New Testament Inerrancy

[Andrew Restrepo]

Hello everyone,

Although I feel like I've recently come to my own conclusion regarding this topic, I want to hear your opinions on it.

Recently, during a discussion, it was made known to me that friend has been questioning the relevance of the New Testament epistles.

2 Timothy 3:16 says: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness".

The argument my friend brought was this: When this scripture was written it was referring to the only scriptures which existed at the time which were the Old Testament scriptures. Being that the New Testament was not written, we must give more attention and place more importance to the words of Jesus versus the words of Paul.

I've done some research but would love to hear from all of you. If (allegedly) the New Testament scriptures were not written then how does 2 Tim 3:16 refer to the epistles and the majority of the new testament? And if it doesn't refer to them, why must we listen to the epistles if they're not God-breathed?

Thanks everyone.

www.theroadtoemmaus.ca

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yahweh Himself , of course, must reveal this to you (or anyone).

 

[keyman]

Hello everyone,

Although I feel like I've recently come to my own conclusion regarding this topic, I want to hear your opinions on it.

Recently, during a discussion, it was made known to me that friend has been questioning the relevance of the New Testament epistles.

2 Timothy 3:16 says: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness".

The argument my friend brought was this: When this scripture was written it was referring to the only scriptures which existed at the time which were the Old Testament scriptures. Being that the New Testament was not written, we must give more attention and place more importance to the words of Jesus versus the words of Paul.

I've done some research but would love to hear from all of you. If (allegedly) the New Testament scriptures were not written then how does 2 Tim 3:16 refer to the epistles and the majority of the new testament? And if it doesn't refer to them, why must we listen to the epistles if they're not God-breathed?

Thanks everyone.

www.theroadtoemmaus.ca

Jesus said in John 16 that He had many more things to say, but they would not be able to bear them.
Paul, Peter and the rest of the Apostles were God's chosen instruments to reveal Christ to the world.
When you read there epistles you are reading the "more things" Jesus had to say.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Hello everyone,

Although I feel like I've recently come to my own conclusion regarding this topic, I want to hear your opinions on it.

Recently, during a discussion, it was made known to me that friend has been questioning the relevance of the New Testament epistles.

2 Timothy 3:16 says: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness".

The argument my friend brought was this: When this scripture was written it was referring to the only scriptures which existed at the time which were the Old Testament scriptures. Being that the New Testament was not written, we must give more attention and place more importance to the words of Jesus versus the words of Paul.

I've done some research but would love to hear from all of you. If (allegedly) the New Testament scriptures were not written then how does 2 Tim 3:16 refer to the epistles and the majority of the new testament? And if it doesn't refer to them, why must we listen to the epistles if they're not God-breathed?

Thanks everyone.

www.theroadtoemmaus.ca

I don't see the word "inerrant" in the verse you quoted.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Jesus said in John 16 that He had many more things to say, but they would not be able to bear them.
Paul, Peter and the rest of the Apostles were God's chosen instruments to reveal Christ to the world.
When you read there epistles you are reading the "more things" Jesus had to say.

In SPIRIT and in some expanded Hebrew and Greek Word Studies,
is revealed that from Yahweh proceeds "every Word from His mouth" steadily - an unending, immeasurable , pure and holy and true stream of righteousness, truth, healing, nurturing, uplifting, strengthening of HIS WORD.

 

[Andrew Restrepo]

I don't see the word "inerrant" in the verse you quoted.

Good point, in this just stick to the question rather than look at the title.

Thanks
www.theroadtoemmaus.ca

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Good point, in this just stick to the question rather than look at the title.....

Yahweh says He Himself Guards His Own Word and Honors His Word even MORE than HIS OWN NAME.

Yahweh is Perfect. His Word is Perfect. All is as He Says.

 

[Call me Nic]

Hello everyone,

Although I feel like I've recently come to my own conclusion regarding this topic, I want to hear your opinions on it.

