“According to tradition...”

[Infinityloop]

Paul clearly did not regard the writings of all spiritual traditions as equally valid. He would not have contended to the truth of the Gospel if he did.

Correct, this is why quoting that verse (2 Timothy 3:16) is terrible as a defense of the 66 book Bible canon, rather antithetical to intentions. This is aside from how I did not scold Lisa for the circular reasoning (again) of using a quote in one book to prove itself.

 

[Infinityloop]

What makes Paul's and his writings authoritative?
What books did Paul regard as holy writ?
What books did Paul reject?

 

[Wigi]

Could very easily, the verse is not specific about anything. "all scripture" is a massive statement to make. It's conclusively not referring to the Bible itself (which took centuries to be actually canonized), and it's certainly not referring to his own epistle, nor does it specify it's speaking about the other epistles (since you mentioned 'letters').

It's pretty obvious that Paul talks about the Torah, the books of prophets and the Gospel.
Everything outside of that is called a fable, a philosophy or a false gospel.

"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ."
Colossians 2:8

Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.
1 Timothy 4:7

"Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth."
Titus 1:14

"I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ."
Galatians 1:6‭-‬7

When Paul talk about the scriptures, he never mentions something that is outside of the Bible we know.

"For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures"
1 Corinthians 15:3

 

[Infinityloop]

It's pretty obvious that Paul talks about the Torah, the books of prophets...

Finally SOMEONE got it

However he certainly does not refer to any canonization, nor do other earlier writers of various books (including the four "gospels" themselves), it was all quite loose until around the 3rd century.

For Torah (Pentateuch and MIshna) the biggest emphasis was the book of Deuteronomy itself, which is evidenced by quite a few passages back in the Old Testament.

As for Deuterocanonical texts: https://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanonical-books-new-testament/

In general the New Testament authors tend to, when directly quoting, only reference Isiah and the Psalms. Deuteronomy is often just paraphrased (although there are instances in John's gospel of direct quotation).

Outside of that, there is no real certainty without either being ignorant ("ah, dunno, I'll just believe anything") or being wise (turning to the tradition of Christianity closest to it's original canonization to place authority there).

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Finally SOMEONE got it

However he certainly does not refer to any canonization, nor do other earlier writers of various books (including the four "gospels" themselves), it was all quite loose until around the 3rd century.

For Torah (Pentateuch and MIshna) the biggest emphasis was the book of Deuteronomy itself, which is evidenced by quite a few passages back in the Old Testament.

As for Deuterocanonical texts: https://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanonical-books-new-testament/

In general the New Testament authors tend to, when directly quoting, only reference Isiah and the Psalms. Deuteronomy is often just paraphrased (although there are instances in John's gospel of direct quotation).

Outside of that, there is no real certainty without either being ignorant ("ah, dunno, I'll just believe anything") or being wise (turning to the tradition of Christianity closest to it's original canonization to place authority there).

So you would conclude, against the face value of 2 Peter 3:16 that Peter did not regard Paul’s letters as being on a par with the other scriptures?

 

[Infinityloop]

So you would conclude, against the face value of 2 Peter 3:16 that Peter did not regard Paul’s letters as being on a par with the other scriptures?

No, it doesn't imply that, that verse after all is talking about people distorting messages (hence also implying that people can't even understand Paul's writings on their own, which is quite ironic). The verse does not substantiate that the writer of 2nd Peter regarded Paul's writings as being what Christians think it is. It's ambiguous.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Does the Bible claim to be God’s Word?

An interesting article on scriptural authority...


Does the New Testament Claim to Be the Word of God?

God’s revelation to humanity was not finished with the Old Testament. The New Testament also claims to be God’s Word to the human race. The evidence is as follows:

Jesus’ Words Were Given by God the Father
When Jesus prayed to God the Father on the night that He was betrayed, He said that His words were the words that God the Father had given Him. He said:

For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. (John 17:8 TNIV)

Thus Jesus testified to the divine origin of His Words. The consistent theme in the ministry of Jesus was that His words were actually the words of God the Father. There is something else. These words were accepted as true by Jesus’ apostles. They believed that the words of Jesus were the words of God.

The Words of Jesus Were True

Jesus also affirmed that God’s Word is true in all that it says. As He was about to be betrayed, He prayed to God the Father:

Set them apart in the truth; your word is truth. (John 17:17 NET)

His words were always true.

