Question about the Kaaba

[Rasta]

Maybe you should explain why St. Paul said ALL but not Jewish apocrypha...

Rivisions with the intent of vailidation?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Revisions of Jewish Scriptures with the intent of validating them??? That would be a little unscriptural for Jews knowing how they held on to their Scriptures. So what "ALL" Scriptures is he talking about?

 

[Rasta]

Revisions of Jewish Scriptures with the intent of validating them???

My slant was revising Paul to include ALL scriptures, thus vailidating them. (?) The question mark indicates that is a mere guess no more verifiable than the exsistence of god.

So what "ALL" Scriptures is he talking about?

Where was Paul born and what was his father's name?

I feel since we are being critical with our analysis, that dynamic should be consistent.

How can we verify that Paul said what you claim he said?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

My slant was revising Paul to include ALL scriptures, thus vailidating them. (?) The question mark indicates that is a mere guess no more verifiable than the exsistence of god.

Sorry, there are no changes to the Scriptures and for this instance, there is no need to. Your assertion of Church revision of St. Paul's actual teachings can and must be found in the documented history of Christianity to hold any water, it doesn't have much to do with God's existence.

Where was Paul born and what was his father's name?I feel since we are being critical with our analysis, that dynamic should be consistent.How can we verify that Paul said what you claim he said?

Start with explaining the relevancy before asking me questions. How does St. Paul's letter to his disciple relate to his own father?

 

[Islam_mulia]

Revisions of Jewish Scriptures with the intent of validating them??? That would be a little unscriptural for Jews knowing how they held on to their Scriptures. So what "ALL" Scriptures is he talking about?

It is probable that Paul was referring to the Tanakh and some Jewish literatures as the "ALL" Scriptures.

It is very unlikely that Paul was referring to any of the Gospels or the Epistles as the "ALL" Scriptures.

Paul did refer to a story about Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim 3:8-9) found in some Jewish literatures. If these were "scriptures inspired by God" included in the "ALL" scriptures why were they not included in the canonical bible?

 

[Islam_mulia]

Are you 'riggin serious? The gospels and acts of apostles put it right in front of us that St. Paul met the disciples and elders. While being a strong defender of faith for the GENTILES and argued that Gentiles could not be held responsible of the Jewish law, yet you would suggest he is telling them to hold fast to the Jewish Scriptures. The keyword is ALL! He is familiar with Scriptures and inspiration that were already existence and familiar and knowledgeable of what is to come. He is writing this epistle to Timothy, his disciple. Maybe you should explain why St. Paul said ALL but not Jewish apocrypha...

You did not explain the CONTEXT of that verse. Let me help the readers understand what I meant by context:

Paul wrote to Timothy about the ALL Scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:14-16:

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Notice I bold the two main points above. Paul was saying that when Timothy was a child, he knew the Scriptures. All Scriptures (that Timothy knew) were "God-breathed".

That is the CONTEXT.

When Timothy was a child, there was NO Gospels, NO Epistles of any sort.

My point again: Paul was NOT referring to the Gospels or the Epistles as Scriptures that were inspired.

 

[Islam_mulia]

Since when religion was not perfect? Since when author claims to have not perfected the other religions? Where is your evidence to this perfect religion?What is the evidence of ownership, word of God claim in say chapter 114? Chapter 99? List them all, every single chapter, by your logic, should include this claim. Because all these chapters are separate revelations, collected at a later time.

The LOGIC that peaceful sould was asking me to follow was: If the scripture claims it is from God, then there should be reference from the scripture that it is from God.

That I have given peaceful soul through several references of the Quran coming from God. (pls check with peaceful soul)

The last revelation came at the Last Sermon of the Prophet: God has perfected the religion of Islam and the Prophet reiterated that if Muslims follow the Quran and Sunnah they will not go astray.

The end of revelations (Quran) coincides with the last sermon of the Prophet.

Notwithstanding that, you would have to counter both Islamic and non-Islamic sources that strongly put it that Muslims believe ALL the surahs were from God.

No scholars have contested that one surah comes from God and one from other sources. The "ALL" here refers to one author: God, and not several writers.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

You did not explain the CONTEXT of that verse. Let me help the readers understand what I meant by context:

Paul wrote to Timothy about the ALL Scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:14-16:

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Notice I bold the two main points above. Paul was saying that when Timothy was a child, he knew the Scriptures. All Scriptures (that Timothy knew) were "God-breathed".

That is the CONTEXT.

When Timothy was a child, there was NO Gospels, NO Epistles of any sort.