Recently, during a discussion, it was made known to me that friend has been questioning the relevance of the New Testament epistles.

2 Timothy 3:16 says: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness".

The argument my friend brought was this: When this scripture was written it was referring to the only scriptures which existed at the time which were the Old Testament scriptures. Being that the New Testament was not written, we must give more attention and place more importance to the words of Jesus versus the words of Paul.

I've done some research but would love to hear from all of you. If (allegedly) the New Testament scriptures were not written then how does 2 Tim 3:16 refer to the epistles and the majority of the new testament? And if it doesn't refer to them, why must we listen to the epistles if they're not God-breathed?

Thanks everyone.

www.theroadtoemmaus.ca

Interesting notion, though by the time 2 Timothy 3:16 was written, the New Testament hadn't been brought to completion, the Epistles were nonetheless considered scripture; Peter himself refers to Paul's writings as difficult scripture to understand.

2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

 

[Heber Book List]

You do realise that Paul wrote almost all his letters before the gospels and other letters were written.

He was therefore refering to the Tanach - the 'old' testament, which he upheld to the end.

Problem solved!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="Andrew Restrepo, post: 72893449, member: 410966"]Hello everyone,

Although I feel like I've recently come to my own conclusion regarding this topic, I want to hear your opinions on it.

Recently, during a discussion, it was made known to me that friend has been questioning the relevance of the New Testament epistles.

2 Timothy 3:16 says: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness".

The argument my friend brought was this: When this scripture was written it was referring to the only scriptures which existed at the time which were the Old Testament scriptures. Being that the New Testament was not written, we must give more attention and place more importance to the words of Jesus versus the words of Paul.

I've done some research but would love to hear from all of you. If (allegedly) the New Testament scriptures were not written then how does 2 Tim 3:16 refer to the epistles and the majority of the new testament? And if it doesn't refer to them, why must we listen to the epistles if they're not God-breathed?

Thanks everyone.[/QUOTE

I just noticed where you posted "...... why must we LISTEN TO THE EPISTLES ...."
(for any reason)

Well, Jesus said "Spend a lot of time, frequently, daily, IN PRAYER with the Father in Heaven (The Creator Yahweh) , LISTEN TO HIM, and DO as He Says. "
and again "Who is My mother and brother and sister?" WHOEVER HEARS My FATHER'S WORD and DOES IT. (i.e. we who LISTEN to the Father AND DO HIS WORD)....

vs
the mere reading of Scripture, which the Scribes and Pharisees excelled at - reading the Scripture because they thought that they would find LIFE there.... yet (some) they rejected LIFE (JESUS!) when He was right there in front of them !

So as we read Scripture, TORAH, PROPHETS, PSALMS and NEW TESTAMENT,

we pray the Father Breathe on us/ Grant us HIS UNDERSTANDING (not our own)....

Then the Truth is known (as the Father Grants), and there's no worry about authenticity or interpretation or such things.

side question: when Yahweh Says to Do One Way (for someone/ children especially)
and men/ human authorities say to disobey Him,
what then ?

 

[Anto9us]

A lot of modern scholars do not believe that Paul wrote 1-2 Timothy or Titus. I don't buy that, but many do.

As far as Peter referring to Paul's writing as 'Scripture' - the Greek word is GRAPHE, simply 'writings'

 

[Call me Nic]

As far as Peter referring to Paul's writing as 'Scripture' - the Greek word is GRAPHE, simply 'writings'

Your argument doesn't compute.

In biblical reference, it is denoting a writing that is specifically holy in nature.

We know this because the same word "graphe" is used in John 5:39 when Jesus speaks against the Pharisees and scribes for searching the scriptures, but not understanding that the same scriptures (graphe) speak of Christ, (yet those were the OT prophecies)..

