Christians Only: Debate over "All scripture is inspired"

[Brickjectivity]

I limit this to Catholic, Protestant and Liberal Christians and exclude Muslims, Bahai's and syncretics. This is an argument about what is valid as scripture with Christians, and I open with a discussion of 2 Timothy.

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2Ti 3:17 NIV)

I examine this famous passage in 2 Timotheus (2 Timothy). I view his comment about the holy scriptures and referring to some aspect of the Jewish canon. I specify what he's including or excluding for purposes of this conversation. Some kind of Jewish scripture is what that refers to, and I'm not discussing whether he includes the Maccabees or the Catholic canon or the Ketuviim. I'm focusing upon his phrase "All scripture is God-breathed." I want to examine if this can include (for you and I) other things besides Jewish canon. This may not be what Paul is talking to Timotheus about or it may. As for me, I feel that at some point I have begun to see the same scriptures everywhere and in all kinds of writings. It is as though the rocks and trees and the sky have them written.
1.
For purposes of conversation I ask you to take the point of view that everything exists in God, so the world, people, all kinds of things good and bad all exist inside of God. Now, if we assume that, does it imply that there is scripture everywhere?
2.
Secondly is Paul excluding this possibility and/or does he recognize it as true? As for me I think #1 is true and am unsure about Paul's position on #2 but lean heavily towards yes and will be arguing in favor of both 1 and 2. In the interest of fun I'm going to try not to be rude to anyone or bring up errors of the past or offenses or anything like that. I hope all concerned can do the same. I'm going to hold myself to the standard that only God enlightens people, but making this argument is a compromise with that. It is of course silly to think I can get a point across. What I can do is make everyone comfortable if possible and see if getting enough tinder together makes a big fire.

• In favor of #1: I do see wisdom written down in many things with are not officially called holy. I see principles discovered repeatedly and independently. I consider the definition of Torah, which doesn't actually just mean commands but refers to the way that things work. I might consider the laws of Physics as a torah of physics. They are not commands but nevertheless are a torah. Even those things which are officially called 'Scripture' we have to carefully consider them, digest them We can misunderstand them.
• In favor of #2: Discussing Paul's opinions on scripture is far more complicated I think than discussing #1. #2 seems relatively elusive. Is Paul just one person, or is he several people writing under one name? There are many questions about Paul which people are uncertain of. Paul says that everything which can be known about God is obvious through nature. (Romans 1:20) Also in I Corinthians 13 Paul declares that even if I can speak the language of angels, can fathom all mysteries but dishonor others or don't love others then there is nothing to me. He also says that prophecies and speech are all partial and must be replaced by something better, and he compares knowledge to childishness compared with what must come. He then goes on in later chapters to talk about some things I don't understand such as resurrection, gifts of language, knowledge etc. Even if I do understand fully what he is talking about though, it means nothing without love. If I am boasting about my knowledge, then I'm nothing; but this seems counter intuitive. I have holy scriptures, so I must know something, right? He seems to find great value in the Jewish canon, but he also seems to consider it a childish prequel to something.

Finally I have a poll. As a simple Christian, how likely are you to quote from something other than scripture if you are standing in a church, prayer meeting or other gathering of Christians? Do you find this to be uncomfortable or inappropriate?

 

[robocop (actually)]

I've had schizophrenia and at times I think every book at all is scripture.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I've had schizophrenia and at times I think every book at all is scripture.

Schizophrenia provided insight into the nature of the human mind. It raised the questions which led to research with psycho analysis. This laid the groundwork for later studies of 'Normal' psychology and a large group of people whose psychology was studied from infancy through adulthood. Some of them are still alive and part of the ongoing study, now it its 60th year or so.

It was the suffering of the schizophrenics (and some others such as the bipolars) which opened the way to understand many more ailments. Lots of good came out of it such as I'm Ok You're Ok, differentiation of psychological issues. Instead of just locking everyone up we now try to treat people or at least comfort people.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Schizophrenia provided insight into the nature of the human mind. It raised the questions which led to research with psycho analysis. This laid the groundwork for later studies of 'Normal' psychology and a large group of people whose psychology was studied from infancy through adulthood. Some of them are still alive and part of the ongoing study, now it its 60th year or so.

