close of this age, there will continue to be deeper meanings wrought from Scripture. Maybe this text was God’s provision for a Canon that would be developed later. There is not enough evidence to say that this passage refers to any later writings, just an idea.

Let us follow the spirit of this passage, teach and correct our brothers, but beware the danger of conforming verses to fit our theology.

 

[BrianH]

BrianH;8590279:

When you state “Parts of It” do you mean to say that a Christian Bible existed prior to the Christian Bible that the Catholic Church gave the world? Or are you saying that numerous Jewish texts were used that eventually became part of the Christian Bible when the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, discerned which books were divinely inspired and set the canon?

This is such an odd turn. I simply state that three Deuterocanonical books were in the DSS and I am getting unusual questions.

Okay lets see here…
First, I do not take a position on the Catholic/Orthodox debate as to who follows the earlier teachings best to be “the church that gave the world the Bible”. So thats hard to answer. I do not know who is the first group of people to have lets say for example a 27 book canon. I know who history records as having the complete 27 books listed but I have no way of knowing if this was done at some part of Christianity 100 years earlier. I also have no way of knowing if this group of people would be more Catholic, Orthodox, Arian, Montanist, or Sabbath following. For example I read once that Polycarp quoted from all 27 books. Some have contended Polycarp was more of a Binitarian and kept the Sabbath. We know he was adament about keeping the Passover. So I say…I dunno to question one.
Question two relates to the Jewish canon. Some say it was fluid. Some say it was set. Josephus held to a 22 book canon that scholars say was the same as today with possibly the exception of Esther.
So the answer to question two is…I dunno:shrug:

 

[Nicea325]

wmscott;8590421:

This is such an odd turn. I simply state that three Deuterocanonical books were in the DSS and I am getting unusual questions.

Okay lets see here…
First, I do not take a position on the Catholic/Orthodox debate as to who follows the earlier teachings best to be “the church that gave the world the Bible”. So thats hard to answer. I do not know who is the first group of people to have lets say for example a 27 book canon. I know who history records as having the complete 27 books listed but I have no way of knowing if this was done at some part of Christianity 100 years earlier. I also have no way of knowing if this group of people would be more Catholic, Orthodox, Arian, Montanist, or Sabbath following. For example I read once that Polycarp quoted from all 27 books. Some have contended Polycarp was more of a Binitarian and kept the Sabbath. We know he was adament about keeping the Passover. So I say…I dunno to question one.
Question two relates to the Jewish canon. Some say it was fluid. Some say it was set. Josephus held to a 22 book canon that scholars say was the same as today with possibly the exception of Esther.
So the answer to question two is…I dunno:shrug:

Actually it can be very complex in nature. In terms of Josephus holding to a 22 book canon,which is the same as today? Not true. First of all, if I am correct,Josephus never names the 22 books,but all he did was provide a list,not a fixed canon. If it was fixed as many contend,how odd no one has told me who fixed it and by whose authority and what year or years? The Josephus argument is seriously lacking evidence for the current OT canon of 39 books.

 

[wmscott]

wmscott;8590421:

This is such an odd turn. I simply state that three Deuterocanonical books were in the DSS and I am getting unusual questions.

Okay lets see here…
First, I do not take a position on the Catholic/Orthodox debate as to who follows the earlier teachings best to be “the church that gave the world the Bible”. So thats hard to answer. I do not know who is the first group of people to have lets say for example a 27 book canon. I know who history records as having the complete 27 books listed but I have no way of knowing if this was done at some part of Christianity 100 years earlier. I also have no way of knowing if this group of people would be more Catholic, Orthodox, Arian, Montanist, or Sabbath following. For example I read once that Polycarp quoted from all 27 books. Some have contended Polycarp was more of a Binitarian and kept the Sabbath. We know he was adament about keeping the Passover. So I say…I dunno to question one.
Question two relates to the Jewish canon. Some say it was fluid. Some say it was set. Josephus held to a 22 book canon that scholars say was the same as today with possibly the exception of Esther.
So the answer to question two is…I dunno:shrug:

Nothing all that covert or sinister here, I guess I may not have been very clear in my question “When you state “Parts of It” do you mean to say that a Christian Bible existed prior to the Christian Bible that the Catholic Church gave the world” all I was trying to figure out is if you thought that there was some kind of Christian Bible out there during the same era as the dead sea scrolls which are dated to be about 150 BC and 70 AD. You were asked “Did the Bible exist prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls” and you answered “Parts of it” I am assuming that the question was intended to be “Did the Bible exist prior to the existence of the Dead Sea Scrolls” the answer would be a resounding No.

However in an unintentional way you were half right when you said “Parts of it” to the question asked “Did the Bible exist prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls” because the correct answer is actually Yes, all of the Bible existed prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls because the dead sea scrolls were not discovered until 1947 and 1956.

Brian, I am just having a little light hearted conversation and noticed the peculiarity in your response “Parts of It” I did not mean to offend. Peace

 

[BrianH]

BrianH;8591055:

Actually it can be very complex in nature. In terms of Josephus holding to a 22 book canon,which is the same as today? Not true. First of all, if I am correct,Josephus never names the 22 books,but all he did was provide a list,not a fixed canon. If it was fixed as many contend,how odd no one has told me who fixed it and by whose authority and what year or years? The Josephus argument is seriously lacking evidence for the current OT canon of 39 books.

Well if we do not know the 22 books who can we say it is not the same 39 configured differently? You seem more definite than the facts give us in my opinion.
What I have read is that other Jewish sources gives us the 22 as being the present Jewish/Protestant canon except Esther possibly.
The reason that you do not know who fixed it is because no one knows. What we do know is that Josephus indicates it is fixed. Not the how. I do not have the quote but it indicates he thinks it is. And that might be the majority of Jews. It might not. But I think I would take it at face value and I believe it was set for Jews. How many Jews? I dont know. But this is not unusual Nicea325. Christians called parts of the NT scripture before anyone officially set it. So I think there is something to it.
I think maybe Protestants rely on it too much and Catholics discount it to much. Everyone is always on the extremes anymore. Politics. Religion.