What is the new testament anyway?

[mikeuk]

Just an interesting observation.

The words translated as testament and covenant are interchangeable in meaning.
The only place "new testament" occurs in scripture is in respect of the last supper when jesus says.
"this is the new covenant(testament) in my blood, do this in memory of me"

Notice he says, "do this", not write this or preach this, indeed few disciples went onto write surviving testimony,
it was an unambiguous instruction to "do this".

So long before the new testament was a book documenting the new covenant,
( even the pauline epistles were years after they began to celebrate this , the new testament book still centuries away).
It was from the first an instruction to the faithful to "do this" to commemorate the new passover sacrifice for which christ was now both the lamb and celebrant, the instruction handed on by word of mouth.

Both jesus refusal to compromise on the meaning of flesh and blood at the synagogue at capernaum and Pauls writings later, teach us this was not just symbolic. A clear instruction at the heart of the new covenant.

An Interesting reflection on history.
Raising the importance of communion perhaps, to make it central not peripheral to worship.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

It's the new wine.

Luke 5:37-39[SUP]37 [/SUP]And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
[SUP]38 [/SUP]But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
[SUP]39 [/SUP]No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

 

[mahrous]

hey iam mahrous niceto meet you

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

hey iam mahrous niceto meet you

Hey Mahrous, greetings and nice to meet u 2.

 

[Hizikyah]

It was about Isayah 53 and this;

Hebrews 7:11-12, "Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."
Strong's Concordance
3331 - metathesis
metathesis: a change, removal
Original Word: μετάθεσις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: metathesis
Phonetic Spelling: (met-ath'-es-is)
Short Definition:change, transformation, removal
Definition: (a) change, transformation, (b) removal.

Greek Word Study (Transliteration-Pronunciation Etymology & Grammar)

1) transfer: from one place to another 2) to change 2a) of things instituted or established
—Thayer's (New Testament Greek-English Lexicon)

From G3346; transposition, that is, transferral (to heaven), disestablishment (of a law):—change, removing, translation.

Strong's Concordance
3346 - metatithemi
metatithemi: I transfer, desert, change
Original Word: μετατίθημι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: metatithemi
Phonetic Spelling: (met-at-ith'-ay-mee)
Short Definition: I transfer, desert, change
Definition: (a) I transfer, mid: I go over to another party, desert, (b) I change.

Greek Word Study (Transliteration-Pronunciation Etymology & Grammar)


1) to transpose (two things, one of which is put in place of the other)
1a) to transfer
1b) to change
1c) to transfer one's self or suffer one's self to be transferred
1c1) to go or pass over
1c2) to fall away or desert from one person or thing to another

—Thayer's (New Testament Greek-English Lexicon)
From G3326 and G5087; to transfer, that is, (literally) transport, (by implication) exchange, (reflexively) change sides, or (figuratively) pervert:—carry over, change, remove, translate, turn.

The Perfect Priest!;

Hebrews 4:1-15, "Seeing then that we have a great High Priest Who has ascended into the heavens: Yahshua the Son of Yahweh, let us hold fast our profession. For we do not have a High Priest Who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all ways tempted as we are--yet was without sin."

Hebrews 9:11-12, "But the Messiah came near as a High Priest over the righteous things to come, with the great and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation;Nor through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once, for all, having obtained eternal redemption."

For it was written long before it happened:

Psalm 89:26-37, "He will call out to Me; You are my Father, O Yahweh! You are the Rock of my salvation! And I will make Him My firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy I will keep for Him forever and My covenant will stand fast with Him. And I will establish his Seed forever, and his throne will be as the days of heaven. Should his children forsake My Law, and refuse to walk in My judgments; Should they profane My statutes, and fail to keep My commandments; Then I will punish their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with lashes from the whip. Nevertheless, My lovingkindness I will not utterly withdraw from him, nor will I ever betray My faithfulness. My covenant I will not break, nor will I change what that has gone out of My lips. Once for all, I have vowed by My holiness--I cannot lie, and I say to David: His Seed will endure forever, and his throne will endure before Me like the sun. His throne will be established forever like the moon: the faithful witness in the sky."