It was the suffering of the schizophrenics (and some others such as the bipolars) which opened the way to understand many more ailments. Lots of good came out of it such as I'm Ok You're Ok, differentiation of psychological issues. Instead of just locking everyone up we now try to treat people or at least comfort people.

I hope that people can survive, schizophrenic or not, when they have trouble doing it on their own.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Schizophrenia provided insight into the nature of the human mind. It raised the questions which led to research with psycho analysis. This laid the groundwork for later studies of 'Normal' psychology and a large group of people whose psychology was studied from infancy through adulthood. Some of them are still alive and part of the ongoing study, now it its 60th year or so.

It was the suffering of the schizophrenics (and some others such as the bipolars) which opened the way to understand many more ailments. Lots of good came out of it such as I'm Ok You're Ok, differentiation of psychological issues. Instead of just locking everyone up we now try to treat people or at least comfort people.

Today is International Day of Persons with Disabilities day btw.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I limit this to Catholic, Protestant and Liberal Christians and exclude Muslims, Bahai's and syncretics. This is an argument about what is valid as scripture with Christians, and I open with a discussion of 2 Timothy.

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2Ti 3:17 NIV)

I examine this famous passage in 2 Timotheus (2 Timothy). I view his comment about the holy scriptures and referring to some aspect of the Jewish canon. I specify what he's including or excluding for purposes of this conversation. Some kind of Jewish scripture is what that refers to, and I'm not discussing whether he includes the Maccabees or the Catholic canon or the Ketuviim. I'm focusing upon his phrase "All scripture is God-breathed." I want to examine if this can include (for you and I) other things besides Jewish canon. This may not be what Paul is talking to Timotheus about or it may. As for me, I feel that at some point I have begun to see the same scriptures everywhere and in all kinds of writings. It is as though the rocks and trees and the sky have them written.
1.
For purposes of conversation I ask you to take the point of view that everything exists in God, so the world, people, all kinds of things good and bad all exist inside of God. Now, if we assume that, does it imply that there is scripture everywhere?
2.
Secondly is Paul excluding this possibility and/or does he recognize it as true? As for me I think #1 is true and am unsure about Paul's position on #2 but lean heavily towards yes and will be arguing in favor of both 1 and 2. In the interest of fun I'm going to try not to be rude to anyone or bring up errors of the past or offenses or anything like that. I hope all concerned can do the same. I'm going to hold myself to the standard that only God enlightens people, but making this argument is a compromise with that. It is of course silly to think I can get a point across. What I can do is make everyone comfortable if possible and see if getting enough tinder together makes a big fire.

• In favor of #1: I do see wisdom written down in many things with are not officially called holy. I see principles discovered repeatedly and independently. I consider the definition of Torah, which doesn't actually just mean commands but refers to the way that things work. I might consider the laws of Physics as a torah of physics. They are not commands but nevertheless are a torah. Even those things which are officially called 'Scripture' we have to carefully consider them, digest them We can misunderstand them.
• In favor of #2: Discussing Paul's opinions on scripture is far more complicated I think than discussing #1. #2 seems relatively elusive. Is Paul just one person, or is he several people writing under one name? There are many questions about Paul which people are uncertain of. Paul says that everything which can be known about God is obvious through nature. (Romans 1:20) Also in I Corinthians 13 Paul declares that even if I can speak the language of angels, can fathom all mysteries but dishonor others or don't love others then there is nothing to me. He also says that prophecies and speech are all partial and must be replaced by something better, and he compares knowledge to childishness compared with what must come. He then goes on in later chapters to talk about some things I don't understand such as resurrection, gifts of language, knowledge etc. Even if I do understand fully what he is talking about though, it means nothing without love. If I am boasting about my knowledge, then I'm nothing; but this seems counter intuitive. I have holy scriptures, so I must know something, right? He seems to find great value in the Jewish canon, but he also seems to consider it a childish prequel to something.

Finally I have a poll. As a simple Christian, how likely are you to quote from something other than scripture if you are standing in a church, prayer meeting or other gathering of Christians? Do you find this to be uncomfortable or inappropriate?

Your statement that all things good and bad exist inside of God is BS. And your requirement that I must accept that, is equal BS.

