St. Paul Quotes Luke

[StAugustine]

Fair enough, but remember the scripture says that the scriptures in and of themselves are capable of making one wise, they are directly called sufficient to fully equip the man of God for EVERY good work (does this include the proclamation of the truth of dogma/spiritual works of mercy???) and the entire context of 2 Timothy 3 is that false teachers will come who will be characterized by seemingly being obsessed with learning, but never learning enough.

Paul tells Timothy to take up the scriptures against these kinds of men. And Chapter 4 says as much, when after extolling the goods of scripture, he tells Timothy therefore to reprove and rebuke and preach the word and sound doctrine. How? With the aforementioned scriptures at his side.

It would seem Paul is telling Timothy the scriptures, inclusive of the gospel, are sufficient to equip him to defend the flock against false teachers, and therefore he ought to rebuke and preach and teach sound doctrine.

I find it interesting that Paul posits scripture as a sufficient norm against those men who are obsessed with learning, and most likely therefore philosophizing.

 

[steve-b]

Yes, but after reminding Timothy he has known the scriptures (The OT) from his youth he then says ALL scripture, which from his own perspective is inclusive of the gospel of Luke, that’s my point.

Here’s another point http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/when-were-the-gospels-written

Paul was martyred after a.d.64 and before a.d.68. General Audience of 4 February 2009: Saint Paul (20). St Paul's martyrdom and heritage | BENEDICT XVI

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

Well, that’s false.

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

To quote you directly, “Well, that’s false.”

The first bolded item, as I’m sure you’re aware since you didn’t elaborate on it, is from Deuteronomy 25:4, though thought to be a misquote by Paul.

The second that, per your post, only appears in Luke, is found in Deuteronomy 24:15 and Leviticus 19:13. Furthermore, since Luke and Paul both spent time together in Rome, and Luke is thought by some to have been Paul’s disciple, it may turn out to be that Luke was actually quoting Paul, instead of the other way around as you propose. Even the proposed dates of writing match that order rather than yours, with I Timothy being approximately 12 years earlier than the gospel of Luke.

 

[StAugustine]

Those verses do not say the Laborer is worthy of his hire. They suggest he is not to be defrauded.

1 Tim. 5:18 translates “kai, axios o ergates tou misthou autou” as

“and, ‘the laborer is worthy of his hire.’”

Luke 10:7 says

“Axios gar o ergates tou misthou autou.”

“For the Laborer is worthy of his hire.”

It’s the same words. It’s a direct quote as scripture. Not so in your citations.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

You still haven’t addressed the connection between Paul writing I Timothy first and in the process writing his own phrasing of an Old Testament verse being followed by Luke, his student, writing the same thing a decade later, which is perfectly logical to think a student would quote the teacher. Ergo, you’re either being intentionally stubborn on your quest to “prove” something (sola scriptura, that the Church doesn’t have a reasonable claim on what we profess, I’m not sure), or maybe you’re just missing the forest for the trees. You’ve made several threads about scripture contradicting the Church, each of which has been debunked for you, and you conveniently ignore those points to redirect elsewhere. You claim to be Catholic. What is your real intent?

 

[MT1926]

they are directly called sufficient to fully equip…

I just wanted to point out that the scriptures never state “FULLY”. 2 Timothy 3:15 just states they are able to instruct you for salvation.

entire context of 2 Timothy 3… false teachers …obsessed with learning, but never learning enough.

Could you show me how you are getting to this context? I’m seeing the context about false teachers. I see that they pretend to be religious teachers but are really nothing more than “morally depraved individuals”. I’m not seeing how you are getting to this context though …"who will be characterized by seemingly being obsessed with learning, but never learning enough."

Where does it say you can tell a false teacher by their obsession with learning?

How? With the aforementioned scriptures at his side.

Sorry not seeing this conclusion either? Sure totally agree that St. Timothy should use the scriptures as one of his tools, but to say this is the only thing St. Paul wants him to use, is reading that into the text.

To me verse 3 and 4 scream of the oral tradition that is not written down. Basically, the oral tradition of the proper interpretation of the scriptures. St. Paul warns Timothy that there are men out their claiming to know the true interpretation of scripture and picking and choosing from it what they believe people will want to hear to follow them.

It would seem Paul is telling Timothy the scriptures, inclusive of the gospel, are sufficient to equip him to defend the flock against false teachers, and therefore he ought to rebuke and preach and teach sound doctrine.

Disagree. As I stated above I see St. Paul teaching him the exact opposite. I see St. Paul telling Timothy, whom we need to remember is very young here, that he has the authority passed on to him to preach, rebuke and teach. He shouldn’t let those older men, who interpret scripture to their liking, sway him from his mission.

I find it interesting that Paul posits scripture as a sufficient norm against those men who are obsessed with learning, and most likely therefore philosophizing.

I think you are miss reading this letter. Go back and reread it from the beginning. This is a letter of encouragement to a young Timothy. Timothy is still in Ephesus at this point in time, which is undergone great troubles in the congregation. Because others are taking the gospel and distorting the message. St. Paul is urging him to stick to what he was taught and preach what he was taught.

