When to be literal?

I not at all sure what you mean "what does this mean for miracles?" Which miracles?

I mean how can we know that the miracles were real and not cultural spin.

I don't think there is anyway to do that.

I was disagreeing with you when you said this: I put forwards Lev as support. You disagree. That's what happens in life. I never knew about book curses. I should be greatful to you for educating me (I'm not being sarcastic) but it's really hard be so. Edited by Larni, : Less of the snark.

Hi jarI'm not disagreeing with this but I'm wondering what it is that you use as a source for this statement. When the author said that all scripture is inspired I'm not clear how you could get from there to him saying that only inspired scripture is inspired.I just understand it as saying that the writers were inspired to right down and maintain their various accounts in their own words. This would include of course include their personal and cultural biases.This post isn't meant to argue the point as I am just sincerely curious as to what your basis is for this statement.

Remember that there were no Bibles when 2 Timmy was written. The closest thing would be the Jewish Torah and Nevi'im and they were still considered as independent separate documents (scrolls) as well as the oral tradition and the Talmud.Look at the passage from 2 Timmy again:

quote:

---

2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

---

What the author is saying is that inspired teachings are "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" but it is exclusive, not inclusive and while acknowledging what we call the Old Testament, is primarily concerned with Paul's teachings. When you read all of 2 Timmy it is based primarily on personal testimony, and mostly Paul's testimony.In it the term gospel is used but always in the concept of "News" as opposed to the formal Gospels.The issue in both 1 & 2 Timmy boiled down to the End Times and the Second Resurrection and highlights the differences found within Christianity of the time. So the author is trying to define doctrine to exclude what the author saw as heretical teachings, in this case that the Second Coming and Resurrection was NOT imminent, that some teachings are NOT inspired by God.

We obviously agree that Paul, (whether Paul or somebody putting Paul’s thoughts to papyrus), isn’t saying that we are to read the Scriptures as if they had been dictated by God.From the scholars I’ve read it seems that the term God-breathed is a more accurate translation than inspired. In a sense I think he is saying that the Scriptures that Paul used provided sign posts for the way they as a church and as individuals should live godly lives.I don’t disagree with what you on what would have made up the scriptures that he referred to. It is interesting that he didn’t feel the need to explain more fully and I think that strongly suggests that the way in which the scriptures were to be understood was not controversial even though the conclusions that various factions came to varied considerably. (Of course we don’t have those problems today. .)Thanks for the clarification.

I'd say that what constituted "scripture" was certainly controversial.I'm also pretty clueless what "God-breathed" would mean.

I think it was more the understanding of what they meant that was controversial. There were certainly very different understandings about all of the details of the anticipated messiah. I think that in a metaphorical sense God inhabits the Scriptures in the sense that He breathes life into them as one way of reaching out to His creation. Sure the Bible was created by men but essentially He always seems to use mankind as His agents of change, and as such He uses the book as created by men.

What "what" meant?At the time 2 Timmy would have been written there were a totally unknown number of writings floating around. Almost all were local, an issue highlighted by the Epistles. Throughout the Epistles there are mentions of other people, other documents, other teachings, ones that were either later lost or later purged.We simply don't know what was available.I'd say that what we do have is far more "politically breathed" than "God breathed".

Their Scriptures. Absolutely. I haven't gone through this in any detail at all but this account includes some items from the oral tradition as well. The Legends of the JewsIn the US it seems that people get their nationalism, politics and faith intertwined in a way that doesn't happen in other countries.

Talking about other countries, have you ever looked at Pakistan or Iran?

The early church was certainly political, there was Paul's party and Peter's party and Alexander's party James's party and Mary's party and ...And each had their scriptures and each was trying to create Christianity in their image.

Of course but it just seems that in the US conservative Christians seem to believe that God is a Republican and that the non-theists seem to think that the GOP is made up of metaphorical devils. (Generally speaking of course. )

Nothing new under the sun eh?