Thus your two points mean nothing to me.

As to you 'final poll' question: Why would I quote anything other that Scripture when in a prayer meeting? What a stupid question. Of course I wouldn't.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[3rdAngel]

I am only commenting on the OP's questionaire. I believe that all scripture is inspired by God and written for our admonition, therefore it is my guide, what I believe and follow, and mostly what I share and quote. I see no problem however in quoting sources outside of the bible, if it supports what the scriptures are teaching. Many scriptures and prophecies are supported in History and Archeology which are sources outside of the bible that prove God's Word.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Your statement that all things good and bad exist inside of God is BS. And your requirement that I must accept that, is equal BS.

Thus your two points mean nothing to me.

As to you 'final poll' question: Why would I quote anything other that Scripture when in a prayer meeting? What a stupid question. Of course I wouldn't.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I am only commenting on the OP's questionaire. I believe that all scripture is inspired by God and written for our admonition, therefore it is my guide, what I believe and follow, and mostly what I share and quote. I see no problem however in quoting sources outside of the bible, if it supports what the scriptures are teaching. Many scriptures and prophecies are supported in History and Archeology which are sources outside of the bible that prove God's Word.

You two have definitely put a scratch in my pride. It reminds me of 2nd Corinthians 12:7 where Paul is given a thorn in his side to keep him humble. Apparently without it he would destroy himself somehow, probably by posting too much.

Today is International Day of Persons with Disabilities day btw.

And today is two days later.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

You two have definitely put a scratch in my pride. It reminds me of 2nd Corinthians 12:7 where Paul is given a thorn in his side to keep him humble. Apparently without it he would destroy himself somehow, probably by posting too much.

Well, I see you label yourself a liberal Christian. And I believe you, as you immediately create a thread that will discount the Scripture as the Word of God alone in the world. Plus you cast doubt on the apostle Paul's writings as Scripture.

Perhaps you would do better considering the types of revelation that God has actually given to us. That is 'general revelation' and 'special or written revelation'.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well, I see you label yourself a liberal Christian.

I like the quaker approach, but I am not Quaker.

And I believe you, as you immediately create a thread that will discount the Scripture as the Word of God alone in the world. Plus you cast doubt on the apostle Paul's writings as Scripture.

I raise a debate point that no one responds to including you, except to remark your disagreement. I do see some action in the poll though.

Perhaps you would do better considering the types of revelation that God has actually given to us. That is 'general revelation' and 'special or written ...

I think that is where Christianity deviates from Judaism. We also eat non kosher, etc. The NT is not kosher. Its got a lot of Greek terminology such as 'Logos' and does not suite strict fundamentalists such as Muhammad. Its not a brotherhood of super saiyan perfectionists. We have a brotherhood where we are told to forgive one another of more than just slights. We are to overlook what we think are doctrinal faults in others same as any fault, though we aren't to abuse the freedom. "Not just 7 but 7 times 7" I value the received canon. I don't limit where the spirit comes from or where it is going, and that is straight from John 3.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I like the quaker approach, but I am not Quaker.

I raise a debate point that no one responds to including you, except to remark your disagreement. I do see some action in the poll though.

I think that is where Christianity deviates from Judaism. We also eat non kosher, etc. The NT is not kosher. Its got a lot of Greek terminology such as 'Logos' and does not suite strict fundamentalists such as Muhammad. Its not a brotherhood of super saiyan perfectionists. We have a brotherhood where we are told to forgive one another of more than just slights. We are to overlook what we think are doctrinal faults in others same as any fault, though we aren't to abuse the freedom. "Not just 7 but 7 times 7" I value the received canon. I don't limit where the spirit comes from or where it is going, and that is straight from John 3.

I did respond, just not in a good way. But I never answer polls. You place the one responding in a difficult position that you create.

Concerning (2 Tim. 3:16), when Paul says 'All scripture' he immediately sets apart Scripture from any other writings. In other words it is not found 'everywhere'.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[pearl]

Finally I have a poll. As a simple Christian, how likely are you to quote from something other than scripture if you are standing in a church, prayer meeting or other gathering of Christians? Do you find this to be uncomfortable or inappropriate?