The entire letter is about authority being passed from St. Paul to St. Timothy. Sure the scriptures are involved here, and are of importance, but they aren’t the central context of this letter.

God Bless

 

[Gorgias]

But, is the Greek word for scripture used in Paul’s writings pointing to any things written

The word in Greek is γραφὴ (graphay), which means “writings”. In the Bible, this word is consistently translated as “Scripture”. The implication is that, in the context of the Bible, the ‘writings’ are the inspired writings.

, but when translated into English “scripture” we are defining his word as coming from a canon (Hebrew or Christian)?

Generally, the word is used with respect to the OT. (After all, if the Gospel is a transcription of a verbal narrative that didn’t yet exist as ‘writings’, how could NT references to ‘Scripture’ refer to anything but the OT, right?)

That’s the basis of the question of this thread, then: can we find an example in canonical Scripture which refers to the NT as Scripture?

 

[Gorgias]

The second that, per your post, only appears in Luke, is found in Deuteronomy 24:15 and Leviticus 19:13.

“But use a full and just weight, a full and just ephah, so that you may have a long life on the land the LORD, your God, is giving you.”

“You shall not exploit your neighbor. You shall not commit robbery. You shall not withhold overnight the wages of your laborer.”

Umm… really?

OK – I’ll grant you that Paul is expressing the same notion – that labor warrants just wages. However, I think it’s more than a stretch to claim that Paul’s text quotes the OT. It’s even more difficult to assent to your observation when we note that Paul has just quoted Deuteronomy 25:4 – if he means to quote Dt 24:15 or Lv 19:13, why not quote it directly?

Even the proposed dates of writing match that order rather than yours, with I Timothy being approximately 12 years earlier than the gospel of Luke.

That’s debatable, depending on whether you assert Pauline authorship.

I have to admit, though – @StAugustine got it right: although Mt 10:10 expresses the concept, the wording of 1 Tim 5:18 matches the expression of Lk 10:7!

So, that presents an even more interesting problem, don’t you think? As you try to piece together the timeline of Matthew, Luke, and 1st Timothy… who’s quoting whom? Did Luke, perhaps, along with the author of 1 Timothy, simply use utilize a saying that Paul used in his teaching? Who developed the concept first – Matthew, or Paul? Whose wording was chosen, and by whom?

 

[bobperk]

It is most likely that the phrases were passed down orally and then incorporated into multiple works.

 

[Dovekin]

Some have even suggested Matthew and Luke used another written document that has not survived.

Or it could have been a non-scriptural source. Josephus makes a similar argument in his writings, so maybe there was a commentary that has not survived.

 

[Roguish]

I find it strange that it has become the majority view that Paul’s epistles are very early documents, possibly earlier than the gospels. If they are that early, how come Paul’s writings (or Paul himself) are never mentioned by any of the Church Fathers?

If I’m wrong about this and he is mentioned by a Church Father somewhere, I’d be really interested to hear about that.

 

[Gorgias]

I find it strange that it has become the majority view that Paul’s epistles are very early documents, possibly earlier than the gospels. If they are that early, how come Paul’s writings (or Paul himself) are never mentioned by any of the Church Fathers?

Umm… He’s mentioned by Luke in the Bible. It’s difficult to get much earlier than that.

In any case, I think you’d accept Chrysostom as a Church Father, wouldn’t you? He wrote in praise of Paul.

 

[StAugustine]

I haven’t made a thread about a single contradiction. Therefore there has been no debunking. A claim is one thing, a counter claim is another. Debunking would be an exhaustive refutation on the basis of evidence.

I reject textual criticism generally. I hold to an ecclesiastical text position.

My point is the verbal identity between Paul’s quote and Luke’s gospel is indicative that Paul’s notion of scripture is inclusive of the gospel.

Therefore, when he reminds Timothy of the uses of scripture in Chapter 3, after having made clear that false teachers of various kinds will arise, and when he reminds Timothy that scripture makes the Christian sufficiently equipped for EVERY good work, he immediately goes on in Chapter 4 to tell him to reprove and teach doctrine.

Meaning, on the bases just established, in relation to the false teachers just listed. Plain context. I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but I simultaneously see a lot of twisting and turning and denying in the apologists reasoning and use of scripture that is dishonest.

Here Paul puts forth the sufficiency of scripture for every good work. Then he immediately tells Timothy what works to do. The inference to be drawn is that scripture is sufficient for those works.

Deny if you like- but that’s the point, that in order to save a teaching the context is ignored and the sense of the text altered. I despise that as a faithless act in relationship to what God has spoken.

 

[Roguish]

In any case, I think you’d accept Chrysostom as a Church Father, wouldn’t you?

Sure. Heck, I might even accept you as a Church Father. Thanks for the link

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

And my point is that you’re doing what you claim to despise.

 

[StAugustine]

That remains to be demonstrated frankly.