Psalm 89:26-37, "...My covenant will stand fast with Him...My covenant I will not break, nor will I change what that has gone out of My lips. Once for all, I have vowed by My holiness--I cannot lie..."

 

[Elin]

Just an interesting observation.

The words translated as testament and covenant are interchangeable in meaning.
The only place "new testament" occurs in scripture is in respect of the last supper when jesus says. "this is the new covenant(testament) in my blood, do this in memory of me"

Hi, guy,

The Greek word, diatheke, is translated both "covenant" and "testament."

"Testament" also occurs in 1Co 11:25; 2Co 3:6, 14; Heb 7:22, 9:15, 16, 17, 20.

Notice he says, "do this", not write this or preach this, indeed few disciples went onto write surviving testimony,
it was an unambiguous instruction to "do this".

He told them to "Do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." (1Co 11:25)

So long before the new testament was a book documenting the new covenant,
( even the pauline epistles were years after they began to celebrate this , the new testament book
still centuries away).

The Canon was centuries away, but the NT writings of the apostles were not.

It was from the first an instruction to the faithful to "do this" to commemorate the new passover sacrifice for which christ was now both the lamb and celebrant, the instruction handed on by word of mouth.

Both jesus refusal to compromise on the meaning of flesh and blood at the synagogue at capernaum and Pauls writings later, teach us this was not just symbolic. A clear instruction at the heart of the new covenant.

An Interesting reflection on history.
Raising the importance of communion perhaps, to make it central not peripheral to worship.

You might like this.

 

[mikeuk]

Hi, guy,

The Greek word, diatheke, is translated both "covenant" and "testament."

"Testament" also occurs in 1Co 11:25; 2Co 3:6, 14; Heb 7:22, 9:15, 16, 17, 20.


He told them to "Do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." (1Co 11:25)


The Canon was centuries away, but the NT writings of the apostles were not.


You might like this.

Thanks for replying.

The parallels between the old testament and moses and the journey of jesus are remarkable.
From such as the message to joseph, about first born, the exodus, 40 day fast , to the delivery of a message on a mountain, with parallel to sermon on mount and so on...

Out of curiosity do you agree with the idea that the fourth cup of the new passover was "I thirst" leading to drink from a sponge of vinegar on cross? Then saying it is done so completing the passover meal?

 

[JesusistheChrist]

So long before the new testament was a book documenting the new covenant,
( even the pauline epistles were years after they began to celebrate this , the new testament book still centuries away).

The Bible contains internal evidence which heavily suggests, nay, shows, that at least some of the gospels were in circulation BEFORE Paul's epistles were.

 

[ISeeYou]

The Bible contains internal evidence which heavily suggests, nay, shows, that at least some of the gospels were in circulation BEFORE Paul's epistles were.

You showed this beautifully I thought

 

[mikeuk]

The Bible contains internal evidence which heavily suggests, nay, shows, that at least some of the gospels were in circulation BEFORE Paul's epistles were.

And also evidence against it, even the most optimistic dates put the order of a decade between the crucifixion and the earliest gospel text, more pessimistic dates put several decades there not least because of destruction of temple, which was still decades from the crucifixion, but that has no real bearing on the point I made,

- that the "new testament" is the covenant , an instruction to "do this" celebrate the "new passover"
- and they were doing it before it was committed to paper, for the most part handed down by word of mouth.
- and long before the "new testament" became the book we know today.

Just wondered how many knew the word "covenant" and "testament" were one and the same!
And the only reference to "new testament" is in the context of the last supper!

 

[Elin]

Thanks for replying.