I examine this famous passage in 2 Timotheus (2 Timothy). I view his comment about the holy scriptures and referring to some aspect of the Jewish canon

The passage could only refer to Hebrew Scripture, the sacred writings known to Timothy from his childhood, the NT would not be considered Scripture for another few hundred years.

For purposes of conversation I ask you to take the point of view that everything exists in God, so the world, people, all kinds of things good and bad all exist inside of God.

All that exists does so because it is loved, absolutely, without God nothing exists, good or evil, difference is evil hates it.

If I am boasting about my knowledge, then I'm nothing; but this seems counter intuitive. I have holy scriptures, so I must know something, right?

Maybe the fault is in 'boasting', to lord it over others. Knowledge does not stagnate, never comes to an end.

Finally I have a poll. As a simple Christian, how likely are you to quote from something other than scripture if you are standing in a church, prayer meeting or other gathering of Christians? Do you find this to be uncomfortable or inappropriate?

As you stated, the Holy Spirit goes where it wills and inspires those who it will. The problem may be in discerning the Spirit.

"Since once again, Lord-though this time not in the forests of the Aisne, but in the stepes of Asia-I have neither bread nor wind, nor altar, I will raise myself beyond these symbols, up to the pure majesty of the real itself: I your priest, will make the whole earth my altar and on it will offer you all the labors and sufferings of the world...My paten and my chalice are the depths of the soul laid widely open to all the forces which in a moment will rise up from every corner of the earth and converge upon the Spirit." (The Mass on the World from Hymn of the Universe)
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

There are many inspired writings I would not hesitate to quote, from a variety of religious beliefs.

 

[metis]

I have on many occasions quoted non-Christian sources within my Catholic church setting, and I also did much the same in my synagogue setting.

IMO, no one owns Truth.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Brickjectivity :

I wanted to make a very specific point about the text of 2 Tim 3:16-17.

The Greek of this text is : “ Πασα γραφε Θεοπνευστοσ και ωφελεμοσ προσ διδασκαλιαν, προσ ελεγχον,....


The Greek text does not read “All writing is God-breathed [inspired] and is useful for teaching…”
Rather, the Greek reads : “All god breathed [inspired] writing [is] useful for teaching, etc….”

These versions do NOT mean the same thing. While the first indicates all writing is inspired and useful for religious use, the second indicates the specific writing that IS inspired is useful for religious use.

The references to the Holy Letters / Writings of verse 15 uses a significantly different term for the “writings”of vs 16. "Γραμματα" in verse 15 versus "γραφη" (Graphe) in vs 16. "Γραφε" was a much more generic term for many, many different types of “letters” and “writings” (If anyone wants examples from papyri, let me know).

Thus, these two verses are not both referring to the same set of divinely inspired writings. 15 seems to be referring to Old Testament writings (archives) and 16 is referring to the principle underlying all writings that are useful for religious education. That is, it is divine inspiration that is qualifies texts as most useful to teach religious principles.

I hope your spiritual journey is good Brickjectivity.

Clear
τωνεειω

 

[Brickjectivity]

The passage could only refer to Hebrew Scripture, the sacred writings known to Timothy from his childhood, the NT would not be considered Scripture for another few hundred years.

Pcarl, somehow we have something beyond just those 'Holy scriptures', new writings which are today the gospels, Paul's letters, John's writings. These form a new canon. To Paul 'Holy Scriptures' certainly refers to the mitzvos, the laws. The prophets and ketuviim comment on these and are a reference point for them, so that gives them some connection to 'Holy scriptures' but what business has a Christian including a gospel as a scripture if Paul only includes the original holy scripts? Paul, however, then uses the phrase 'All scripture is inspired...' During his lifetime there are many other writings besides the holy scriptures. There are many philosophical works, works that later Christians find very inspirational. Maybe what Paul is saying to Timothy is "You've always known the holy scriptures which are able to make you wise about preservation, but Timothy all writing is inspired of God." How else and on what basis could Paul's own writings have become known as Scripture? Somehow his own letters have become incorporated, so its ironic if he is saying here that they shouldn't be.

All that exists does so because it is loved, absolutely, without God nothing exists, good or evil, difference is evil hates it.

