St. Paul Quotes Luke

[StAugustine]

Well, consider this-

Firstly we can assume the authenticity of the gospels because they portray the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, therefore validating all that the OT says in regard to Christ. So the Jewish OT is automatically authoritative and attested to by virtue of the miracles performed by God, By virtue of its preservation and prophetic fulfillment. It needs no further witness, given that Christ himself considers it authentic and authoritative, chides people for not knowing it and refers to the text as God speaking.

So Christ himself is our model for the OT.

For the NT, we can see plenty of cross referencing as mentioned above, the harmony of that gives a base for determining a standard, and the others fall into place. This is how the canon was dealt with before 382- on an individual basis.

 

[MT1926]

Well it IS true the Bible does attest to its own books via mutual recognition.

We see Peter admit that Paul’s writings are Scripture. We see Paul quote Luke, that Luke references Matthew, that he wrote acts, and that the New Covenant fulfills all the prophecies of the Old.

Sure some of this is true but once again you are putting this statement in a vice and squeezing way to much out of it.

What about the letter in question to Timothy. There is nothing in there attesting to it’s place in the Bible. Heck just think it through this is a personal letter to Timothy why would we even think it should be scripture. How about Revelation which books attest to Revelation.

 

[StAugustine]

The content of Revelation is itself nearly identical to the book of Zechariah for one. 4 horsemen, olive branches and lamp stands before the Lord, it’s a vision of the same thing for starters.

Again, the Church does play a role, for Christ says, “My sheep hear my voice” but it is passive and receptive. The sheep accept the grass given them by the shepherd, they accept the streams of living water given on his terms, not on the terms of artificial construct, council or no council.

Moreover, again, Peter himself equates Paul’s writings with scripture, for he is an apostle. And the criteria of the New Testament is that it be written by the apostles or Apostolic men. Therefore, when the Churches testify unanimously as to what they have received, and it is in conformity with the scripture we already have, both in prophetic fulfillment and apostolic orthodoxy, it’s Orthodox.

Do we really imagine that in 382 when some of the western bishops sat down to decide on the NT canon for their particular corner of the world that they were infused with perfect knowledge and without having to have criteria and research?

And what about prior, Athanasius’ festal letter predates the Roman synod of 382 yet it elucidates a complete canon. How did that happen without a magisterium???

 

[MT1926]

And the criteria of the New Testament is that it be written by the apostles or Apostolic men.

And you know this how? Where does the Bible make this claim?

Also, based on your criteria please point to which Apostolic man wrote Hebrews.

Therefore,… magisterium???

I have no clue what you are trying to prove with any of this? It sure seems like you are just throwing anything at the wall, that comes into your mind, in the hopes that something will stick.

You say Churches testify as if to say all Christians decided this but it wasn’t your average Christian it was the Bishops of the Catholic Church like Augustine and Athanasius. You make it sound like everyone already knew.

I have no idea where you get the idea I think the western bishops went into a trance and the Holy Spirit told them what was to be included.

You actual seem to agree with the point I am trying to make. Theses Bishops had to use “criteria and research”. They didn’t get all infused with knowledge they had theological debates about which books belonged.

The difference is you seem to think these debates involved well Peter quotes Paul so that’s a yes and Revelation seems to look like Zechariah so let’s keep this one.

The thing you are ignoring is the liturgy and oral tradition, which predates the Bible. Which came first Baptism or John 3? The Eucharist or John 6. The Church at Corinth or Corinthians.

The early Church didn’t use the books of the Bible to put the Bible together and then take the Bible to develop the Church’s doctrine. It was the other way around. The doctrine was there long before the Bible existed. They used this doctrine to get a Bible. If they found a letter or book, that seemed inspired, if it taught in line with the already developed doctrine then it was included, if it taught against the doctrine then it was tossed.

The doctrine came first and developed for years before the Bible was written. It’s easy to see that many of Paul’s writings address when Church’s go against the doctrines, that were already in place. How could Paul tell them they were doing something wrong if the doctrine and oral tradition wasn’t already in place showing them how they should act?

There is no way of knowing, plus to me it is absurd to believe, that the Apostles addressed every single doctrine in their writings. John 21:25 comes to mind. If we are to emulate Jesus and many things he did were not written then there is a lot more to the life of a Christian, following Jesus, then what we could possible be told in the Bible.

Without a doctrine in place we have no criteria to base the authenticity of the writings against. If we need the Bible FIRST to develop the doctrine (For EVERY good work) then we’ve got ourselves a pretty big problem don’t we?

God Bless

 

[StAugustine]

Are you saying that none of the apostles or believers referenced the Old Testament prophecies, showed how Christ was the fulfillment, and then based their doctrine on that fulfilled prophecy? That’s exactly what happened, the first doctrines to exist in the Church came about by witnessing to the prophetical fulfillment of the OT, the NT is really just an extended commentary on how this is indeed the case, and on that basis, and the direct teachings of Christ, there are certain conclusions.

Paul hands that patrimony of the OT as well as the writings of the NT that DID exist to Timothy and tells him that these things are sufficient to equip you for the work of a pastor, then tells him in Chapter 4 to get to pastoring.

Then in the writings of the other known apostles you meet with mutual corroboration.

In fact, the first reference to a 27 book NT canon is Origen in his commentary on Joshua. This is in 250 ad, 130 years before the synod of Rome in 382.