My point again: Paul was NOT referring to the Gospels or the Epistles as Scriptures that were inspired.

Ok, let's help the readers,Note what he says, "you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus", are you testifying to the same thing St. Paul testifies here that these holy Jewish Scriptures are teaching and pointing to salvation in Christ? Say yes or no! Further, St. Paul points out the fact that Timothy has a religious upbringing and he is familiar with Scriptures, how does he only refer to those within this context? He doesn't set apart anything as you seem to think "All Scriptures (that Timothy knew)" This is one verse where Christian church simply based St. Paul's epistles as God breathed as his epistles are accomplishing the same task he talks about, therefore he is aware of what he is saying. To make it short, All scriptures, in agreement with St. Paul's teaching, including Gospels and Epistles which claim divine inspiration, NOT mechanical revelation, are useful for teaching (salvation in Christ), rebuking, correcting (of other Christians) and training in righteousness (clergical duties) ... Old Testament and New Testament are God breathed Scriptures and they are Word of God.

Paul did refer to a story about Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim 3:8-9) found in some Jewish literatures. If these were "scriptures inspired by God" included in the "ALL" scriptures why were they not included in the canonical bible?

I don't know, what is the requirement in your head that suggests they should have been?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

The LOGIC that peaceful sould was asking me to follow was: If the scripture claims it is from God, then there should be reference from the scripture that it is from God.

That I have given peaceful soul through several references of the Quran coming from God. (pls check with peaceful soul)

The last revelation came at the Last Sermon of the Prophet: God has perfected the religion of Islam and the Prophet reiterated that if Muslims follow the Quran and Sunnah they will not go astray.

The end of revelations (Quran) coincides with the last sermon of the Prophet.

Notwithstanding that, you would have to counter both Islamic and non-Islamic sources that strongly put it that Muslims believe ALL the surahs were from God.

No scholars have contested that one surah comes from God and one from other sources. The "ALL" here refers to one author: God, and not several writers.

Stop beating around the bush and answer the questions I asked. I am not following peaceful's logic, I am following yours. Where in Chapter 114, for instance, it says the revelation is of Allah and narrated by Allah? They are still technically relayed by a medium, unlike God directly appearing to Moses for example, and by that comparison, they are still weak.I don't care what you believe, I am interested in what you allege of my faith. You can believe whatever you want but you can not simply allege nonsense to my faith by comparison with yours.No scholars contested the sources, sure, if they might be skipping the whole satanic verses controversy...Quran's claim is among those heathen who refuse to believe and it is rather a desperate attempt to get those believe, not with action but by claim. Christian Scriptures are testimonies of God's actions which speak for themselves...

 

[Ramona]

Same goes for this one. Let's dial back the rhetoric. Please.

 

[Islam_mulia]

Ok, let's help the readers,Note what he says, "you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus", are you testifying to the same thing St. Paul testifies here that these holy Jewish Scriptures are teaching and pointing to salvation in Christ? Say yes or no!

Irrelevant what I believe!! Stick to the point of discussion.

Further, St. Paul points out the fact that Timothy has a religious upbringing and he is familiar with Scriptures, how does he only refer to those within this context?

That's too obvious. Paul could not have said Timothy learnt the Gospels because the Gospels were not in existent when Timothy was a child. (the reason why I bold the word "child")

I don't know, what is the requirement in your head that suggests they should have been?

Paul probably believe in the Jewish apocryphas and believe they were inspired by God??

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Irrelevant what I believe!! Stick to the point of discussion.

Actually I am, you are not aware of the consequences of your own logic you are applying to Christian Scriptures, St. Paul using "holy scriptures" is drawing attention to salvation in Christ Jesus, his point is not to define what is scripture at that point, but the target, the destination. Christian Scriptures point us toward salvation in Christ, and he notes ALL Scriptures that do this, is OF GOD! You are yet stuck within what St. Paul might have meant or not...

That's too obvious. Paul could not have said Timothy learnt the Gospels because the Gospels were not in existent when Timothy was a child. (the reason why I bold the word "child")

Timothy has more than likely come in contact with Gospels later in life, he took upon his mission in the Christian church, and St. Paul is not addressing an infant at that point anymore, he is instructing to his pupil. The usage of his childhood was to draw attention to his wisdom that comes again with Scriptures, St. Paul by drawing this parallel, is not dismissing any other possible Scripture, again, he would have said ALL THOSE SCRIPTURES, he says ALL SCRIPTURE!

Paul probably believe in the Jewish apocryphas and believe they were inspired by God??

Far fetched theory, there is no influence in his life but Christ's ministry.