How I see it: I'm partial to believing that all that is created is loved, but that there are things which are fading which are decreasingly loved, disappearing. They are fading out of existence and becoming ghostly while hopefully you and I are fading into existence more strongly, glorified, becoming filled with truth and made more real and more loved. The things which are passing away, those are the things you are calling evil.

Maybe the fault is in 'boasting', to lord it over others. Knowledge does not stagnate, never comes to an end.

That takes us to the parable of the servant who beats the fellow servants. I suspect all of the parables are interconnected and part of a school of thought. The parable of the talents seems to me to be saying that people are afraid of mixing and investing ourselves. We're afraid we will be lost and will be punished for a bad investment, but if we don't invest ourselves that is worse. I'm still trying to understand this parable. The Orthodox man I criticize for calling himself 'Righteous' (ortho), but at the same time I'd be scared silly to leave an Orthodox church and become an LDS or a JW or a (shiver) Methodist. How could I ever ask such a person to throw their lives into such a maelstrom of horrors? I'm probably not looking at this accurately. Maybe a little boasting is Ok? No, that is also going too far.

As you stated, the Holy Spirit goes where it wills and inspires those who it will. The problem may be in discerning the Spirit.

"Since once again, Lord-though this time not in the forests of the Aisne, but in the stepes of Asia-I have neither bread nor wind, nor altar, I will raise myself beyond these symbols, up to the pure majesty of the real itself: I your priest, will make the whole earth my altar and on it will offer you all the labors and sufferings of the world...My paten and my chalice are the depths of the soul laid widely open to all the forces which in a moment will rise up from every corner of the earth and converge upon the Spirit." (The Mass on the World from Hymn of the Universe)
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

There are many inspired writings I would not hesitate to quote, from a variety of religious beliefs.

Very nice.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hi @Brickjectivity :

I wanted to make a very specific point about the text of 2 Tim 3:16-17.

The Greek of this text is : “ Πασα γραφε Θεοπνευστοσ και ωφελεμοσ προσ διδασκαλιαν, προσ ελεγχον,....


The Greek text does not read “All writing is God-breathed [inspired] and is useful for teaching…”
Rather, the Greek reads : “All god breathed [inspired] writing [is] useful for teaching, etc….”

These versions do NOT mean the same thing. While the first indicates all writing is inspired and useful for religious use, the second indicates the specific writing that IS inspired is useful for religious use.
The references to the Holy Letters / Writings of verse 15 uses a significantly different term for the “writings”of vs 16. "Γραμματα" in verse 15 versus "γραφη" (Graphe) in vs 16. "Γραφε" was a much more generic term for many, many different types of “letters” and “writings” (If anyone wants examples from papyri, let me know).

Thus, these two verses are not both referring to the same set of divinely inspired writings. 15 seems to be referring to Old Testament writings (archives) and 16 is referring to the principle underlying all writings that are useful for religious education. That is, it is divine inspiration that is qualifies texts as most useful to teach religious principles.

I hope your spiritual journey is good Brickjectivity.

Clear
τωνεειω

That is enlightening. I like that. I follow what you are saying though I am not trained to read the Greek.

Thanks. My spiritual journey is satisfying in a spiritual way. Also I have enjoyed the feedback on this thread. Its been interesting so far.

 

[pearl]

Pcarl, somehow we have something beyond just those 'Holy scriptures', new writings which are today the gospels, Paul's letters, John's writings.

The 'somehow' is the D/R of Jesus and the search through Scripture, both Hebrew and Septuagint to answer why.

but what business has a Christian including a gospel as a scripture if Paul only includes the original holy scripts?

Before Paul's letters and the written Gospels both were preached in the churches as the 'memoirs of the Apostles'.

Maybe what Paul is saying to Timothy is "You've always known the holy scriptures which are able to make you wise about preservation, but Timothy all writing is inspired of God." How else and on what basis could Paul's own writings have become known as Scripture? Somehow his own letters have become incorporated, so its ironic if he is saying here that they shouldn't be.

If Paul believed, as many did before the penning of any Gospel, that the eschaton was to be in their lifetime, what purpose for writing new scripture? We can always speculate on what might have been, other possibilities, but I think it best to rely on sound scholarship as to the 'mind' and purpose of the 'sacred writings'.