The parallels between the old testament and moses and the journey of jesus are remarkable.
From such as the message to joseph, about first born, the exodus, 40 day fast , to the delivery of a message on a mountain, with parallel to sermon on mount and so on...

Out of curiosity do you agree with the idea that the fourth cup of the new passover was "I thirst" leading to drink from a sponge of vinegar on cross? Then saying it is done so completing the passover meal?

Well, actually, I'm not familiar with idea at all.

 

[mikeuk]

You showed this beautifully I thought

Sorry, JesusIs and IseeYou - where is the explanation on dates. Fascinating subject, am intereted.
Too late to edit the original post!

 

[mikeuk]

Well, actually, I'm not familiar with idea at all.

Will try and dig it up tomorrow! - Is getting late in the UK now!

 

[notuptome]

And also evidence against it, even the most optimistic dates put the order of a decade between the crucifixion and the earliest gospel text, more pessimistic dates put several decades there not least because of destruction of temple, which was still decades from the crucifixion, but that has no real bearing on the point I made,

- that the "new testament" is the covenant , an instruction to "do this" celebrate the "new passover"
- and they were doing it before it was committed to paper, for the most part handed down by word of mouth.
- and long before the "new testament" became the book we know today.

Just wondered how many knew the word "covenant" and "testament" were one and the same!
And the only reference to "new testament" is in the context of the last supper!

And all that does what for us exactly?

Do we take away from the blood that was shed on the cross and sprinkled in heaven to atone for our sins to celebrate a ritual? Is the ritual communion more important than the blood shed on the cross? Can a person be saved and have eternal life and never eat or drink of the communion elements in any church?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Sorry, JesusIs and IseeYou - where is the explanation on dates. Fascinating subject, am intereted.
Too late to edit the original post!

Hi, mike.

ISeeYou and I know each other from other forums, so she wasn't actually referring to something that I've addressed on this forum, but instead to that which I've addressed elsewhere. Anyhow, this is what we're talking about:

II Timothy chapter 3

[14] But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Early on in my Christian walk, I believed, erroneously, that when Paul wrote to Timothy of how "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" that he was referring ONLY to the Old Testament scriptures, but I've long since changed my mind in relation to the same. Before I document why I've changed my mind, my original erroneous belief was based upon the fact that Paul mentioned "the holy scriptures" which Timothy knew from his childhood and that I had always been taught that ONLY the Old Testament scriptures were in circulation at the time that Paul wrote his SECOND epistle to Timothy. Why did I capitalize SECOND? Well, I capitalized it because of what is written in Paul's FIRST epistle to Timothy which became the catalyst for me changing my viewpoint as to when at least part of the New Testament was actually in circulation. We read:

"Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." (I Timothy 5:17-18)

Here, Paul offered two "proof texts" FROM SCRIPTURE, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament, to justify his claim that the elders who rule ought to be counted worthy of double honor. Of course, the first "proof text" is found here:

"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." (Deuteronomy 25:4)

Paul elaborated on how this verse actually pertained to what he said to Timothy in his first epistle to the Corinthians. There, we read:

I Corinthians chapter 9

[1] Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
[2] If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.
[3] Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
[4] Have we not power to eat and to drink?
[5] Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
[6] Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?
[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
[8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
[9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
[10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
[11] If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
[12] If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.

Where, then, do we find the second SCRIPTURE which Paul cited as one of his "proof texts"? Well, we find it right here in the New Testament gospel of Luke:

"And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house." (Luke 10:7)

Yes, this same Paul who wrote of "all scripture" in his SECOND epistle to Timothy had PREVIOUSLY deemed that which is contained in Luke's gospel as "scripture" in his FIRST epistle to the same. This reality has greatly aided me over the years when debating with atheists or scoffers who insist that the New Testament wasn't written until a hundred or more years after Christ's Incarnation/Ascension as the internal witness of scripture greatly refutes such a claim. Yes, seeing how we know that Paul's epistles were written no more than 30 something years after Christ's Incarnation/Ascension and seeing how Paul referred to that which is contained within Luke's gospel as "scripture", we can know, of a certainty, that at least Luke's gospel must have been in circulation at that point in time. I say "at least" because Luke himself began his gospel by saying the following:

Luke chapter 1

[1] Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
[2] Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
[3] It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
[4] That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Who are these "many...which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" whose writings had PRECEDED Luke's gospel? Were any of these "many" Matthew or Mark? They very well may have been for Paul also wrote:

"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." (I Corinthians 13:2)

Why would Paul, when writing to the saints at Corinth, mention a "faith that could remove mountains" and why would he expect them to understand the significance or relevancy of the same? Could it be because either or both of the gospels of Matthew and Mark were already in circulation at that time and that the saints at Corinth we're as equally familiar with the same as Paul was? In Matthew's and Mark's gospels we read:

"Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." (Matthew 17:19-20)

"And when even was come, he went out of the city. And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith." (Mark 11:19-23)

Are we to believe that Paul was himself present during the times when Jesus uttered these words which he (Paul) later alluded to? I mean, Matthew's account clearly indicates that "the disciples came to Jesus apart", so Paul obviously didn't directly hear that utterance. Similarly, if you read Mark's account in its fuller context, then it seems rather apparent that Christ was alone with His disciples when He made that utterance, too. How, then, did Paul know of the same? Did he obtain such knowledge by word of mouth or by direct revelation? He could have...BUT are we to believe that all of the saints in Corinth whom he wrote to about the same also received the same by either word of mouth or direct revelation? Again, it's possible, but not likely. What seems more likely to me is that either or both of Matthew's and Mark's gospels were already in circulation at that time and therefore Paul's allusion wasn't missed by anybody.

There are also those who believe that Paul, while writing to this same Timothy, alluded to a portion of "the Lord's Prayer" as recorded in the gospel of Matthew. If such is indeed the case, then this would be internal witness that the gospel of Matthew was already in circulation at that point in time, too. In relation to the same, we read:

"And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." (II Timothy 4:18)

Now, compare the same with what we read in Matthew's gospel:

"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." (Matthew 6:9-13)

The similarities there are pretty striking, so Paul may have indeed been alluding to that which was already contained in Matthew's gospel when such words were penned.

Turning our focus back to Luke for a moment, if we look at the book of Acts which was also penned by Luke, then I believe that we have much more internal evidence for early authorships of both Luke's gospel and the book of Acts. For starters, the book of Acts begins in the following manner:

Acts chapter 1

[1] The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
[2] Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
[3] To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
[4] And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

While writing to "Theophilus" (some believe that "Theophilus" was an individual whereas others, like myself, believe that Luke was actually addressing all who are a "lover of God" which is what "Theophilus" actually means), Luke made reference to "the FORMER treatise" which he had made or to the gospel of Luke where he FIRST addressed "Theophilus":

Luke chapter 1

[1] Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
[2] Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
[3] It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
[4] That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Seeing how Luke's gospel truly was "the FORMER treatise", it had to have been written BEFORE the book of Acts was written and it was. What, then, can we learn about the timelines for both writings (Luke's gospel and the book of Acts) by studying the book of Acts? Well, I believe that we can learn at least the following:

1. Luke, who was a very diligent historian in his writings, made absolutely no mention of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in the book of Acts, so this leads one to believe that the temple was still standing at the time of Luke's writing of the book of Acts. This would mean that the book of Acts would have had to have been written PRIOR TO 70 A.D and, again, the gospel of Luke was written BEFORE ("the FORMER treatise") the book of Acts was, so the timeline for Luke's writing of his gospel is even earlier than this.

2. Luke, who made mention of all sorts of persecutions in the book of Acts, made no mention whatsoever of the persecution of Christians at the hand of Nero and most historians believe that the same began in 64 A.D. As such, this would lead one to believe that Luke penned the book of Acts PRIOR TO 64 A.D. and, again, his gospel was written even earlier than this.