So the word for scripture in 2 Peter 3 is still in reference to the holy writings of God, meaning that Peter thought of Paul's epistles as being the inspired kind of scripture, not just "writings" as you put it, as Peter also defined earlier in his epistle (2 Peter 1:21): "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." That is the kind of prophecy and writing that Peter considers Paul's to be (to be of the same significance as the OT scriptures), not that Peter was necessarily referencing Paul in that particular verse, however.

 

[Anto9us]

well, neither Peter's nor Paul's letters were "Holy Scripture" at the time they wrote them, NT was not complete or canonized.
I am not saying Peter thought of Paul's letters as just "any old writings" like Plato or something, but Scripture meant Old Testament, as your John 5:39 and 2 Peter 1:21 references indicate.

 

[Call me Nic]

well, neither Peter's nor Paul's letters were "Holy Scripture" at the time they wrote them, NT was not complete or canonized.
I am not saying Peter thought of Paul's letters as just "any old writings" like Plato or something, but Scripture meant Old Testament, as your John 5:39 and 2 Peter 1:21 references indicate.

So if scripture meant Old Testament, why did Peter consider Paul's writings against the "other" scriptures, which were NT? If Peter was to make your point, he would have written the verse without the word "other," which itself implies that Peter considered Paul's writings as inspired as the Old Testament scriptures.

My entire point is that even the NT authors thought of each other's writings as just as valid scripture as the scripture that had been around for 1,000 years, therefore, it makes the entire point of 2 Tim. 3:16 that much more applicable to all NT writings, especially the epistles. The only book one could argue against using 2 Tim. 3:16 would be Revelation, considering that was written well after the Epistles were written.

 

[Anto9us]

ok, I see your point

 

[St_Worm2]

As far as Peter referring to Paul's writing as 'Scripture' - the Greek word is GRAPHE, simply 'writings'

Hi Brother, that's the very same word St. Paul uses for "Scripture" in 2 Timothy 3:16, where graphe 'must' be understood as something far more than the mere "writings" of men, yes The context (of 2 Peter 3, both general and immediate) leads me to believe that he was referring to God's "breathed words" there as well .. cf 2 Peter 3:2. (and for that matter, who would care if the "untaught/ignorant and unstable .. distort" the mere writings of other men? .. 2 Peter 3:16 .. nor would doing so result in their "destruction".

--David

 

[Heber Book List]

So if scripture meant Old Testament, why did Peter consider Paul's writings against the "other" scriptures, which were NT? If Peter was to make your point, he would have written the verse without the word "other," which itself implies that Peter considered Paul's writings as inspired as the Old Testament scriptures.

My entire point is that even the NT authors thought of each other's writings as just as valid scripture as the scripture that had been around for 1,000 years, therefore, it makes the entire point of 2 Tim. 3:16 that much more applicable to all NT writings, especially the epistles. The only book one could argue against using 2 Tim. 3:16 would be Revelation, considering that was written well after the Epistles were written.

As I have already indicated - Paul's letters, by and large, were written before the gospels and, probably, before Luke wrote (there may be a small overlap with a few of Paul's letters and Luke's writings). 2 Timothy was written just as the gospels were being written, but after the majority of Paul's writings. Therefore any reference to Paul's writings as scripture would be on the basis of its Tanach ('old' testament) content.

 

[St_Worm2]

...any reference to Paul's writings as scripture would be on the basis of its Tanach ('old' testament) content.

"All Scripture", by the time 2 Timothy was written, would surely include a number of post-OT Letters, would it not? (e.g. Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians................). It seems to me that this was also confirmed by St. Peter in 2 Peter 3. The Apostles and other human authors of Scripture knew what was (and what was not) inspired/breathed at the time the Epistles and Gospels were being written.

--David

 

[Anto9us]

Jude quoted Enoch -- do you think Jude considered Enoch Scripture?

 

[Anto9us]

Paul quoted a non-canonical book that mentioned Jannes and Jambres opposing Moses -- he also alludes to Greek Poets - Aratus, Menander and Epimenides - but I agree NT writers knew what was and wasn't 'Scripture'.