What is 'scripture'?

[Diaste]

What defines 'the scriptures'?  

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness"

What are these 'writings' and how do we know those particular writings are what is the 'all' that Paul tells Timothy is the guiding authority?

[FJK]

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

What defines 'the scriptures'?  

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness"

What are these 'writings' and how do we know those particular writings are what is the 'all' that Paul tells Timothy is the guiding authority?

I imagine that would mean everything that was familiar and available for study at the time it was said and among those it was said to.

"All" is a pretty inclusive word, but it might mean something different to us today than it did to Paul and Timothy when it was first pronounced.

So what writings were available at that time?

It's actually kind of an interesting question to pursue.

[Diaste]

On 2/24/2024 at 6:08 AM, FJK said:

So what writings were available at that time?

Exactly.

Since Paul was writing to Timothy, and others, would Paul have considered his letter to Timothy, and others, as scripture? I don't think so. We consider it as part of the canon now but certainly Paul wasn't equating his letters with holy writ. 

So what was available and defined as scripture when Paul wrote that letter to Timothy?

Prophetic utterance for certain, that's God breathed, men spoke as inspired by the Holy Spirit, and we have prophecy. 

Any time God spoke saying something like "Go and give this word to the people." must be scripture.

Or when we see written, "The Word of the Lord came to me and said..."

[Jayne]

5 hours ago, Diaste said:

Exactly.

Since Paul was writing to Timothy, and others, would Paul have considered his letter to Timothy, and others, as scripture? I don't think so. We consider it as part of the canon now but certainly Paul wasn't equating his letters with holy writ. 

You say Paul didn't know his writings were scripture....meaning holy words.....

.....but Peter knew.

2 Peter 3:15-16 = "And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him, speaking of these things in all his letters. Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures."

[Diaste]

16 hours ago, Jayne said:

You say Paul didn't know his writings were scripture....meaning holy words.....

.....but Peter knew.

2 Peter 3:15-16 = "And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him, speaking of these things in all his letters. Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures."

Hmmm. Paul was writing letters from the foundation of known scripture. He was without doubt conveying scriptural truth and instructions from existing scripture, learning from the Apostles, and what he may have been told at the meeting on the road to Damascus. 

In my opinion what Peter is referring to is Paul's command and understanding of the scriptural truths Paul took from scripture and expounded upon. So Peter's reference here to the 'rest of the scriptures' is in light of the scriptures from which Paul was teaching, not that Paul was in the process of writing scripture in his letters. 

Jesus for example quoted OT facts again and again. When Jesus needed proof for others He quoted the only known scriptures at the time. 

So how do we define 'scripture'?

Prophecy, for certain.

When the text says, "The Word of the Lord came to me and said..." obviously.

When the text tells us God spoke or commanded others to speak.

Jesus' words. 

I don't see Paul's opinions as scripture. 

 

 

[Jayne]

9 hours ago, Diaste said:

Hmmm. Paul was writing letters from the foundation of known scripture. He was without doubt conveying scriptural truth and instructions from existing scripture, learning from the Apostles, and what he may have been told at the meeting on the road to Damascus. 

In my opinion what Peter is referring to is Paul's command and understanding of the scriptural truths Paul took from scripture and expounded upon. So Peter's reference here to the 'rest of the scriptures' is in light of the scriptures from which Paul was teaching, not that Paul was in the process of writing scripture in his letters. 

Jesus for example quoted OT facts again and again. When Jesus needed proof for others He quoted the only known scriptures at the time. 

So how do we define 'scripture'?

Prophecy, for certain.

When the text says, "The Word of the Lord came to me and said..." obviously.

When the text tells us God spoke or commanded others to speak.

Jesus' words. 

I don't see Paul's opinions as scripture. 

 

 

We will just have to disagree.

[Know Jah]

I think Paul did feel his writings was holy writings since he wrote more than anyone else of the bible.

[Tristen]

Given that "scripture" (a.k.a. God's Word) originates in God (i.e. is "God-breathed"), and does not originate in Paul (or any other human author), it is irrelevant whether or not the one who penned the words understood that their writing constituted "scripture".

With regards to the New Testament:

- The texts must present a revelation of God that is consistent with the revelation of God provided in existing, recognized scriptures.

- The texts must be universally recognized by the earliest Christians as having an authoritative (i.e. Apostolic/Prophetic) revelation from God.

- The essential doctrines contained in the texts have been preserved by God throughout their history.

- There is no counter-claim in the text itself as to its Divine authority. By contrast, there are authoritative internal (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 4:15) and ancillary (e.g. 2 Peter 3:15-16) claims that the texts are authoritative.

Taken together, this represents an extremely high standard of textual criticism. It is highly unlikely that a human-derived text would pass these rules. There is, therefore, very good reason to trust the Christian canon (including Paul's own writings) as "God-breathed Scripture".