3. Luke, who mentioned the deaths of Stephen and James within the book of Acts, made no mention whatsoever of the death of Paul which would be pretty much impossible to believe if Paul was already dead at the time of his writing, especially in relation to the fact that Luke was a pretty regular travelling companion of Paul (the "we" verses which are strewn all throughout the book of Acts which would include Luke as part of the "we"). In fact, it seems rather obvious that Paul was yet alive when we consider how the book of Acts ends:

Acts chapter 28

[30] And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
[31] Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

Seeing how it seems that Paul was yet alive at the time of the writing of the book of Acts and seeing how historians place the time of Paul's death anywhere between 62 A.D. and 68 A.D., this would again indicate that the book of Acts was written somewhere around 62 A.D. or somewhere approximately around the end of the second year of what seems to be Paul's first imprisonment in Rome. If such is indeed the case and it certainly seems to be, then, again, Luke's gospel would have had to have been written even earlier than 62 A.D. because it was "the FORMER treatise".

More in line with what you're apparently looking to discuss here, there's also no lack of disputation about the following:

"When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." (I Corinthians 11:20-26)

When Paul "delivered" that which he had "received of the Lord" in relation to "the Lord's supper", was he speaking of a direct revelation in relation to the same which he had "received of the Lord" or did he receive the same indirectly via Luke's gospel account which basically mirrors what Paul wrote here?

"For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table." (Luke 22:18-21)

Again, the similarities between the two are certainly striking. Whose writing came first? Paul's or Luke's? The fact of the matter is that because both Paul's and Luke's accounts are so strikingly similar, there are many who believe that Luke got his gospel account from Paul's direct revelation and they therefore place the timing of the writing of Luke's gospel AFTER the timing of the writing of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians (which may not have his "first epistle" to them, btw - I Corinthians 5:9), but this simply doesn't add up in light of other scripture. For example, Luke's gospel begins in the following manner:

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." (Luke 1:1-4)

Are we to believe that when Luke mentioned those who "FROM THE BEGINNING were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" that he was somehow referring to Paul? Was Paul an "eyewitness and minister of the word FROM THE BEGINNING"? Not according to either the gospel accounts or Paul's own testimony he wasn't. Paul said of himself:

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." (I Corinthians 15:3-8)

Paul placed himself as "last of all" and "as of one born out of due time". Are we to equate the same with Luke's reference to those who "FROM THE BEGINNING were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word"? In my estimation, it would be ludicrous to do so. IOW, it's rather obvious to me that Luke didn't obtain his gospel account of "the Lord's supper" from Paul, but it may have actually been the other way around. Of course, it is possible that Paul's revelation was a direct revelation from the Lord Himself and not an indirect revelation which he received via Luke because Paul did say elsewhere:

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-12)

Anyhow, my point is that New Testament scripture was in circulation a lot sooner than many people believe that it was and also that Paul deemed Luke's gospel which was already in circulation at the times when he penned both I Timothy and II Timothy to be SCRIPTURE.

Some things for everybody here to hopefully prayerfully/carefully ponder before the Lord.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Just an interesting observation.

The words translated as testament and covenant are interchangeable in meaning.
The only place "new testament" occurs in scripture is in respect of the last supper when jesus says.
"this is the new covenant(testament) in my blood, do this in memory of me"

I'm sorry, but your observation is faulty. IOW, we read of "the new testament" here:

Hebrews chapter 9

[1] Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
[2] For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.
[3] And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
[4] Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
[5] And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.
[6] Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
[7] But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
[8] The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
[9] Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
[10] Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
[11] But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
[12] Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
[13] For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
[14] How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
[15] And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
[16] For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
[17] For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
[18] Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
[19] For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
[20] Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
[21] Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
[22] And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
[23] It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
[24] For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
[25] Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
[26] For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
[27] And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
[28] So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Here "the new testament" is mentioned and NOT in relation to the Last Supper. In fact, if you understand what we just read, then you understand that "the new testament" was NOT YET IN EFFECT at the Last Supper nor could it possibly have been. No, as we just read:

