Minimalist

If the mere fact that people wrote about something made it true than Zeus, Odin and Quetzlcoatl would be "real" too. One has nothing to do with the other. In fact, I disagree with the poster who said that "believability" is a requirement. Apparently, the more unbelievable the story the more people will fall for it.

Jeffrey Gibson

No. I'm still wanting to know what you mean by "divinely inspired". After all, we cannot evaluate the validity or the import of your implicit claim about NT witnesses unless we know what it is you are actually claiming when you say that they thought they were "divinely inspired".

So .. will you tell us or not?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

OK. But unless you are more specific about what you mean by "inspired", and unless and until we're sure that you meaning is the same as xxx what's his name's, your assertions are may be nothing more than equivocations.

Yes, and that's why the question about what Paul thought about himself is irrelevant here. The issue is not what Paul thought about his "witness". It's whether the evangelists thought that they were "divinely inspired" (especially when it came to relating the biographical details of the Jesus story), and if they were, whether their understanding of what this means and entails is, as X what's his name seems to assume, the same as what X what's his name thinks being "divinely inspired" means and entails.

So I ask again: what definition of being "divinely inspired" is being asserted here and what is the evidence that the evangelists believed themselves to be "inspired" at all, let alone according to X what's his name's definition of this phenomenon?

Jeffrey

xaxxat

LOL. You're just mad because you threw up a softball and I hit it. Now you want a re-do of the pitch...

Funny, you had no problem with what "divinely inspired" meant when you made your claim...

I see how you play your little game.

Jeffrey Gibson

I am??

You did?

I do??

What claim did I make? So far as I can see I've only asked a question about your claim.

And I see that you are not going to tell us what you mean by "divinely inspired".

Jeffrey

MechAnimal

I think that the synoptics point to an earlier tradition coming from a few people who came up with the sayings of Jesus. You can't say that the gospel authors even drew on their own knowledge to write what they did. It's possible though that the original "source" of the synoptics made up everything that happened, although not likely.

Iasion

You do realise that 2 Tim. was forged by someone else in the name of Paul.
How inspired by God is it to forge a letter?

Furthermore -
The first "is" is not present in the Greek - the phrase is ambiguous.
It does NOT say all scripture is inspired by God.

Finally -
when this letter was written, was it ITSELF included in scripture?
No.

So,
this is NOT a claim to be inspired by God at all.


Iasion

Jeffrey Gibson

Pseudepigraphy was not considered or recognized by Jews as forgery, especially in testamentary literature like Timothy. On this, see the discussion of the matter in Bauckham's Word Commentary on 1 & 2nd Peter and Jude
.
As a number of commentators have noted, there is reason to think, given the grammar and syntax of the verse, that the attribute "inspired of God" (what ever that means!) construes not with GRAFE, but with the extression translated above as "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" i.e., "all GRAFE which is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness is god breathed".

The reference seems to be to the Hebrew Scriptures, especially since there was no NT when "Paul" wrote these words.

More importantly, it does not specify what the author means by, or thought was entailed in something that is described as, "divinely inspired".

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

Nevermind

Jeffrey Gibson

Umm .. what was answered?

Jeffrey