How I see it: I'm partial to believing that all that is created is loved, but that there are things which are fading which are decreasingly loved, disappearing. They are fading out of existence and becoming ghostly while hopefully you and I are fading into existence more strongly, glorified, becoming filled with truth and made more real and more loved. The things which are passing away, those are the

I think maybe Paul refers to the danger of absolute wisdom, that Mystery is involved, and wisdom evolves as some ideas are put away as new insight is acquired as the thirst for truth but realizing we never grasp the whole in this lifetime.

The parable of the talents seems to me to be saying that people are afraid of mixing and investing ourselves.

I agree.

The Orthodox man I criticize for calling himself 'Righteous' (ortho), but at the same time I'd be scared silly to leave an Orthodox church and become an LDS or a JW or a (shiver) Methodist. How could I ever ask such a person to throw their lives into such a maelstrom of horrors?

No fear as God is above religion.

 

[YeshuaRedeemed]

I limit this to Catholic, Protestant and Liberal Christians and exclude Muslims, Bahai's and syncretics. This is an argument about what is valid as scripture with Christians, and I open with a discussion of 2 Timothy.

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2Ti 3:17 NIV)

I examine this famous passage in 2 Timotheus (2 Timothy). I view his comment about the holy scriptures and referring to some aspect of the Jewish canon. I specify what he's including or excluding for purposes of this conversation. Some kind of Jewish scripture is what that refers to, and I'm not discussing whether he includes the Maccabees or the Catholic canon or the Ketuviim. I'm focusing upon his phrase "All scripture is God-breathed." I want to examine if this can include (for you and I) other things besides Jewish canon. This may not be what Paul is talking to Timotheus about or it may. As for me, I feel that at some point I have begun to see the same scriptures everywhere and in all kinds of writings. It is as though the rocks and trees and the sky have them written.
1.
For purposes of conversation I ask you to take the point of view that everything exists in God, so the world, people, all kinds of things good and bad all exist inside of God. Now, if we assume that, does it imply that there is scripture everywhere?
2.
Secondly is Paul excluding this possibility and/or does he recognize it as true? As for me I think #1 is true and am unsure about Paul's position on #2 but lean heavily towards yes and will be arguing in favor of both 1 and 2. In the interest of fun I'm going to try not to be rude to anyone or bring up errors of the past or offenses or anything like that. I hope all concerned can do the same. I'm going to hold myself to the standard that only God enlightens people, but making this argument is a compromise with that. It is of course silly to think I can get a point across. What I can do is make everyone comfortable if possible and see if getting enough tinder together makes a big fire.

• In favor of #1: I do see wisdom written down in many things with are not officially called holy. I see principles discovered repeatedly and independently. I consider the definition of Torah, which doesn't actually just mean commands but refers to the way that things work. I might consider the laws of Physics as a torah of physics. They are not commands but nevertheless are a torah. Even those things which are officially called 'Scripture' we have to carefully consider them, digest them We can misunderstand them.
• In favor of #2: Discussing Paul's opinions on scripture is far more complicated I think than discussing #1. #2 seems relatively elusive. Is Paul just one person, or is he several people writing under one name? There are many questions about Paul which people are uncertain of. Paul says that everything which can be known about God is obvious through nature. (Romans 1:20) Also in I Corinthians 13 Paul declares that even if I can speak the language of angels, can fathom all mysteries but dishonor others or don't love others then there is nothing to me. He also says that prophecies and speech are all partial and must be replaced by something better, and he compares knowledge to childishness compared with what must come. He then goes on in later chapters to talk about some things I don't understand such as resurrection, gifts of language, knowledge etc. Even if I do understand fully what he is talking about though, it means nothing without love. If I am boasting about my knowledge, then I'm nothing; but this seems counter intuitive. I have holy scriptures, so I must know something, right? He seems to find great value in the Jewish canon, but he also seems to consider it a childish prequel to something.

Finally I have a poll. As a simple Christian, how likely are you to quote from something other than scripture if you are standing in a church, prayer meeting or other gathering of Christians? Do you find this to be uncomfortable or inappropriate?

I believe all Scripture is inspired, but how can we know what is Scripture? Some books are controversial, and canons can vary. Please help.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I believe all Scripture is inspired, but how can we know what is Scripture? Some books are controversial, and canons can vary. Please help.

