• 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!

Paul said so!

viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
  • Paul said so.
  • Paul is scripture.
  • 2 Timothy 3:16,17 -- which some insist was written by Paul -- tells us: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God.and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
  • Therefore, all of Paul "is given by inspiration of God.and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
  • Therefore ...
^ what could possibly be wrong with that?
Click to expand...

Logically impeccable. A self defeating claim from Paul side. Like the other 4, he did not think too much about logical consistency, as it seems.

Unless, of course, he did not expect that his words would become part of scripture. Which is obviously a serious possibility, unless he had some ego issues. In that case, shame on the ones who included him, and made him look silly.

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:
DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
  • Paul said so.
  • Paul is scripture.
  • 2 Timothy 3:16,17 -- which some insist was written by Paul -- tells us: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God.and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
  • Therefore, all of Paul "is given by inspiration of God.and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
  • Therefore ...
^ what could possibly be wrong with that?
Click to expand...

What are you trying to say? When Paul wrote that the only scripture anyone knew about was the OT scripture.
 
rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
I was specifically thinking of verses 1-7 about purifying skin infections and verse 33 on about purifying the houses of diseased people.
Click to expand...
These verses relate to the ceremonial cleansing of one who was cured of leprosy. That these things were done after one was cured of disease is shown at Luke 1:40-44, where Jesus directed a leper he had cured to make the offerings described at Leviticus 14:1-7.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
rusra02 said:
These verses relate to the ceremonial cleansing of one who was cured of leprosy. That these things were done after one was cured of disease is shown at Luke 1:40-44, where Jesus directed a leper he had cured to make the offerings described at Leviticus 14:1-7.
Click to expand...
That explanation doesn't work for the second section.
 
Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
Jayhawker Soule said:
  • Paul said so.
  • Paul is scripture.
  • 2 Timothy 3:16,17 -- which some insist was written by Paul -- tells us: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God.and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
  • Therefore, all of Paul "is given by inspiration of God.and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
  • Therefore ...
^ what could possibly be wrong with that?
Click to expand...

I believe there is nothing wrong with it. Paul was inspired to say that he was inspired. So it is not what Paul is saying but what the Holy Spirit is saying. Paul is simply the author although probably not doing the physical writing with his own hand.
 
Muffled

Muffled

Jesus in me
Brickjectivity said:
The word rendered 'Scripture' is the same as the word for 'Writing'. It is not limited to particular books, not to Paul's words or to Thucidides or to Buddha's. Consider this: There was a famous Christian (Irenaeus the disciple of John) who wrote a book Against Heresy without which we today would have little or no knowledge of a particular sect of gnosticism which he opposed. He said he wrote it because the best way to fight against a Heresy was simply to write down what it said. He did not fear that writing it would promote its spread. He believed as did Paul that all writing was profitable, given by inspiration of God. His opinion was to let the reader be the judge, and in harmony with him the writer of 2 Timothy 3:16 has declared all writing to be inspired by God. Its good to read and not just one book but many. Its just sense that Paul is stating, not a claim to be more inspired than other writers.
Click to expand...

II Cor 4:13 But having the same spirit of faith, according to that which is written, I believed, and therefore did I speak; we also believe, and therefore also we speak;
 
DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
  • Paul said so.
  • Paul is scripture.
  • 2 Timothy 3:16,17 -- which some insist was written by Paul -- tells us: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God.and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
  • Therefore, all of Paul "is given by inspiration of God.and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
  • Therefore ...
^ what could possibly be wrong with that?
Click to expand...

Common sense tells us that Paul's letter wasn't scripture when he wrote it. He was clearly referring to OT scripture because the NT didn't yet exist.

The Jews have always hated Paul. I can see you are no different.
 
DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
Given that you uncritically accept Paul's authorship, I see little reason to think your 'common sense' credible.
You know nothing of my attitude towards Paul.
Click to expand...

Well, whether or not you accept Paul's authorship does not matter. He wrote it and it's obvious. I'll not hear anything other than that.

Your attitude toward Paul is quite negative. That's obvious, too.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
DavidFirth said:
Your laughter changes nothing.
Click to expand...
Neither does such mildly comical yet truly pathetic comments as ...

DavidFirth said:
I'll not hear anything other than that.
Click to expand...

hear-no-evil-monkey.png
But let's focus on our points of agreement. So, for example, you and I apparently agree that the author of 2 Timothy was not referring to the Epistles, to Acts, to John, or to the Synoptics, and that to argue the inerrancy of these works by appeals to 2 Tim 3:14-16 is worthless. I appreciate your support.
 
Last edited:
DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
Neither does such mildly comical yet truly pathetic comments as ...



hear-no-evil-monkey.png
But let's focus on our points of agreement. So, for example, you and I apparently agree that the author of 2 Timothy was not referring to the Epistles, to Acts, to John, or to the Synoptics, and that to argue the inerrancy of these works by appeals to 2 Tim 3:14-16 is worthless. I appreciate your support.
Click to expand...

I don't apparently agree with you about anything. Let's get that straight up front. I do agree with the authorship of the NT according to the Roman Catholic Church.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top