 

[Islam_mulia]

Paul is not addressing an infant at that point anymore, he is instructing to his pupil. The usage of his childhood was to draw attention to his wisdom that comes again with Scriptures, St. Paul by drawing this parallel, is not dismissing any other possible Scripture, again, he would have said ALL THOSE SCRIPTURES, he says ALL SCRIPTURE!

The only obvious conclusion is that Paul NEVER mentions or include the Gospels or the Epistles as the ALL SCRIPTURES. He would probably have mention the coming of new scriptures to include the scriptures that Timothy knew as a child - Paul certainly did not do that.

Far fetched theory, there is no influence in his life but Christ's ministry.

But you cannot dismiss that Paul believe in Jewish apocryphas. The best part is that he quoted about ALL SCRIPTURES inspired by God in the same chapter he relate the story of Jannes and Jambres.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

The only obvious conclusion is that Paul NEVER mentions or include the Gospels or the Epistles as the ALL SCRIPTURES.

No that would be only your biased conclusion that doesn't consider the value of his Epistles and Gospels that fit the perfect definition. Through St. Paul's ministry and leadership, Church also came to be what it is today, his epistles and Gospels were used in battling many issues, thanks to his own words, ALL SCRIPTURES are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness... Church used this.

He would probably have mention the coming of new scriptures to include the scriptures that Timothy knew as a child - Paul certainly did not do that.

That we might not know, neither Christians nor you. St. Paul's ministry was not over paper and pen only but also missionary trips, we might not know what he talked to his disciples on this. You can certainly NOT require him to have written his epistles in a certain way so you are satisfied.

But you cannot dismiss that Paul believe in Jewish apocryphas. The best part is that he quoted about ALL SCRIPTURES inspired by God in the same chapter he relate the story of Jannes and Jambres.

So, according to your logic, it is ok to include Jewish apocrypha in ALL SCRIPTURES but not with NT. That is one dishonest biased position that only serves you. Just remember, St. Paul was an extraordinary man who was baptized in the Spirit.

In the first place, the fact that the names of the magicians that opposed Moses are not recorded in the Old Testament does not mean that they were unknown. There are many instances in the ancient record of antagonists whose names were not mentioned explicitly. There certainly is no literary rationale that would demand such.


The fact is, however, there are references to these names in the literature of antiquity. Albert Pietersma has noted that the two names “appear frequently in Jewish, Christian, and pagan sources extant in Arabic, Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, Latin Old and Middle English, and Syriac” (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, New York: Doubleday, 1992, Vol. 3, p. 638).


Since Paul had a broad education in both Hebrew tradition (Galatians 1:14), and in secular literature (cf. Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12), he might very well have supplied the names from his own reservoir of knowledge (Acts 26:24)—under the supervision of the Holy Spirit of course. It is not inconsistent with a lofty concept of inspiration that a sacred writer might incorporate information from various sources into his narration. This is the very point that Luke made in the opening remarks of his Gospel account regarding Jesus.

“Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto you in order, most excellent Theophilus, that you might know the certainty concerning the things wherein you were instructed” (Luke 1:1-3 ASV; emphasis supplied).
​

The participle rendered, “having traced,” carries the idea of “pursuing, or investigating a matter” (Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964, Vol. I, p. 215).


Professor Norval Geldenhuys, who taught at both Princeton and Cambridge, described Luke’s research as follows.

Through long periods (during his travels along with Paul and also at other times) he made thorough researches concerning the Gospel stories so that he was able to set forth the actual course of events. He collected and studied all available written renderings of words and works of Jesus; wherever the opportunity was presented to him he discussed the Gospel stories with persons who possessed firsthand knowledge concerning Him. . . ” (Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956, p. 53).
​

If then, the Spirit of God could guide Luke in the selection, organization, and recording of materials appropriate to his Gospel account, he similarly could have led Paul to incorporate the names of Jannes and Jambres into his letter to Timothy, from whatever source they were derived—be it oral or written.


Dr. Henry Thiessen once noted, regarding this particular point, that “the Holy Spirit supervised the selection of the materials to be used and the words to be employed in writing. [He] finally, preserved the authors from all error and from all omission” (H.C. Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949, p. 107).


The fact is, the names of Jannes and Jambres could have been revealed directly to the apostle, had God so chosen, though this may not be the most likely theory of what happened.


It simply is sufficient to say, it constitutes no problem that the names are not found in the Old Testament, but are present in Paul’s letter to Timothy.

 

[Ramona]

OK, that's enough.

Thread closed for review and could well remain so pending consensus.

Hallie