While having a chat with Henk Wouters this morning, it just dawned on me that when the writer of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 wrote "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." he was talking of the "bible" canon of his time; AKA the Old Testament.
He was writing a letter and not Scripture in his own view and therefore wouldn't have included all the other letters floating about between the churches.
We now, after the event, have taken all these letters and included it into his known Scripture and these new letters we call the New Testament. All these books are now taken as Scripture and therefore for good.
Wouldn't that be adding to the Word in the strictest sense, something that we have been warned about during that same period of time?
I'm not saying that the New Testament must be rejected, but realize that we should understand it as people's interpretation of Scripture and not Scripture itself. Does that make sense or am I missing the boat completely here?
#newtestament #2timothy #bible
TTN Music 
TTN Ads 
raphaelmalachi
Delete Comment
Are you sure that you want to delete this comment ?
Mark Price
Mainstream Christians will take misunderstandings of the Apostle Paul's writing and interpret the entire Bible through Paul. This is the wrong approach because letters are meant to address specific people in specific circumstances which may or may not apply to us.
I'm not sure how to express this, but I think that different parts of the Scriptures have different purposes. The first 5 books of Moses are very important because that is where all the laws are. The Gospels and Acts of the Apostles are also important because it contains the teachings of Yeshua and other historically relevant information. But unless they are addressing specific Torah laws, I think that the letters should be treated as secondary to the Torah and the Gospels.
Delete Comment
Are you sure that you want to delete this comment ?
David Martin
Plus, what we’ve agreed upon as Scripture is basically just documents we regard as inspired by God and critical for sound doctrine and faith. So we can regard something as being inspired by God but not necessarily something to be canonized for every believer everywhere.
I think everything in our Bible’s today is important and God preserved it for a reason. I’m willing to consider other books mentioned by Scripture too (Enoch, Jasher, etc). But highly discourage believers from going down the trail of “Well I don’t understand this book of the Bible so clearly it’s wrong and I’m right”.
Delete Comment
Are you sure that you want to delete this comment ?
Caleb Lussier
We’ve already had the conversation about Christianity adopting the late pagan Anglo-Saxon term “God” to replace Elohim, so I won’t reiterate (you can study that or not as you wish). But “Scripture” is just as much anachronistic here, though substantially less pagan. Scripture is an anglicized Latin word Scriptura which is what was used in this verse in the Vulgate version. It was penned in place of “Graphe” in Greek and simply refers to something written. Over time principally due to this passage the word Scripture gained the understanding of divinely inspired writing rather than simply something written. In that time a grocery list or a love letter or a public notice was Scriptura. Simply because it was something written. We apply later view to it if we call Nehemia “Scripture” and “Jasher” not scripture. Though Jasher is a clear and apparent medieval forgery it’s never the less written and therefore scripture in the sense that it was written in the old days. Something written. Not necessarily something true or inspired fatidically.
Contextually, Sha’ul likely would have said Ketuvim rather than graphe or Scriptura and would have been referring to the Torah and the Prophets collectively as The Writings.
It is not to say that is written is divinely given nor to say that anything the disciples wrote is divinely given. Neither is it denigrating them. It is simple not addressing them at all, as you noted per the OP. But it’s not adding to The Writings. The NT is simply commentary and explanation of The Writings and of the completion of the prophecies of The Writings fulfilled in Yeshua.
Delete Comment
Are you sure that you want to delete this comment ?
M S
Delete Comment
Are you sure that you want to delete this comment ?
Henk Wouters
now those traditions were rightly rejected as being incorrect, in the same way (presuming you agree with this) a cheeseburger being unkosher is rejected.
point i'm making is all traditions of men are anathema.
to the texts.
the Torah is indeed the Law, but it is also Genesis, which talks of why the Law needed to be given, but the Law was also given to be implemented in the promised land, the feast of tabernacles pointing to that, et al.
so the Torah itself is not the complete story. thus came the rest of the books, covering the occurrences in the promised land. but this was not israel's most successful time, which the Torah had also forespelled, leading to the exile.
but Genesis had already started to talk of the need and the coming of the Messiah, and so the prophecies were written, giving hope and foreboding.
thus ends the Tanahk. as of yet an incomplete story.
now the israelites did their work, determining amongst all that was written which scriptures were inspired by the Father for sure, maybe, and definitely not, and gave shape to the Tanahk.
then came the Messiah, only, also as prophesied, to be rejected by (the majority of) His own, and to depart, as of yet to return. still an incomplete story.
and so gospels were written, and the story of the spread of the gospel to the gentiles (also prophesied) too. then came letters of clarification and exhortation, and lastly of prophecy.
and now the followers of the Messiah did their work, determining amongst all that was written which writings were in turn inspired by the Father for sure, maybe, and definitely not, giving shape to the NT.
not much of the way the Tanahk came to be is known, but a quite a bit of the way the NT came to be is known.
if, because you have knowledge of how the NT came to be, you doubt it's authenticity (regarding being inspired), would you also doubt the authenticity of the Tanahk, or even the Torah, if you had knowledge of how they came to be?
for myself, if i were to think like this i automatically nullify the old writings too. for it was men who wrote them. and men who said they're inspired.
so at a certain stage one has to contemplate the influence (inspiration) of the Father in all this. and place one's trust in Him.
Delete Comment
Are you sure that you want to delete this comment ?