So the question is, how did he know that? Because Christians has been using these books ever since they were written. It wasn’t so much that they were confused by other false writings so much as that they weren’t sure if some of the Catholic epistles were authentic. But even if say in Syria they didn’t accept Revelation for a long time, they had the other writings of John and the book of Zechariah.

Or say if they didn’t accept Hebrews or 3rd John, they had the writings of Paul and 1 John:

In other words, the redundancy of the message that permeates the scriptures can admit of more or less books so long as a false gospel is not interpolated.

It’s like a fractal- self-similarity exists at various scales.

This is why Christ held the the Israelites accountable for READING in order to come to a knowledge of the truth-

“Do they not have Moses and the Prophets?” as Abraham says to the Rich Man in hades, and what else is this but an appeal to the sufficiency of the written word for the knowledge of salvation?

 

[Spyridon]

Interesting, no?

Not really. At least not if you have a firm grasp of biblical studies and how we got the Scriptures and how the 1st century Church and Apostles lived and grew.

The Gospels were written down with there source being Sacred Oral Tradition about the life, the words and deeds of Jesus.

St. Paul is simply tapping into and quoting from the original Sacred Oral Tradition out of which the Gospels grew.

 

[StAugustine]

With a word for word quote from Luke? As scripture?

 

[MT1926]

Are you saying that none of the apostles or believers referenced the Old Testament prophecies, showed how Christ was the fulfillment, and then based their doctrine on that fulfilled prophecy? That’s exactly what happened, the first doctrines to exist in the Church came about by witnessing to the prophetical fulfillment of the OT, the NT is really just an extended commentary on how this is indeed the case, and on that basis, and the direct teachings of Christ, there are certain conclusions.

Nope never said that. All I said is the doctrine was developed many many years before anything was written down.

Paul hands that patrimony of the OT as well as the writings of the NT that DID exist to Timothy and tells him that these things are sufficient to equip you for the work of a pastor, then tells him in Chapter 4 to get to pastoring.

Ok we already discussed this how does this prove the Bible came before the doctrine?

In fact, the first reference to a 27 book NT canon is Origen in his commentary on Joshua. This is in 250 ad, 130 years before the synod of Rome in 382.

Ok and like I said the doctrine was around 218 years before Origen. Still not seeing how this proves anything against what I posted.

So the question is, how did he know that? Because Christians has been using these books ever since they were written.

I would argue it was because of the doctrine. If it is based on what Christians used then Christians were using the writings of Clement, since the beginning, as well, how come their not in the Bible?

In other words, the redundancy of the message that permeates the scriptures can admit of more or less books so long as a false gospel is not interpolated.

And the only point I am making is the only way to know if the gospel message of the book was true or false was because of the Bible. I never read any of these spurious writings but are you claiming none of them attested to the other gospels?

See that is the problem sure one book can attest to another but how do you know the first book is reliable without doctrine?

“Do they not have Moses and the Prophets?” as Abraham says to the Rich Man in hades, and what else is this but an appeal to the sufficiency of the written word for the knowledge of salvation?

Actually if you would finish the verse it says “they should listen to them”.

Personally I see this as an appeal to the sufficiency of a visible authority.

It sounds right in line with what Jesus says here.

Matthew 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

God Bless

 

[StAugustine]

You know how in Catholicism we often say a bishop or the Pope could privately teach erroneously so long as they don’t formally contradict the faith?

What if, in reality, the scripture alone is the sole formal content of faith and everything else is merely private teaching?

You may say it is extreme, and yet the Church does not fail- she has accomplished her mission to preserve the substance of faith, the scriptures, even in the face of radical dogmatic innovations.

Again, we can object but can’t really prove otherwise. If we want to understand how the gates of hell wont prevail against the Church, we must correctly understand prevail and church. Is the church “The corporation and its policies” or the union of true believers? And is prevailing triumphing for a time, or finally?

 

[JohnR77]

I found out that in 1 Timothy 5:17-18 Paul writes-

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching; for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The labourer deserves to be paid.”

That phrase- “The labourer deserves to be paid” does not exist anywhere in the OT, neither the Canon nor the Deuterocanon. It DOES exist here though-

" “Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the labourer deserves to be paid.” Luke 10:7

Thank you StAugustine.
Good post.

I do not think those who are attacking you even deserve a response. Honest people can see through their assertions that have no foundation.

I did like the post about Akin.
So, I could see just how weak his argument is.
He states “Ehrman’s point is still fair that Paul’s letters from the 50s don’t contain any clear references to the Gospels.”

If St. Paul had done so that would prove something.
However, the fact that St. Paul does not quote the Gospels,
( not counting your exception above),
Proves Nothing.
.

There are many reasons that would explain why St. Paul did not Quote Gospels, even though they could have easily preceded his works.

Some of the Markan Priority advocates have agendas.
.
.

According to the unanimous testimony of the early church Matthew was the first gospel written. The church father Eusebius places the date of Matthew’s gospel in A.D. 41.
.
.
|BOOK|DATE|

|Matthew|c.40-60|
|Mark|c.45-60|
|Luke|57-60|
|John|c.40-65|
|Acts|57-62|
|Romans|57|
|1 Corinthians|55|
|2 Corinthians|56|
|Galatians|56|
|Ephesians|58|
|Philippians|58|
|Colossians|58|
|1 Thessalonians|early 50|
|2 Thessalonians|50-51|
|1 Timothy|55|
|2 Timothy|58|
|Titus|57|
|Philemon|58|
|Hebrews|c.67|

 

[StAugustine]

I revoke my attraction to Protestantism. Just FYI.