What do you mean?

[Zach]

17 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

Of course I realize it wasn't in existence then, however many of Pauls letters were and the gospels likely were to, though your correct in they likely were not in circulation.

However, it is safe to say that it was indeed a prophetic thing in that it included the 27 books of the new testament, after all if it was truly Inspired God new they were coming. And Paul did say His writings came from the Lord in multiple locations including Galatians like Jayne pointed out. So "all" really does mean Genesis through Revelation.

Patriot, that is what believe, we disagree and that is fine, doesn't bother me a bit and I feel absolutely no need to convince you otherwise. However, just to leave you with a little something to muse about: this idea of every thing being "Holy Scripture" 100% inerrant is new Christian idea. The Jews view and always have viewed Torah (1st 5 books) as the most authoritative. The next authoritative was the Prophets then the Writings (all being interpreted in light of the former). They also don't view Scripture as inerrant (without error) but view Scripture as infallible (not misleading in truth). I personally think the same should be applied to the New Testament; 1st the Gospels/Acts (1st 5 books) then Apostolic letters/Revelation and lastly Paul's epistles. 

Just my two cents.

[The_Patriot21]

Just now, Zach said:

Patriot, that is what believe, we disagree and that is fine, doesn't bother me a bit and I feel absolutely no need to convince you otherwise. However, just to leave you with a little something to muse about: this idea of every thing being "Holy Scripture" 100% inerrant is new Christian idea. The Jews view and always have viewed Torah (1st 5 books) as the most authoritative. The next authoritative was the Prophets then the Writings (all being interpreted in light of the former). They also don't view Scripture as inerrant (without error) but view Scripture as infallible (not misleading in truth). I personally think the same should be applied to the New Testament; 1st the Gospels/Acts (1st 5 books) then Apostolic letters/Revelation and lastly Paul's epistles. 

Just my two cents.

and actually, if you read through shilohs description you will see a lot was in circulation. and as christians, we HAVE to view it as what Paul claims it as-the inherent, holy word of God. if its not, then it is Heresy, and we are serving a false God. Keep in mind im not speaking about small translational errors and what not, but the core message, the words, have to be divinely inspired, or our faith is in vain.

[Zach]

14 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Actually, the Gospels were in circulation and Paul quoted from Luke.  Paul instructed some of his letters to be circulated and Ephesians was an encyclical letter meaning that it was copied several times and sent to all of the churches.  The copy to the church at Ephesus is the one that survived for us to read.

II Timothy was written at the end of Paul's life just before he was martyred.  And Peter called Paul's letters Scripture.  Peter and Paul were martyred very close together, time-wise. 

There wasn't a canon, but Paul's letters and the Gospels and the General Epistles of John, Peter, James and Jude were circulated even before the end of the first century.

 

shiloh357, I don't think so, John is a very late a Gospel as I'm sure you know. To avoid majoring on the minors; we both agree there was no NT cannon. Paul quoting Luke is meaningless since they traveled together.

Allow me to ask you; what is more plausible? Paul's meaning of "Scripture" to be taken as the Old Testament Holy Scriptures or a number of scattered letters written to some Churches?

[Zach]

16 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

we HAVE to view it as what Paul claims it as-the inherent, holy word of God. if its not, then it is Heresy

Oops here comes the "H" word! that didnt take long. What are you talking about Heresy? Are you thinking through what your saying; "our faith is in vain" because we question the meaning of what Paul meant when he used the word Scripture? I don't know about you, but my Faith is based in a real relationship with a real God revealed through a real Messiah, not on if Paul's epistles merit the same authority of the Old Testament.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Zach

[The_Patriot21]

Just now, Zach said:

Oops here comes the "H" word! that didnt take long. What are you talking about Heresy? Are you thinking through what your saying; "our faith is in vain" because we question the meaning of what Paul meant when he used the word Scripture? I don't know about you, but my Faith is based in a real relationship with a real God revealed through Yeshua,  not on if Paul's epistles merit the same authority of the Old Testament.

heres the thing, how do you know your relationship is with God? how do you know you have forgiveness? via the New Testament. Now, heres the thing-if the new testament is not divinely inspired, then how do you know its true, and how do you know your relationship with God is real? its either inspired or its not-if its not, its heresy, and our faith is in vain. I encourage you to go back up and read Shilohs last post. very informative.

[Guest shiloh357]

9 minutes ago, Zach said:

shiloh357, I don't think so, John is a very late a Gospel as I'm sure you know. To avoid majoring on the minors; we both agree there was no NT cannon. Paul quoting Luke is meaningless since they traveled together.

John is a very late Gospel, but I was referencing His general epistles which were circulated to all of the churches.    And Paul quoting Luke is quite important because Paul called Luke's Gospel "Scripture."   Luke used Mark and Matthew as source material for his Gospel and so those Gospels were also in circulation at that time.  That there was no established canon isn't important.   Scripture existed even if it was not officially canonized.

Quote

Allow me to ask you; what is more plausible? Paul's meaning of "Scripture" to be taken as the Old Testament Holy Scriptures or a number of scattered letters written to some Churches?

Paul referred to the OT as Scripture.  But Paul also called Luke's Gospel Scripture.   So even for Paul the term Scripture appled to more than just the OT and not only that, but we have Peter's claim that Paul's letters were Scripture, as well.

The point is that we cannot discount the additional fact that the Holy Spirit is the ultimate author of Scripture and the Holy Spirit already knew what writings were Scripture.   So even if Paul had a limited understanding of what would one day be understood as inspired Scripture, the Holy Spirit, no limited in that scope of understanding knew that Paul's letters were to be included as well as all of the writings in the New Testament.  So it is in one sense a prophecy regarding the NT canon that we have today, namely that it is to be considered Scripture and that includes the Gospels, the book of Acts, all of the epistles and the book of Revelation.

[Zach]

7 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

heres the thing, how do you know your relationship is with God? how do you know you have forgiveness? via the New Testament. Now, heres the thing-if the new testament is not divinely inspired, then how do you know its true, and how do you know your relationship with God is real? its either inspired or its not-if its not, its heresy, and our faith is in vain. I encourage you to go back up and read Shilohs last post. very informative.

I've answered shiloh's last post. Before we can have meaningful conversation about Scripture we need to both be using terms with the same meanings. We can use yours if you like or I can post them, it makes no difference to me as long as we are comparing apples with apples. Therefore please define "divinely inspired" "inerrant" and "infallible". Then we can get some where, cause I already see its headed into the ditch unless we have the same meanings.

[Zach]

7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

But Paul also called Luke's Gospel Scripture.

I keep hearing people say this over and over, I've even looked for it. Where does Paul say the Gospel of Luke is equal to The Holy Scriptures?

[Ezra]

9 hours ago, Zach said:

Oh Please tell me you didn't mean to quote this verse in support of the New Testament!

Absolutely.  At the time 2 Timothy was written, the NT was almost complete, and since Paul was also a prophet, he could included the entire COMPLETED New Testament in that Scripture. This was not simply Paul's musings or opinions, but a revelation from the Holy Spirit.

First Paul refers to the OT Scriptures in verse 15.  Then he includes the NT Scriptures in "all Scripture".

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, [TANAKH] which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture [THE BIBLE] is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

It is only unbelief that prevents people from seeing the whole picture. Paul equated his own words and writings with Scripture, and Peter confirmed that, and also included his own writings in Scripture.

[Ezra]

18 minutes ago, Zach said:

I keep hearing people say this over and over, I've even looked for it. Where does Paul say the Gospel of Luke is equal to The Holy Scriptures?

He does not "say" it, but he quotes Luke as Scripture (just as he quotes from many OT passages).