2 Timothy 3:16

[JVAC]

It has been discussed in a previous forum but now moved here. Since this is a continuation I will post the preceeding discourse.

JVAC

With this quote that you gave 2Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Here Paul is talking about the Old Testament Scriptures. One can find this on many levels, but most of all, the Christian Bible, scriptures, did not exist to Timothy or Paul.

Now, the books of the bible were compiled later and assembled into the Christian Bible. This happened much later. After the creed of Nicea even. This in no way takes away from them, for they were all writen soon after the death of our Lord, to bear witness and teach his followers. Yet, they were assembled by 'men'. Such books as, The Gospel of Thomas and The book of Enoch didn't make it in. The church leaders, however, established it. We have been taught from it ever since.

It is indeed relevent, for it so establishes that, IF a Church council validated and added the Apocrapha to the Cannon, THEN, it is every bit as valid as any of the 66. So, It is permissable in usage.

I do not posses the knowledge about the Apocrapha to go any further though.

Toms777

Consider that paul did nothing but pen this statement and that it was the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul...otherwisde Paul was lying about even this verse. that being the case, the Bible was completely defined from before the foundation of the earth and the canon was simply identified later. In fact, the books that make up the canon were largely identified prior to the end of the 1st century thopugh perhaps not formalized until later. Thus a legitimate church council will not establish canon but rather reflect taht which God has already established.

Lastly, there is very little if anything doctrinally added by the NT that one cannot find in the OT. Clarified, and illuminated yes, but new, no, there is little or nothing. At one time I would not have agreed with that, but studying for many years, I ahve come to realize this truth. Thus it was possible to test the truth of what was said in the NT times using the OT, and the validity of NT text could be confirmed in part by using OT texts.

There are many reasons for eliminating the apocrypha. they frequently contradict the Bible, and range from the fantasy/strange to books of historical if not canonical interest.

 

[JVAC]

Paul was writing to his friend Timothy in Asia, who he is encouraging to stay strong in faith. That is the context. There are no New Testaments. Paul is talking about Old Testament scriptures.

Now, We all know Paul had the Holy Spirit in him. Thus we can deduce that his writings are fruit of the Spirit, however, he was not writing to his buddy Tim saying "This private letter I am writting you is scripture derived from the Holy Spirit."

As I have stated before I have not read up on the Apocrapha so I am not able to discuss if it is 'of the Spirit' or not.

 

[Phoenix]

Not sure if this will be relevant to your discussion but the Muratorian fragment i believe is the earliest known official Canon:


http://biblefacts.org/church/mcf.html

 

[Nickolai]

I ti were to go to an ecumenical council and they agreed apon it then it would be just as valid. However it's no longer possible for the Church as a whole to even have an Ecumenical Council since the church of Rome left it and the reformation came out of Rome.

 

[Key Of David]

There were only three reasons why those books were taken out and called the "Apocrypha".

1) The Church's agenda

2) The Church's agenda

3) The Church's agenda

 

[Der Alte]

There were only three reasons why those books were taken out and called the "Apocrypha".

1) The Church's agenda

2) The Church's agenda

3) The Church's agenda

To answer your post.

1. Wrong!
2. Wrong!
3. Wrong!

 

[RhetorTheo]

True, the removal of the apocrypha was a very late heresy. The KJV originally included the apocrypha, for example.

2 Tim 3:16 did not refer to the NT, but surely it referred to the scriptures they had an used. The NT writers cited to Enoch, so that (in addition to the Catholic apocrypha) should be considered inspired by God. So should the Shepard of Hermas, etc.

 

[G4m]

Matthew 5
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Luke 24
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

John 10
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Acts 17
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

[JVAC]

Wasn't the book of Enoch written in the first century AD (CE can kiss my butt)?

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

... (CE can kiss my butt)?

LOL, I agree!

 

[Philip]

Wasn't the book of Enoch written in the first century AD?

It is not clear when the Book of Enoch was written. Further, it is possible that the contents of Enoch were passed along orally (like several of the Old Testament books) for many years before they were written down.

 

[JVAC]

The NT writers cited to Enoch, so that (in addition to the Catholic apocrypha) should be considered inspired by God

I thnk St. Jude used them in his writing because of the number of times it mentioned the world 'ungodly'. It added to his point rather than actually being thought of as a 'true' source. The unsure origin tends to make people shy away from its use, especially when being thought of as canon. However, I am far from knowledgabel on this book. Thoughts anyone??

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Paul quoted pagan philosophers at times and we certainly would not include them in the Bible, just beacause someone refered to it does not mean it was inspired by God. The Book of Enoch contains no doctrine and in no way points to Christ's birth which is why it was never canonized. It is an interesting read but probably not written by Enoch to begin with and not scripture by the definition used to for canonization.

 

[G4m]

I thnk St. Jude used them in his writing because of the number of times it mentioned the world 'ungodly'. It added to his point rather than actually being thought of as a 'true' source. The unsure origin tends to make people shy away from its use, especially when being thought of as canon. However, I am far from knowledgabel on this book. Thoughts anyone??

I think personally I need to be more open minded. If through prayer and study God reveals other inspired works to me, then why deny them?

 

[Philip]

The Book of Enoch contains no doctrine and in no way points to Christ's birth which is why it was never canonized. It is an interesting read but probably not written by Enoch to begin with and not scripture by the definition used to for canonization.

Why, then, was Esther canonized?

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs were given special status for canonization. I will have to dig up the reasons. But those three are the ones that were given special status. If you like I will find the reasons given for them.

 

[McCravey]

I think personally I need to be more open minded. If through prayer and study God reveals other inspired works to me, then why deny them?

I agree with you. I would encourage you to read other books as you see fit and let the Holy Spirit guide you. Do not trust what your spirit does not respond to. Be careful what theology you develop as you grow and learn. Don't take too hard or fixed of a stance on any one thing--God may change it on you as you grow.

Just like the connonized bible does not speak to you every time and in every situation and in every verse, other books wil be the same way. You are only to put weight with what God uses to communicate with you.

For just plain studying I find the cannonized bible to be the best source. I think the men who put that document together did a great job. There is such a depth to the scriptures that I find it to be a neverending source of information and inspiration.

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

The problem is taking other works and using them to correct the Bible. If other works agree with the Biblical position then they are fine for study, but if they do not then they are not near as suited for study. They would only be good for having the knowledge of what was said so that you could refute it using the Bible.

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

All i got to say is that scripture is scripture, and the whole bible is scripture...

It doesn't say "THIS scritpure is inspired by God" but actually "ALL scripture is inspired by God" Inspired being God breathed in this case with the version of the scriptured used on the first post being different than the one I used.

 

[JVAC]

I agree with Flesh99 in regards, there are a lot of Gnostic works out there, especially of the early church. I don't think that reading them could help me learn new things about the true faith. Though it would be good to be able to use to refute them.

Arch Angel the text was refering to scripture, but the Mormans call the Book of Morman Scripture. Scripture is a name that people could give many things now a day. I think it is safest to think of it as it was originally inteded to be thought as, and that is the Old Testament.

A lot of useful information is comming out of this discussion.