I'm going to answer this twice.

I liked a lot that was in pcarl's post including his warning not to seek to obtain absolute wisdom, and I thought user clear helped with the wording of the scripture verse in the opening post.

Here is a nice sentiment that someone has expressed before me: "...Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. ..." (Jeremiah 6:16)

People forget lessons, lose things, burn documents, die taking knowledge with them to the grave. In order for us to look for a good, old way we need some understanding of History, because travel directions can be quite obscure without a map. I benefited a lot last year from learning a little bit about Egyptian History and contrasting Egyptian myth with the Jewish scriptures I had read as a child. I learned how critical the Jewish scriptures were of Egyptian culture. Before that all of the Egyptians in the canon just seemed like paper dolls, and that, in turn, flattened the Jewish scriptures making them seem relatively arbitrary. Learning this newly discovered archeological information cast light which I had never before seen upon scriptures I had been over multiples time before, so you see that History was a missing scripture which I needed to interpret the other scripture. For me it was indispensable, yet I did not know it. This underlies the problem you bring forward. We don't know what we are missing. We only know that it is old knowledge.

I believe all Scripture is inspired, but how can we know what is Scripture? Some books are controversial, and canons can vary. Please help.

My other answer to this is that today you are the believing Christian by which I mean you're not cynical. As you say "I believe all scripture is inspired." Not everyone is like that but may still be a Christian. It pays for you to look at Christians as having various spiritual gifts at different times. Cynicism is a gift, too. A person who is cynical cannot just be told "We are in an airplane" but cannot rest without knowing how everything in it works. They must understand how wind lifts the wing and exactly how the engines turn and what happens if a bird hits the plane. They can't be happy without that. Takeoff makes them nervous. That is a spiritual gift, even though it may sound like a burden. Another person will be gifted with accepting things: "Cool it flies. Lets go." That is also a spiritual gift. Its not the same gift. Person A might think person B is too energetic and accepting or too trusting, and person B might think person A is overcautious and obstinate. Its just two different people. On a different day they may also have different gifts, B for A and A for B. This is a spiritual gift, not a demon. It is different views from different people. Let that enrich your understanding of scriptures, because scripture (contrary to what some people who beg a lot for money for God) like to claim don't always have the same point of view of things yet can be equally valuable, even equally true relative to the truth that is in God.

There is an illustrating concept I learned in Calculus. 2/x does not seem equal to 3/x, however as x approaches infinity both are relatively zero (since x is so large that the totals are zero in all practical respects). Such is the nature of the truth in God that our individual truth is relatively zero. This is the root of humility. When you say "Let God be true and everyone a liar" it means you accept humility. What you think may seem different than the person next to you, but both of you are equally ignorant compared to God. That doesn't mean your 3/x is meaningless, but it does mean that you should not condemn that other person for disagreeing.

 

[Clear]

I believe all Scripture is inspired, but how can we know what is Scripture? Some books are controversial, and canons can vary. Please help.

Hi @YeshuaRedeemed

I agree with you that all historical texts we can call scripture are "inspired". To me, this means that the person who originally wrote that text was impressed by the spirit to write the specific history they wrote. It is the thought and inherent and information that was inspired when the author wrote, NOT the inanimate pen or paper that was our is "inspired".

Similarly, I think that the personal inspiration we feel when reading a text is one of the best indications a specific written concept is inspired and meaningful to our spiritual life. I think such inspiration can come from multiple texts and from multiple experiences and multiple observations we make in our lives. Thus the text relies as much on the reader to receive inspiration during the reading of a text as it does on the writer of the text for inspiration to be transmitted to mankind.

Thus, one way to determine if a test is inspired is to read it with an open and honest mind and see if you yourself feel the inspiration of the holy spirit and its illumination and insight as you read a text. This is not an objective measure in that this may simply tell you more about the reader than it will the text since this is affected by the heart and mindset and bias of the reader as much as the text itself, but it also explains why so many different texts seem inspired to various sets of readers.

Still, as Paul points out in the scripture of the opening post : "ALL inspired writings are good for teaching.....etc."

In any case, good luck in your own spiritual journey and in finding spirit filled insights during your journey in this life.

Clear
Vidrse