I read all of chapter 3 and 4 and see clearly a warning, the means to combat it, and the exhortation to do so which is logical and direct.

What do you see?

 

[MT1926]

Therefore, when he reminds Timothy of the uses of scripture in Chapter 3, after having made clear that false teachers of various kinds will arise, and when he reminds Timothy that scripture makes the Christian sufficiently equipped for EVERY good work, he immediately goes on in Chapter 4 to tell him to reprove and teach doctrine.

Meaning, on the bases just established, in relation to the false teachers just listed. Plain context. I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but I simultaneously see a lot of twisting and turning and denying in the apologists reasoning and use of scripture that is dishonest.

Here Paul puts forth the sufficiency of scripture for every good work. Then he immediately tells Timothy what works to do. The inference to be drawn is that scripture is sufficient for those works.

I think the twisting and turning comes down to point of view.

No offense but you are doing the very thing you are accusing others of doing.

You are taking one verse and instead of twisting and turning that verse you are squeezing that verse in a vice to get it to say more than the verse states. Aren’t you yourself being dishonest here.

Just because Paul provides us with the sufficiency of scripture and then immediately tells Timothy what to do doesn’t infer anything. The inference being drawn is your preconceived notion of what you are personally reading into the verse.

Let’s use and analogy. If I say to you all AK 47’s are approved by the General and make a soldier sufficiently equipped for every battle. Then immediately tell you to go into battle.

Are you going to grab an AK 47 and run off to battle. Or are you going to get dressed first, put on your boots, grab your armor, maybe a bullet or two to put in the AK 47?

See where I’m going here. Yeah sure in context here St. Paul is referring to scripture being sufficient for EVERY good work. Yeah we agree. Scripture is important. But just like an AK 47 is worthless without bullets the Bible can not make you sufficient without a teacher.

Also, no where does he say scripture alone. The person who believes that St. Paul is saying scripture is all we need, is either reading it into the text or is willing to run onto a battle field, in their birthday suit, with only an AK 47. The end result for this person will likely be the same.

Deny if you like- but that’s the point, that in order to save a teaching the context is ignored and the sense of the text altered. I despise that as a faithless act in relationship to what God has spoken.

What context do you believe is being ignored to save what teaching?

God Bless

 

[StAugustine]

Part of what is being ignored here by the Apologists is that it says “Every” good work.

In other words, your analogy is faulty. Scripture is not a single weapon for a single purpose.

It’s both an Arsenal and a weapons factory with everything needed for every act.

In it we find the full armor of God, we find the combat tactics and the weaponry.

EVERY. Good. Work.

Every.

That is how we are able to take every thought captive to the word of God. Through understanding and using his words which never pass away and make the man of God sufficiently equipped for every good work.

For prayer, for fasting, for doctrine, for worship, for discipline, for combat.

Unless some of these are not Good works?

 

[MT1926]

Through understanding and using his words which never pass away and make the man of God sufficiently equipped for every good work.

This is the only point I am trying to make here. You said it yourself…THROUGH UNDERSTANDING.

The Bible is not self explanatory. Therefore I am not IGNORING anything. Sure EVERY good work. Amen totally agree.

However you are wrong Scripture is not a single weapon for a single purpose. A weapon is useless unless you are taught how to use it. I’ve already pointed it out to you on several occasions. St. Paul drives home the point to use what you were taught and from whom you learned it. He never once says here’s a Bible figure it out and go into battle. or Take the Bible to some of your buddies come to a consensus of what you want to teach and go for it.

It’s both an Arsenal and a weapons factory with everything needed for every act.

If it is then you need to point out where in the Bibles arsenal it lists the books of the Bible. If the Bible doesn’t give us a definitive infallible list of it’s “ARSENAL” then it just lost the battle against that purpose.

I am not sure what your point is here. You claim to be Catholic yet you preach sola scriptura. What gives?

For prayer, for fasting, for doctrine, for worship, for discipline, for combat.

Unless some of these are not Good works?

Nope all good works. The only work that I am seeing here that is not good is you going against the authority of Christ’s Church.

In it we find the full armor of God, we find the combat tactics and the weaponry.

Amen totally agree. And like with all weapons it can do great good if placed in the right hands and can do even greater harm when used by those who are unwilling to submit to authority.

God Bless

 

[StAugustine]

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.

Just as nature attests to the existence of God as it’s author by the unity and harmony of the parts, the scripture does the same.

I don’t think that is Protestant, I think it is self-evident.

The Church did not give us the Bible. God did. The sheep heard his voice and recognized it and gave their opinion on it, which varied and still varies to this very day. Just ask the eastern Catholics if they are allowed to use the longer Orthodox Canon. Moreover, Trent declared which books were canonical, but it did not rank them. Many all the way up until Trent taught the Deuterocanon was useful for righteous living but not establishing doctrines, like Jerome and Cajetan. That’s actually the entire Eastern Orthodox approach when you read their synods by various Church fathers. It’s still messy.