"For where a testament is, THERE MUST ALSO OF NECESSITY BE THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR. For a testament is of force AFTER MEN ARE DEAD: OTHERWISE IT IS OF NO STRENGTH AT ALL WHILE THE TESTATOR LIVETH" (Hebrews 9:16-17)

Was Jesus YET ALIVE when He uttered the words which you cited at the Last Supper? Yes, of course, He was AND THEREFORE THE NEW TESTAMENT COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT YET BECAUSE A TESTAMENT IS OF FORCE AFTER MEN ARE DEAD.

We all know this to be true, don't we? Sure, we do. I mean, if you've written "a last will AND TESTAMENT", then none of your desired benefactors or heirs will receive a dime while you are yet alive. Even in the case of the Old Testament, calves and goats HAD TO BE KILLED in order for the testament to be of force.

Anyhow, the New Testament wasn't yet in force at the Last Supper and Jesus was speaking SYMBOLICALLY of his body which was about to be "broken" via crucifixion and His blood which was about to be spilled. Again, the New Testament wasn't in effect UNTIL AFTER CHRIST DIED.

 

[Kaycie]

Are you saying that just because Jesus told them to take the Lord's Supper, that that is the only thing they are to do? That they should not have wrote more scripture? Jesus also said to baptize and to teach everything that I have commanded. The instruction of scripture of more things that God commanded came from God- not from the apostles who wrote it down.

 

[Ukorin]

Are you saying that just because Jesus told them to take the Lord's Supper, that that is the only thing they are to do? That they should not have wrote more scripture? Jesus also said to baptize and to teach everything that I have commanded. The instruction of scripture of more things that God commanded came from God- not from the apostles who wrote it down.

I think it was more of his assumption, rather than pushing a belief or doctrine.
Let's wait til he gets back on so he can respond and explain more clearly.
We don't want to make assumptions of him too quickly.

 

[mikeuk]

Are you saying that just because Jesus told them to take the Lord's Supper, that that is the only thing they are to do? .

Absolutely not kaycie, I am simply stressing the importance of it , that it should be a central theme of Christian practice, as indeed should baptism etc rather than peripheral or optional.

 

[mikeuk]

Hi, mike.

ISeeYou and I know each other from other forums, so she wasn't actually referring to something that I've addressed on this forum, but instead to that which I've addressed elsewhere. Anyhow, this is what we're talking about:

II Timothy chapter 3

[14] But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Early on in my Christian walk, I believed, erroneously, that when Paul wrote to Timothy of how "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" that he was referring ONLY to the Old Testament scriptures, but I've long since changed my mind in relation to the same. Before I document why I've changed my mind, my original erroneous belief was based upon the fact that Paul mentioned "the holy scriptures" which Timothy knew from his childhood and that I had always been taught that ONLY the Old Testament scriptures were in circulation at the time that Paul wrote his SECOND epistle to Timothy. Why did I capitalize SECOND? Well, I capitalized it because of what is written in Paul's FIRST epistle to Timothy which became the catalyst for me changing my viewpoint as to when at least part of the New Testament was actually in circulation. We read:

"Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." (I Timothy 5:17-18)

Here, Paul offered two "proof texts" FROM SCRIPTURE, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament, to justify his claim that the elders who rule ought to be counted worthy of double honor. Of course, the first "proof text" is found here:

"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." (Deuteronomy 25:4)

Paul elaborated on how this verse actually pertained to what he said to Timothy in his first epistle to the Corinthians. There, we read:

I Corinthians chapter 9

[1] Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
[2] If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.
[3] Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
[4] Have we not power to eat and to drink?
[5] Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
[6] Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?
[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
[8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
[9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
[10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
[11] If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
[12] If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.

