Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: smithjh@argus.CS.ORST.EDU (Jeremy Smith) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: God-breathed scripture (was--Re: St Paul and Women) Message-ID: Date: 27 May 91 03:04:24 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Oregon State University -- Math Department Lines: 62 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article jb104@prism.gatech.edu (Jamie Tarasidis) writes: >In article smithjh@argus.CS.ORST.EDU (Jeremy Smith) writes: >>The scripture is "God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for >>reproof(testing), for instruction in righteousness." Unless the Holy > >At the time this verse was written, the "scripture" consisted only of >our Old Testament. The New Testament canon was not decided upon until >later. You may believe that the same is true for the New Testament verses >which you quoted, but this verse does not refer to them. It would be better >to simply state your belief that the New Testament books are God-breathed, >instead of substantiating it with a verse which does not apply. > 1) In Paul's first letter to Timothy 5:18 we have: "For the scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,' and 'the labourer is worthy of his wages.'" The part about the ox is from Deuteronomy 25:4. The labourer part is a quotation from Luke 10:7 and Matthew 10:10. Thus we have Paul referring to scripture not in the Old Testament. 2) Of course i'm assuming both Old and New Testaments are God-breathed. If I assume one verse is God-breathed to prove that another is God- breathed, i'm really just assuming both are God-breathed. I do not know the difference between saying something is God-breathed and saying it is scripture. Graf8 is accepted by Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich as essentially meaning prophetic writing. I do not know of scriptural basis for differentiating between prophetic writing on the basis when it was written(i.e. before, during, or after Paul). What is the difference in assuming either New or Old Testament writings to be authentic(God-breathed)? 3) Here is some evidence that Paul's letters are God-Breathed. a) Paul is an apostle, i.e. a messenger of God. This implies that he says and does the things that God would do. Thus what Paul says, unless otherwise stated, can be considered a message from God. b) Paul considered his letters authentic and important enough to have them used as a test such that if so-called brothers ignored his letters, they should be admonished. See 2nd Thessalonians chapter 3 (similar to the reproof stated in IITimothy 3:16). Of course this is evidence only if you already assume the Bible to be the word of God. Peace and Grace to the Saints! Jeremy Smith [Note that "the laborer is worthy of his wages" may well be related to Deut 24:14. I'm not disputing it as a reference to Luke: clearly the passage is quoted in Luke's form rather than the Deut's, but it's possible that Jesus was alluding to Deut, and in that case that the quotation is called Scripture for that reason. I don't suggest this as the most likely interpretation, as I'm inclined to agree with you that Luke is being cited as "Writings", but I thought it at least worth pointing out the possibility. --clh]