All scripture is inspired of God. A small prophecy ?

[JOHN BUTLER]

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,"

2 Timothy 3 v 16

Was this in it's way a small prophecy ?                 

The 2nd book of Timothy was written 65 C.E.  However 1,2,3, John and Revelation were written much later.

So we have two points, 1. The writings were not complete when Paul wrote that information. 2, The Bible had not been constructed so no idea would have been formed as to what the Bible would contain. 

Were there other writings ? Would they be considered as Scripture? 

It seems that Paul was inspired to write that "All scripture is inspired.... " 

 

[Evacuated]

12 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Timothy was inspired

Probably Paul......

[Space Merchant]

@JOHN BUTLER First/Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy also known as The First/Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Timothy

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_to_Timothy

Yes all text is inspired, but at the same time it is also best to know who wrote what and when.

[JOHN BUTLER]

I stand corrected, thank you. But the rest of the comment still stands. When Paul wrote those words he didn't know about the other scriptures to follow. Nor did he know about a 'Bible' being formed. 

I have now corrected the first comment. I should think more deeply before i write  

[Evacuated]

10 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

When Paul wrote those words he didn't know about the other scriptures to follow. Nor did he know about a 'Bible' being formed

Opinion surely? We can't really state what Paul knew or didn't know on these matters, surely? He must have had some idea that there was a difference between "inspired" and non-inspired religious writings from his experience with the Hebrew Scriptures.

Probably you have a point that isn't coming across clearly to me here.

[JOHN BUTLER]

4 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Opinion surely? We can't really state what Paul knew or didn't know on these matters, surely? He must have had some idea that there was a difference between "inspired" and non-inspired religious writings from his experience with the Hebrew Scriptures.

Probably you have a point that isn't coming across clearly to me here.

Well when i first started studying with the JW Org this scripture was used quite regularly. But I just accepted it as saying that the complete Bible was inspired of God. It is of course, but it never occured to me at the time that 'all scripture' had not been written when Paul made that statement. In my opinion, when many people study God's word with the JW's it's a bit parrot fashion, stick to the book. People don't seem to ask questions. I became of this opinion from the Book Study we used to have on a Tuesday evening at people's home. After the study people would stay for tea and biscuits, and there would be conversation. Most of the conversation was spiritual and I would ask people questions of their understanding of certain scriptures. It became clear to me that most JW's never questioned anything. They just took it for granted that the GB and the Org new everything and got everything right. It was from that time that I started to look deeper into God's word. Unfortunately at 69 years old, much of what I had learnt has gone. My mind / memory has deteriorated.  But there are a few things which i still find interesting, and this is one of them. How many JW's ever think of the fact that Paul wrote that information before the other scriptures were written and long before a Bible was composed ? 

[JW Insider]

18 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Was this in it's way a small prophecy ?

Paul knew that Timothy was already well acquainted with the inspired Scriptures. So the reference would have been to the Hebrew Scriptures only at this time. This does not mean that Paul didn't recognize the status of at least some of his own letters or some parts of his own letters as "inspired." But it isn't likely Paul was referring to his own letters at this time, just the "Old Testament." Another question is whether Paul would have been thinking of the same set of books that we think of today. Some Jews and therefore some Jewish Christians might not have agreed on which books could be considered inspired (or partially inspired). I say partially, because some books had portions that included stories that were not considered inspired even if the primary portion of the book was considered inspired. (Daniel, Bel and the Dragon, Susannah and the Elders, etc., just as the book of John had a story about the near stoning of a woman caught in adultery, or Mark with both a short and long conclusion.

18 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

However 1,2,3, John and Revelation were written much later.

It's merely a tradition that tells us that the writer of 1,2,3 John and Revelation were the same person. Based on the language and grammar, it seems unlikely to many scholars that it was the same John who wrote Revelation. (The gospel of John was  apparently written by the same person who wrote 1,2, &3 John.) Also, there is some good external and some internal evidence and tradition that Revelation was written close to 96-100 CE. But there have also been some excellent scholarly books pointing to the possibility that Revelation could have been written prior to 70 CE. (Prior to Jerusalem's destruction by the Romans.)

For that matter, there is considerable speculation among scholars that the letters to Titus and Timothy were developed, more likely between 100 CE and 150 CE. This does not mean that they were not "Pauline," but to some scholars they appear to be attempts to turn Paul's counsel into a set of semi-legalistic rules. They are more akin, stylewise, to the style and content one would find in the books of 1 Clement, Ignatius or Polycarp. (Some of the writings and letters by the latter could well have been written prior to 1 & 2 Timothy.) If they are Paul's own direct words, many scholars find some of them at odds with the "spirit" of Paul's words in Thessalonians, Philippians, Romans and Corinthians.

Books of Enoch, Jannes and Jambres, The Assumption of Moses, 12 Patriarchs, Epistle of Barnabas, etc., were clearly very popular in some Christian circles likely going all the way back to the first century CE. There were also several gospel accounts that the writer of Luke hoped to replace with the gospel of Luke. This could have been one of the reasons that 1 John 4:1 asks Christians to "test the inspired utterances."

Of course, Christians much closer to the time when these books were first known were in a better position to test which of them had real apostolic authority and which came from the actual time period of the apostles. Also, when scholars look at supposed contradictions and assume a late authorship they are often taking the easy way out. Some portions of the Bible were clearly intended so that we would look at things from two different perspectives. The variations in the gospel accounts do not cause any doctrinal problems but they show different perspectives. The difference in James' statement that 'a person is declared righteous by works and not by faith alone,' while Paul says that 'a person is declared righteous by faith and not by works' is clearly intentional. These perspectives actually help us to 'make sure of all things.'