Where, then, do we find the second SCRIPTURE which Paul cited as one of his "proof texts"? Well, we find it right here in the New Testament gospel of Luke:

"And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house." (Luke 10:7)

Yes, this same Paul who wrote of "all scripture" in his SECOND epistle to Timothy had PREVIOUSLY deemed that which is contained in Luke's gospel as "scripture" in his FIRST epistle to the same. This reality has greatly aided me over the years when debating with atheists or scoffers who insist that the New Testament wasn't written until a hundred or more years after Christ's Incarnation/Ascension as the internal witness of scripture greatly refutes such a claim. Yes, seeing how we know that Paul's epistles were written no more than 30 something years after Christ's Incarnation/Ascension and seeing how Paul referred to that which is contained within Luke's gospel as "scripture", we can know, of a certainty, that at least Luke's gospel must have been in circulation at that point in time. I say "at least" because Luke himself began his gospel by saying the following:

Luke chapter 1

[1] Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
[2] Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
[3] It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
[4] That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Who are these "many...which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" whose writings had PRECEDED Luke's gospel? Were any of these "many" Matthew or Mark? They very well may have been for Paul also wrote:

"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." (I Corinthians 13:2)

Why would Paul, when writing to the saints at Corinth, mention a "faith that could remove mountains" and why would he expect them to understand the significance or relevancy of the same? Could it be because either or both of the gospels of Matthew and Mark were already in circulation at that time and that the saints at Corinth we're as equally familiar with the same as Paul was? In Matthew's and Mark's gospels we read:

"Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." (Matthew 17:19-20)

"And when even was come, he went out of the city. And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith." (Mark 11:19-23)

Are we to believe that Paul was himself present during the times when Jesus uttered these words which he (Paul) later alluded to? I mean, Matthew's account clearly indicates that "the disciples came to Jesus apart", so Paul obviously didn't directly hear that utterance. Similarly, if you read Mark's account in its fuller context, then it seems rather apparent that Christ was alone with His disciples when He made that utterance, too. How, then, did Paul know of the same? Did he obtain such knowledge by word of mouth or by direct revelation? He could have...BUT are we to believe that all of the saints in Corinth whom he wrote to about the same also received the same by either word of mouth or direct revelation? Again, it's possible, but not likely. What seems more likely to me is that either or both of Matthew's and Mark's gospels were already in circulation at that time and therefore Paul's allusion wasn't missed by anybody.

There are also those who believe that Paul, while writing to this same Timothy, alluded to a portion of "the Lord's Prayer" as recorded in the gospel of Matthew. If such is indeed the case, then this would be internal witness that the gospel of Matthew was already in circulation at that point in time, too. In relation to the same, we read:

"And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." (II Timothy 4:18)

Now, compare the same with what we read in Matthew's gospel:

"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." (Matthew 6:9-13)

The similarities there are pretty striking, so Paul may have indeed been alluding to that which was already contained in Matthew's gospel when such words were penned.

Turning our focus back to Luke for a moment, if we look at the book of Acts which was also penned by Luke, then I believe that we have much more internal evidence for early authorships of both Luke's gospel and the book of Acts. For starters, the book of Acts begins in the following manner:

Acts chapter 1

[1] The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
[2] Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
[3] To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
[4] And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

While writing to "Theophilus" (some believe that "Theophilus" was an individual whereas others, like myself, believe that Luke was actually addressing all who are a "lover of God" which is what "Theophilus" actually means), Luke made reference to "the FORMER treatise" which he had made or to the gospel of Luke where he FIRST addressed "Theophilus":

Luke chapter 1

[1] Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
[2] Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
[3] It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
[4] That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Seeing how Luke's gospel truly was "the FORMER treatise", it had to have been written BEFORE the book of Acts was written and it was. What, then, can we learn about the timelines for both writings (Luke's gospel and the book of Acts) by studying the book of Acts? Well, I believe that we can learn at least the following:

1. Luke, who was a very diligent historian in his writings, made absolutely no mention of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in the book of Acts, so this leads one to believe that the temple was still standing at the time of Luke's writing of the book of Acts. This would mean that the book of Acts would have had to have been written PRIOR TO 70 A.D and, again, the gospel of Luke was written BEFORE ("the FORMER treatise") the book of Acts was, so the timeline for Luke's writing of his gospel is even earlier than this.

