Why I don't believe the written, canonized bible is the absolute and complete "Word of God"

I have discussed extensively why I don't believe the written, canonized bible is the absolute and complete "Word of God" here: https://genericchristianmystic--returns.blogspot.com/2022/12/word-of-god-not-bible-hunh.html

 

And one of the arguments thrown out repeatedly in the past is that the New Testament writers called the epistles "scripture" and tautologically speaking --  scripture = bible = Word of God = bible = scripture.

 

However most every time when the New Testament writer was referring to scripture -- it was not to the epistles of the 1st century. The old testament was what was the accepted "scriptures" of the day. 

 

I hear people refer to this following new testament passage over and over like little automatons:

 

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (Darby Translation)

¹⁶ Every scripture [is] divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;¹⁷ that the man of God may be complete, fully fitted to every good work.

 

 

Well, guess what? Paul was not looking at a complete and canonized bible in front of him when he wrote that! The bible as we have it now was not available for Paul to call our accepted bible of today -- scripture. Timothy and Paul only had the accepted scriptures of the old testament. 

Even appealing or referring to your contemporary, 1st century brother in the faith's writings is not equal to declaring them the Word of God. None of the writers of the New Testament ever undisputedly referred to each other's writings as the Word of God.

 

Here are a few examples trotted out by those trying to prove the disciples thought 1st century writings were the very Word of God:

 

• In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter refers to the writings of Paul as “Scriptures”

• In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul referred to his own message as “the word of God”

• In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul takes a quotation from the Gospel of Luke – and he calls it “Scripture” (Luke 10:7)

• In some of his letters, Paul instructs the recipients to distribute his letters and have them read in the churches. (Colossians 4:16, 1 Thessalonians 5:27)

   

1) Peter also says Paul's writings are "hard to understand", also stating that the "ignorant and unstable" distort them as they do the other Scriptures. Still, Peter can be taken to be referring to Paul's writings as worthy of not being distorted, like is done to other Scriptures which is most likely a referral to the Old Testament and not to other 1st century writings. It is only inferred here that Peter is calling Paul's words the Word of God.

 

 

2) Paul's speaking to the Thessalonians is merely stating that they believed Paul, Silas and Timothy's preaching to them as the oral utterance of the very Word of God, (the Gospel of salvation). Well great. However, Paul is not saying what I write to you is the Word of God.

 

 

3) This "evidence" so-called is really reaching. When Paul writes to Timothy about proper ekklesia functions he states (in context): "17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”" Well folks, Paul is simply quoting the Old Testament here and also what Jesus Himself said, as recorded by Luke in chapter 10.

 

Paul was quoting the Old Testament and Jesus but never said, "Oh by the way, I read Luke awhile back and now I declare it to be the Word of God. Luke is a historical document like Acts. Paul could very well likely heard from some other believer the words of Jesus about "The laborer deserves his wages."

 

4)  When Paul instructs believers to share his writings and to have them read in the churches, this is simply a very practical way for Paul to share his teachings without him having to actually be present to preach and teach in the flesh. Travel from place to place in those days was difficult, not to mention, when you are locked up in jail like Paul was for many times, he could still reach the ekklesia via readings aloud of his manuscripts. He never said, "Oh by the way my writings are the written Word of God."

 

In I Thessalonians 4, Paul writes something very insightful, "9 Now about your love for one another we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other." Wow! Paul downplays the need for his own writings and states God Himself via the Spirit teaches, preaches and instructs the ineffable things of the Kingdom. If Paul believed his writings were the very Word of God, why does he say, "we" do not need to write to you?

 

I still don't believe the writers of what is now accepted as the New Testament could ever imagine how the believing ekklesia, of all the past centuries and now today, still follow letter by letter what was written many millennia ago. 

 

They would be shocked. 

 

They would wonder why haven't the writings of believers down through the ages not been as respected as what we wrote? 

 

Why do you "worship" our writings so? 

 

Doesn't God still speak the same way today? 

 

Why haven't you taken the time to look into the God-inspired writings down through all the ages? 

 

Why have you closed this thing you call the "bible" up so tightly and "canonized" it? 

 

Who decided these 66 books were ALL God has to say? 

 

You have unknowingly made the bible a thing of worship, an idol and a fetish!

 

I believe Paul would emphatically declare, "Wake up to the eternal NOW of what God is saying to the ekklesia."