Jesus’ Words Are Eternal

Jesus said His words were everlasting: He made the incredible claim that His words would never pass away. He said:

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Matthew 24:35 KJV)

It is interesting to note that His claim has been literally fulfilled; His words are still with us to this day.

Jesus Said There Were More Authoritative Words to Come

Jesus stated plainly that more revelation was to come after He left this world. On the night of His betrayal, He said the following to His disciples:

I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. (John 16:12TNIV)

From this statement we discover that Jesus would leave unfinished the revelation of God’s truth to humanity. This opened the door for God to reveal a “New” Testament to the world.

God’s Word Was Given Through Human Beings

As was true with the Old Testament, God’s Word was conveyed through human instrumentation, but not through human wisdom. Paul wrote:

And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual. (1 Corinthians 2:13 NRSV)

The New King James Version reads:

These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (1 Corinthians 2:13 NKJV)

God used humans to convey His words.

The Words of the New Testament Writers Are the Words of God

The New Testament, like the Old Testament, claims to record the words of God. In what was probably the earliest letter of the Apostle Paul to a church, he wrote the following:

We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers. (1 Thessalonians 2:13 NRSV)

The words of Paul are equated with the words of God.

God’s Words Through the Writers Are Authoritative

The Word of God, as recorded in the New Testament, is presented as the final authority on all matters in which it speaks. Jesus said the following about His own words:

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63 NKJV)

Simon Peter acknowledged that only Jesus had the words of life. John records him saying the following:

But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68 NKJV)

The words of Jesus carried ultimate authority.

God’s Words Are Expected to Be Obeyed

When certain people spoke the words of God, the Scripture tells us that the people were expected to obey their words. The words in which they spoke were ultimately God’s Words ? He was the source of what they said. Paul wrote:

If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 14:37 NKJV)

Because they were God’s words, they carried His divine authority.

Conclusion: the New Testament Is God’s Word

Like the Old Testament, the New Testament claims to record the Word of God to humanity. This is the clear teaching of each of the two testaments; it is not something that the church later decided. This being the case, the claims made need to be taken seriously.

The Statement That the Bible Is God’s Word Needs to Be Clarified

There is a clarification that we need to make. When we say that the Bible is the Word of God, it does not mean that God spoke everything that is recorded in its pages. The Bible also contains the words of hundreds of different men and women. What the Bible claims for itself is that it is a true account of what these people actually said. Those people who were speaking for God had God’s authority behind their words.

However, some individuals, who did not speak for God, also had their words recorded. While their words are part of Holy Scripture, they do not have God’s divine authority behind them. Their words are not to be understood as infallible truth from God. The context makes it clear whether a person is speaking for God or whether that Scripture is merely recording the non-authoritative words of someone. It is crucial that we make this distinction.

Source

 

[Mr.Anderson]

Aren't scriptures a written form of tradition tho?

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Aren't scriptures a written form of tradition tho?

That’s an interesting one... you might conclude that Genesis for example is the written record of information passed down to a degree by oral tradition. This doesn’t mean that it is inaccurate, but it is clear that Moses was not there before the Flood ;-)

 

[phipps]

There is a lot of tradition that we follow today within Christendom and in society that has no relationship whatsoever to do with the Bible and Bible truth. Not all tradition is bad. Traditions that are in harmony with God’s Word are to be respected. "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

But tradition that has been accepted in the Christian Church that has nothing to do with the Bible, those traditions are not pleasing to God. "And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition" (Mark 7:7-9).

As Christians we have to ask ourselves if we are being as biblical as we can be, as biblical as God wants us to be, or are there some things we are incorporating into our Christian experiences that really have no basis in the word of God. An example would be Sunday worship. Most Christians worship on Sunday as the Sabbath but its the wrong day and many Christians don't know that. When the truth is pointed out to some of them, many give excuses such as, "That is the Jewish Sabbath. We've got a new Christian Sabbath now." The thing is nowhere in the Bible, are you going to find a change from Saturday, the Saturday Sabbath to Sunday. That happened post Biblical era when the church compromised with paganism.

We have to ask ourselves, are we willing and are we ready to give up whatever tradition that may be that isn't Biblical, to follow God's truth? The Bible says, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4).
Let's pray that God gives us hearts to live by every word that proceeds from His Mouth.