 

[Evacuated]

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

How many JW's ever think of the fact that Paul wrote that information before the other scriptures were written and long before a Bible was composed ? 

Thanks. Now I understand your specific point.

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Another question is whether Paul would have been thinking of the same set of books that we think of today.

What part would the gift of "discerning the spirits" (as some translate 1Cor.12:10) have had in Paul's evaluating the spiritual credentials of religious writings available at the time? 

[JOHN BUTLER]

@JW Insider So where is one supposed to start ? If you are saying that the Bible might not be the book it should be. 

You make the plot thicken very much. For simple men such as i who cannot comprehend so much information, is there no hope ? 

SM talks so much about Strongs. Should we need to dig so deeply to find the truth ?  Some of the disciples / apostles were fishermen, maybe not of the highest intelligence ? No insult intended but what I'm saying is they were inspired by God through Christ so they had divine guidance. What should i have ? I don't expect divine guidance, or should I ?  Jesus was talking to 'chosen ones' when he said 'ask and it will be given to you'. Hence i believe that only a true  anointed class can fully understand the truth of God's word.  

You seem to say that so many different scholars had so many different opinions. And then we have the GB that at times admit they 'get it wrong'.  So who really can we believe ? 

[Space Merchant]

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

SM talks so much about Strongs. Should we need to dig so deeply to find the truth ?

Yes indeed, I do speak of Strong's. It is not unknown to anyone of what is implied when the Strong's are brought up, mainly when it comes to a correction of occurrences, the normal ones or the special ones. For instance, as per our last discussion regarding nakedness or an ambassador, the Strong's tell you which verses/passages uses the word, and what the meaning of that word used there entails, moreover it triumphs any understand of man in the process. Furthermore, it can be used to I.D. a Biblical Violation in Hebrew/Greek easily.

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

What should i have ? I don't expect divine guidance, or should I ? 

You have the Word of God in your hands. Read it daily. Research it. Observe it. Recite it. And then some. Learn of the teachings of the apostolic church Jesus built and then maybe you can learn something.

If a child can do it, in fact, if Jesus as a child can obverse and read the Shema Yisrael, the Old Testament, so can you.

In doing so you become knowledgeable, can memorized and recite a verse and or passage, the very context of it orally from memory even like remembering a part from a movie.

It is not burdensome unless you make it. This goes hand in hand with following the commandments and what is being asked of you, as a Christian under the New Covenant.

It does not hurt to learn a little Greek and or Hebrew, if I can recommend someone, I recommend Hebrew Professor Jeff A. Benner, with his information give it a few months, you will know quite a bit of Hebrew.

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, Outta Here said:

What part would the gift of "discerning the spirits" (as some translate 1Cor.12:10) have had in Paul's evaluating the spiritual credentials of religious writings available at the time?

Yes. Excellent point. I believe it has everything to do with it, and I believe that Paul was well aware of the responsibility and understood very uniquely from his own situation why such a spiritual gift was so important. After all, he was not one who had heard Jesus speak personally during Jesus' earthly life, and Paul at times, had to rebuke the very apostles who had such influence on others. The idea, I think, is even carried in the verse in the context of the idea of making sure of the more important things:

• (Philippians 1:9-10) 9 And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things, so that you may be flawless and not stumbling others up to the day of Christ;

Of course, Paul also made good and purposeful use of extra-Scriptural references which also were "useful for setting things straight and disciplining in righteousness," but in order for future congregations to be built especially upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Paul knew that, not just the Hebrew Scriptures, but also the authority of the apostles would become both the doctrinal and practical foundation of the congregations. He had to set things straight even among the other apostles, and the apostles were able to give Paul counsel, too. (Gal 2:10)

Fortunately, we don't need now to question anything that comes through the authority of the apostles. But we still need to follow the same principle of discernment that Paul used when questioning and accepting doctrine.

• (Hebrews 5:12-14) 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong.

Today, of course, we also need to be reliant upon good scholarship to avoid acceptance of certain statements that do not have "foundational" apostolic authority and yet have crept into our Bible texts. It's a modern form of the same spiritual gift of accurate knowledge (and full discernment.) 1 John 5:7.8 is the best example, The New World Translation committee has accurately removed the non-authoritative parts of 1 John 5:7,8, but there are dozens of full verses removed in lesser-known examples found in some of the older texts (not usually the oldest texts) and found not to be as reliable, based on "textual criticism." Some of these omissions seem innocuous, but they are still without sufficient apostolic authority to keep in the context with the authoritative verses.

By calling our Christian Greek Scriptures "apostolic", we acknowledge that some were not written directly by apostles, because most of the apostles were evidently unlettered (illiterate) and required second-hand "secretaries" to record their first-hand experiences and memories. Writings by non-apostles were accepted on the basis that they were understood to have come from those with a direct relationship to the apostles, and who lived at the time of the apostles. The significance given to this idea comes through the statement from Paul that the number of eyewitnesses to Jesus resurrection was known.

• (Luke 1:1, 2) 1 Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as those who from [the] beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us,

• (2 Peter 1:16) 16 No, it was not by following artfully contrived false stories that we acquainted YOU with the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but it was by having become eyewitnesses of his magnificence.

  (Acts 1:21-23) . . .It is therefore necessary that of the men who accompanied us during all the time in which the Lord Jesus carried on his activities among us, 22 starting with his baptism by John until the day he was taken up from us, one of these men should become a witness with us of his resurrection.” 23 So they proposed two, Joseph called Barʹsab·bas, who was also called Justus, and Mat·thiʹas.

  (1 Corinthians 15:5-7) . . .and that he appeared to Ceʹphas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. 7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.