2. Luke, who made mention of all sorts of persecutions in the book of Acts, made no mention whatsoever of the persecution of Christians at the hand of Nero and most historians believe that the same began in 64 A.D. As such, this would lead one to believe that Luke penned the book of Acts PRIOR TO 64 A.D. and, again, his gospel was written even earlier than this.

3. Luke, who mentioned the deaths of Stephen and James within the book of Acts, made no mention whatsoever of the death of Paul which would be pretty much impossible to believe if Paul was already dead at the time of his writing, especially in relation to the fact that Luke was a pretty regular travelling companion of Paul (the "we" verses which are strewn all throughout the book of Acts which would include Luke as part of the "we"). In fact, it seems rather obvious that Paul was yet alive when we consider how the book of Acts ends:

Acts chapter 28

[30] And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
[31] Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

Seeing how it seems that Paul was yet alive at the time of the writing of the book of Acts and seeing how historians place the time of Paul's death anywhere between 62 A.D. and 68 A.D., this would again indicate that the book of Acts was written somewhere around 62 A.D. or somewhere approximately around the end of the second year of what seems to be Paul's first imprisonment in Rome. If such is indeed the case and it certainly seems to be, then, again, Luke's gospel would have had to have been written even earlier than 62 A.D. because it was "the FORMER treatise".

More in line with what you're apparently looking to discuss here, there's also no lack of disputation about the following:

"When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." (I Corinthians 11:20-26)

When Paul "delivered" that which he had "received of the Lord" in relation to "the Lord's supper", was he speaking of a direct revelation in relation to the same which he had "received of the Lord" or did he receive the same indirectly via Luke's gospel account which basically mirrors what Paul wrote here?

"For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table." (Luke 22:18-21)

Again, the similarities between the two are certainly striking. Whose writing came first? Paul's or Luke's? The fact of the matter is that because both Paul's and Luke's accounts are so strikingly similar, there are many who believe that Luke got his gospel account from Paul's direct revelation and they therefore place the timing of the writing of Luke's gospel AFTER the timing of the writing of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians (which may not have his "first epistle" to them, btw - I Corinthians 5:9), but this simply doesn't add up in light of other scripture. For example, Luke's gospel begins in the following manner:

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." (Luke 1:1-4)

Are we to believe that when Luke mentioned those who "FROM THE BEGINNING were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" that he was somehow referring to Paul? Was Paul an "eyewitness and minister of the word FROM THE BEGINNING"? Not according to either the gospel accounts or Paul's own testimony he wasn't. Paul said of himself:

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." (I Corinthians 15:3-8)

Paul placed himself as "last of all" and "as of one born out of due time". Are we to equate the same with Luke's reference to those who "FROM THE BEGINNING were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word"? In my estimation, it would be ludicrous to do so. IOW, it's rather obvious to me that Luke didn't obtain his gospel account of "the Lord's supper" from Paul, but it may have actually been the other way around. Of course, it is possible that Paul's revelation was a direct revelation from the Lord Himself and not an indirect revelation which he received via Luke because Paul did say elsewhere:

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-12)

Anyhow, my point is that New Testament scripture was in circulation a lot sooner than many people believe that it was and also that Paul deemed Luke's gospel which was already in circulation at the times when he penned both I Timothy and II Timothy to be SCRIPTURE.

Some things for everybody here to hopefully prayerfully/carefully ponder before the Lord.

fascinating and thanks - it will take some while to digest it, will get back on it later!