 

[TokiEl]

As Christians we have to ask ourselves if we are being as biblical as we can be, as biblical as God wants us to be, or are there some things we are incorporating into our Christian experiences that really have no basis in the word of God. An example would be Sunday worship. Most Christians worship on Sunday as the Sabbath but its the wrong day and many Christians don't know that. When the truth is pointed out to some of them, many give excuses such as, "That is the Jewish Sabbath. We've got a new Christian Sabbath now." The thing is nowhere in the Bible, are you going to find a change from Saturday, the Saturday Sabbath to Sunday. That happened post Biblical era when the church compromised with paganism.

There was a group of people who were so concerned with the sanctity of the sabbath that they even quarreled over it with the Lord of the sabbath. And as history repeats itself a group of people is back bickering about the sanctity of the sabbath again.

Some people never ever learn.

 

[MoDc]

It's just impossible to actually be Bible-only because you will inevitably

My question is , why did God initially choose to reveal himself only to one tiny group of nomads? Who seemingly have know idea of the world outside of their limited region? What kind of supreme being does that?

 

[TokiEl]

My question is , why did God initially choose to reveal himself only to one tiny group of nomads? Who seemingly have know idea of the world outside of their limited region? What kind of supreme being does that?

God revealed himself to the 8 survivors of the Flood. And 10 generations later to Abraham Isaac and Jacob whose line God would be born into to pay the price for sins and so save penitents past present and future from the wages of sin which is death of the soul.

 

[Lisa]

What book is he talking about? you still haven't answered that
(it said "scriptures" too, not "one book is inspired by God")



Where does it teach this in the Bible?

We have 66 books that make up the Bible...it’s those books that God has inspired. He has not inspired any other book like the quran, the Book of Mormon or the book you posted. Scripture is confined to the books of the Bible.

It is common sense that God is talking about His book the Bible as other books are not part of it and are from false religions.

 

[Todd]

Aren't scriptures a written form of tradition tho?

Some are, some are not. For example the epistles in the New Testament that were written by the Apostles in Jerusalem (I'm excluding Paul here) were establishing the precepts of a new covenant and sect of the Hebrew Religion. There was nothing traditional about their writing at all.

 

[Todd]

We have 66 books that make up the Bible...it’s those books that God has inspired.

How do you know that? How do you know that God has not inspired anyone to write something since the last book of the Bible was written?

 

[Artful Revealer]

I can't stress enough the correct reading of the Greek:

πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος

pasa graphē theopneustos

theopneustos: God-breathed, inspired by God.

Therefore:

2 Tim 3
16 All scripture, inspired of God, ...

Not "All scripture is inspired of God."

Not taken into account, this leads to arguing the wrong logical consequences.

 

[Mr.Anderson]

Some are, some are not. For example the epistles in the New Testament that were written by the Apostles in Jerusalem (I'm excluding Paul here) were establishing the precepts of a new covenant and sect of the Hebrew Religion. There was nothing traditional about their writing at all.

Yep. Deuteronomy, ecclesiastes and numbers were clearly written records. But I Always wondered about books like exodus, the story of Elijah and some others. I'm not discussing if they were inspired or not, just how someone actually sit down and wrote them

 

[Todd]

Yep. Deuteronomy, ecclesiastes and numbers were clearly written records. But I Always wondered about books like exodus, the story of Elijah and some others. I'm not discussing if they were inspired or not, just how someone actually sit down and wrote them

Did Elijah tell his story to others and they passed it on and eventually it was written down or did God inspire someone and God himself told the author the story? Good question. There are parts of Elijah's story when he is alone, meaning there could be no first hand witness except Elijah himself.

 

[JoChris]

Yep. Deuteronomy, ecclesiastes and numbers were clearly written records. But I Always wondered about books like exodus, the story of Elijah and some others. I'm not discussing if they were inspired or not, just how someone actually sit down and wrote them

If writers in the New Testament quote them/ give explanations of their teachings/ give them as examples for Christians to follow, doesn't that mean their books are inspired too?

e.g. faith chapter does just that. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11&version=KJV

Mainstream Christian viewpoint https://bibleask.org/who-wrote-the-first-five-books-of-the-bible/

There are scholars who always like to make controversial claims to make their mark on the world. Mainstream media love them, publicize them at every opportunity then keep very quiet when other scholars disprove the controversial scholar's work.