Greg Koukl - 2 Timothy 3:16

Taken from our blog, Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason answers the question "Does 2 Timothy 3:16 refer to itself and the New Testament or is it referring to the Old Testament only?" For more information, visit http://www.str.org.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• greg
• koukl
• str
• stand
• reason
• christianity
• bible

[cmitchrunner]

@YouAreIsrael Thank you for the correction. I had made an asumption from when Paul stated that he was trained in the strictest sect (( I have no reference off the top of my head) I'll get that in a bit) in...oh, here we go... Acts 26:5. I had thought that to be a pharisee that Paul would have been a Levite. Was I way off on that? Being Gentile I'm not versed well in the tradition but prefer not to misrepresent anyone if it is avoidable.

[YouAreIsrael]

It's amazing to me that Christians generally ignore 2 Timothy 3:16 when it comes to the seventh-day sabbath!

[YouAreIsrael]

@cmitchrunner - Paul was a Benjamite, not a Levite. See Romans 11:1

[cmitchrunner]

...messianic prophecies. At any rate people who where called by God and wrote of Him was the standard in his(Paul"s) time. Paul (being called by Jesus on the road) and the other Apostles (being selected by Jesus by hand) would have their writing recognized as scripture. It's not ESP...it's just reasoning. If we had untainted and complete writings ( or comparable copies ) of Thomas' or Philip's or Andrew's then Paul would have assumed these to be scripture since they were written by Jesus' select

[cmitchrunner]

gCuezy,

I'm not sure who voted you down. I guess some people aren't fans. Of course I can't speak for Paul but he may have reasoned that anything written by the Apostles would become Scripture. Canonization is what the Church used to identify scripture early in it modern infancy...but the Judists recognized scripture by accurate prophecies (siting it's author as true prophets of God) or other narratives that reflect history that revealed God's will (i.e. Ruth or Job) even these posessed ...

[gCuezy]

Sorry I never saw this response... I'm not asking HOW Paul knew the scriptures from childhood, I'm pointing out that the scriptures in question CANNOT be the new testament books IF he "knew the scriptures from his childhood." Unless you give him some sort of ESP or some Ad Hoc explanation about him knowing the future scriptures (which were canonized by the Church MUCH later).

[serrano59]

Can you put up the volume please / the audio is to low.

[cmitchrunner]

Aaah now I see. You make a good question. It may be that Paul didn't refer to his own writings as Scripture, thinking them only as letters of instruction for believers. But rather the Holy Spirit working through Paul causes the "sacredness" of these writings to transcend the boundries of Saul/Paul's life time...from conception to death.

[cmitchrunner]

Paul may have recognized that other records of Jesus' life (i.e. Gospel of Matthew or Mark) may be recognized as scripture or perhaps some of the letters from the original apostles like Peter. Greg kinda points out that Paul may be giving new writings of others as scripture and later in Peters letter Paul gets the same "nod".

[cmitchrunner]

If I am not mistaken Paul was originally part of the Levitical Priesthood and was known as Saul at that time. Being a Levite means that he was a direct decendent of Levi one of the 12 sons of Jacob. That blood line was identified in the Books of Moses as the people who would not gain land in Canaan but rather The Lord God Jehovah as their inheritance from God. They would serve God as ministers for the people of Israel. Of that lineage, decendents from Aaron would serve as priests and scribes.