-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What were the scriptures Paul was referring to?
- Thread starter Youtellme
- Start date
Faithfreedom
i gotta change my avatar
Definitely the OT as he was brought up on them.
Does that mak ethe NT un-inspired?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
First of all, and perhaps most importantly, Paul did not write 2 Timothy - it came much, much later than the Pauline epistles.
I don't know why 2 Tim 3:16 says this, but its almost certain that it refers to the OT - cheifly because the NT writings were not yet collected and considered "Scripture."
Faithfreedom
i gotta change my avatar
Nope, i was just saying that its a sure bet that Paul would have at least the OT in mind since he was brought up in them. He was a zealot.
Peter groups Paul's letters with the Scriptures.
". . .(Paul's) letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Pet 3:16)
Yes, thanks for that, I was going to mention that at some point.
And Paul says that his doctrine. . .even his words. . .and his authority are from Jesus Christ.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
... but was he right?
Peter thought so. He groups Paul's letter with the other Scriptures.
That he was right is a matter of faith, of whether you believe what the Bible says. . .or in this case, whether Paul was lying or not
when he says his doctrine, even its words, and his authority are all from Christ.
Last edited:
Smoke
Done here.
Whether he was right or not, presenting his own claims as "proof" of his claims requires tremendous gullibility and intellectual dishonesty.
Not if they're true. . .the other apostles believed him.
The proof he offered was his revelation from Jesus Christ, which the apostles accepted and approved.
Christian truth is based in the authority of the revelator, not in logical proof. . .nor is it subject to human logic and reasoning.
What kind of God is limited to human thinking? That would make him much too small to be God.
Last edited:
Ben Masada
Well-Known Member
IMHO, he needed to let that statement go because, when he appeared for the first time in Jerusalem preaching about Jesus as Christ, son of God, and that he had resurrected, he was chased upon to be arrested and brought to Court. He escaped only by the grace of the Sect of the Nazarenes, whose Elders took him down to Caesarea, and from there back to Tarsus where he belonged. (Acts 9:30,31)
Ben
That would be the OT.
Peter groups Paul's letters with Scripture.
Seems the Apostles viewed their transmissions as new Scripture.
And since believing the apostolic testimony of the NT is a matter of faith and not proof anyway, one either believes it or not.
For those who believe it, its truth is not a matter of debate.
Nadia Faiazova
Member
Hi! Evidently, Paul was referring to the Scriptures Jews were used to learn from . And this includes the writings of the Christian Greek Scriptures along with the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Pet. 3:15, 16)
I must disagree. Most of Shaul's teaching was based on OT and that is what Peter is saying hear. They twist Shaul's teaching on Tanakh verses just like they twist the other verses included in Tanakh.