The Circle Dance: Trotting Out Tired Old Timothy ... (tradition, Epistles)

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is near impossible to engage in Biblical debate for any length of time without someone dredging up 2 Timothy 3:16

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

as if such an appeal was anything other than worthless. This is particularly absurd when those like AV1611 seek to buttress 1 Corinthians written by Paul with a vapid and irrelevant claim which he would no doubt argue was also written by Paul. The apologetic therefore reduces to:

A) "Paul is to be believed because Paul says that Scripture is inspired by God".

Clearly, there can be few more obvious examples of circulus in demonstrando.

But the problem doesn't stop here. In fact, no one is quite sure who wrote 2 Timothy. The Catholic New American Bible, in its Introduction to 1 Timothy, notes:

From the late second century to the nineteenth, Pauline authorship of the three Pastoral Epistles went unchallenged. Since then, the attribution of these letters to Paul has been questioned. Most scholars are convinced that Paul could not have been responsible for the vocabulary and style, the concept of church organization, or the theological expressions found in these letters. A second group believes, on the basis of statistical evidence, that the vocabulary and style are Pauline, even if at first sight the contrary seems to be the case. They state that the concept of church organization in the letters is not as advanced as the questioners of Pauline authorship hold since the notion of hierarchical order in a religious community existed in Israel before the time of Christ, as evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Finally, this group sees affinities between the theological thought of the Pastorals and that of the unquestionably genuine letters of Paul. Other scholars, while conceding a degree of validity to the positions mentioned above, suggest that the apostle made use of a secretary who was responsible for the composition of the letters. A fourth group of scholars believes that these letters are the work of a compiler, that they are based on traditions about Paul in his later years, and that they include, in varying amounts, actual fragments of genuine Pauline correspondence.

If Paul is considered the more immediate author, the Pastorals are to be dated between the end of his first Roman imprisonment (Acts 28:16) and his execution under Nero (A.D. 63-67); if they are regarded as only more remotely Pauline, their date may be as late as the early second century. In spite of these problems of authorship and dating, the Pastorals are illustrative of early Christian life and remain an important element of canonical scripture.

So, the apologetic further reduces to:

B) "Paul is to be believed because some unknown apologist says that Scripture is inspired by God."

But, wait: what's inspired by God? Scripture? What could be meant by 'scripture' (i.e., 'graphe')? Thayer's Lexicon makes clear that the term refers to "the sacred books (of the O.T.)" - i.e., the Tanach!

And so we are left with ...

C) "Paul is to be believed because some unknown apologist says that the Old Testament books are inspired by God".

And that is about as worthless and as inane an argument as one can imagine - a circle dance which truly leads nowhere.

[Darkdale]

Christianity, like all other religions, is a religion of faith, myth, superstition and tradition. Why non-Christians should concern themselves with the arguments of Christians is beyond me. It would seem to me that our religions are our own. What is the point in debating the dogma of religions that are not our own? What business is it of ours what traditions and dogmas others cling to?

You are a naturalist? Naturally you must wonder how in the world anyone could be so superstitious in the first place. Maybe the world is mad and all the gods are illusions. Maybe we're just a really crazy specie. Or not. Who knows?

[Snowbear]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

It is near impossible to engage in Biblical debate for any length of time without someone dredging up 2 Timothy 3:16...

So why do you? It's obviously frustrating for you

[michel]

I understand what you are saying Deut; The 'defender's notes don't help either.

"All scripture," every individual "scripture," is included in this reference, not just the thoughts but the actual writings, the words written down. Thus, the words are inspired of God. This one verse repudiates the idea of partial inspiration and also that of so-called dynamic inspiration. The true doctrine is plenary verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Since God is omniscient, the Scriptures are, therefore, infallible and free from error of any kind.
"Given by inspiration of God" is all one word in the Greek, theopneustos, meaning God-breathed. This word refutes any idea of human inspiration such as a poet or musician might claim. The Scriptures, by whatever particular methods God may have used in their various parts, including the individual human abilities and researches of the various human writers (whose abilities He had created and whose researches He had guided), as they finally came from their Spirit-guided minds and pens, are in effect God-breathed.
"Doctrine" is the same word as "teachings." All that the Bible teaches is true and profitable for study.
"Reproof" means "conviction" or "evidence" (as the word is translated in Hebrews 11:1). The Scriptures, themselves, give abundant internal evidence of their own divine inspiration.
"Correction" means "setting right." This is the only occurrence of this particular word (Greek epanorthosis) in the New Testament.
"Instruction" (Greek padeia) is translated "nurture" in Ephesians 6:4 and "chastening" in Hebrews 12:5,7,11. The Scriptures not only teach doctrine but also provide evidence of their truth, correction of any mistaken notions, and then any needed conviction and discipline warranted for our training as babes in Christ.


I suppose it comes down to the one word: Faith.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Snowbear

So why do you?

I didn't. I was responding to its use in a concurrent thread. Given that, do you have anything relevant to say, or do you prefer to simply limit yourself to vapid sarcasm written above a signature that says "Be nice"?

[Snowbear]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

I didn't. I was responding to its use in a concurrent thread. Given that, do you have anything relevant to say, or do you prefer to simply limit yourself to vapid sarcasm written above a signature that says "Be nice"?

Actually, I was asking why you continue to engage in the biblical debates that ultimately end up frustrating you.

But.... vapid sarcasm is more my style....

[blueman]

Then where does scripture get its inspiration? From man? Even the most hardened skeptic would have to acknowledge that scripture, especially the New Testament Gospels, that it would have been pretty far-fetched in men conspiring to make up stories or legend that they would be willing to die for. It just doesn't make any sense to die for a lie does it? I think that scripture was God-ordained and inspired. The authors of scripture would not all be willing to sacrifice their lives for a fraud.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by blueman

It just doesn't make any sense to die for a lie does it? I think that scripture was God-ordained and inspired.

That is a rather stupid argument. Feel free to pursue it in its own thread. But first, since your soul is at stake, you might wish to focus your efforts on embracing the Book of Mormon - if only because of the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

*** NOTE FROM MODERATOR *** Deut: I know this is your thread. That's the only reason I didn't delete this post. However, since It is encouraging debate on an entirely unrelated topic, I have addressed the problem by deleting all of the responses to it.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Scott1

Defender's notes was not clear enough for ya?

Actually no, it was not. There are, however, quoting mechanism that work quite well.