Biblical filler material

[nobspeople]

Is there anything in the bible that one can legitimately consider 'filler'*?
Are there any stories submitted that simply have no implication on the enteral soul of the reader?
If so, which story?

I ask as I was reading a thread recently that divulged into arguing of which dead brother was required to breed with a woman (or something to that regard - I got lost in the bickering back-n-forth TBH) and I wondered how this story and discussion had any relevance on my life at any point.

*Filler, here, meaning having no implication to the life and eternal life of any human, living, dead or not yet born.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Is there anything in the bible that one can legitimately consider 'filler'*?

If you're running low on soil amendments, and need to fill out such, it's a great replacement for certain organic fertilizers.

You can also use it to fill holes in the gaps of human knowledge, if ya don't think too hard about it.

Use it to fill out gaps in your wall insulation, or to fill out the gaps in your toilet paper supply.

[nobspeople]

From the OP:

Is there anything in the bible that one can legitimately consider 'filler'*?

If you're running low on soil amendments, and need to fill out such, it's a great replacement for certain organic fertilizers.

You can also use it to fill holes in the gaps of human knowledge, if ya don't think too hard about it.

Use it to fill out gaps in your wall insulation, or to fill out the gaps in your toilet paper supply.

I sent mine to the recycler. It's better used there than it was in my life. Too bad about the leather cover, though. Poor cow died needlessly.

So does this mean you consider it all filler? Most of it? Please elaborate

[Realworldjack]

With that being said, there is an enormous amount contained in the Bible, which would have nothing whatsoever to do with any reader at all today.

I disagree. There is nothing in the bible that it irrelevant to the modern day reader, its details are always pertinent, interesting and/or beneficial for people of faith.



JW

Imagine my surprise with your disagreement? In reality, it is no surprise at all to me, because there are many folks who seem to want to insist, that all that is contained in what we call the Bible, was somehow intended for us today, when this can be easily demonstrated to be false. Of course, while these folks who insist upon such things, seem to believe this insistence, causes the Bible to be relevant, it actually has the opposite affect.

The fact of the matter is, the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the Bible, can be easily demonstrated to have been addressed to those at the time, with the authors having no concern in the least, as to whether anyone else would ever read the content, other than the intended audience at the time, and it certainly can be easily demonstrated that none of the Biblical authors would have known anything at all about any sort of Bible their writings would later be contained in.

So then, please do demonstrate to us, how reading Paul's command to Timothy, to bring Paul's cloak to him when Timothy came to Paul, would in any way be applicable, to any of us today?

[nobspeople]

With that being said, there is an enormous amount contained in the Bible, which would have nothing whatsoever to do with any reader at all today.

I disagree. There is nothing in the bible that it irrelevant to the modern day reader, its details are always pertinent, interesting and/or beneficial for people of faith.



JW

Imagine my surprise with your disagreement? In reality, it is no surprise at all to me, because there are many folks who seem to want to insist, that all that is contained in what we call the Bible, was somehow intended for us today, when this can be easily demonstrated to be false. Of course, while these folks who insist upon such things, seem to believe this insistence, causes the Bible to be relevant, it actually has the opposite affect.

The fact of the matter is, the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the Bible, can be easily demonstrated to have been addressed to those at the time, with the authors having no concern in the least, as to whether anyone else would ever read the content, other than the intended audience at the time, and it certainly can be easily demonstrated that none of the Biblical authors would have known anything at all about any sort of Bible their writings would later be contained in.

So then, please do demonstrate to us, how reading Paul's command to Timothy, to bring Paul's cloak to him when Timothy came to Paul, would in any way be applicable, to any of us today?

Of course I'm not speaking for JW, but I think that it's all about perception, want and need. Some people want so much for the bible to be 100% relevant than the 'want' becomes a 'need' and they justify their lives to prove this idea true. We can ask for people to show 'this or that', but in reality, they can based on how they live their lives and amended their lives so that it fits the bible.
Of course, we also have to consider, when challenged with this, people will be 'less than truthful' (but that goes for most anything on a forum such as this).
Basically, we can show whatever we want from the bible because it's just ambiguous enough to allow for such a tactic.

But, if JW has a means to make all I just said untrue, 100%, and testable (that the bible is relevant today), I'm sure we all welcome it, theist, atheist, agnostic and 'other' alike!

[Difflugia]

So then, please do demonstrate to us, how reading Paul's command to Timothy, to bring Paul's cloak to him when Timothy came to Paul, would in any way be applicable, to any of us today?

It's applicable today because some Christians now are concerned with whether or not Paul actually wrote the Pastorals, as were Christians in the early second century when confronted with the freshly-minted epistles that we now know to be pseudonymous. While not offering anything particularly theological, 2 Timothy 4 overall is an attempt by the author to provide a bit of verisimilitude by mimicking the personal greetings and exhortations included by the real Paul in genuine epistles like those to the Romans and to Philemon. Though most modern scholars recognize these flourishes for what they are, one can still find Christians using these very passages to argue for genuine Pauline authorship. That, coupled with the criterion of having obviously made it into the New Testament alongside letters much more probably by Paul, we should probably judge the unknown author's efforts to have been, and continue to be, successful.

[Realworldjack]

So then, please do demonstrate to us, how reading Paul's command to Timothy, to bring Paul's cloak to him when Timothy came to Paul, would in any way be applicable, to any of us today?

It's applicable today because some Christians now are concerned with whether or not Paul actually wrote the Pastorals, as were Christians in the early second century when confronted with the freshly-minted epistles that we now know to be pseudonymous. While not offering anything particularly theological, 2 Timothy 4 overall is an attempt by the author to provide a bit of verisimilitude by mimicking the personal greetings and exhortations included by the real Paul in genuine epistles like those to the Romans and to Philemon. Though most modern scholars recognize these flourishes for what they are, one can still find Christians using these very passages to argue for genuine Pauline authorship. That, coupled with the criterion of having obviously made it into the New Testament alongside letters much more probably by Paul, we should probably judge the unknown author's efforts to have been, and continue to be, successful.

While I would love to have this debate with you, this would be a whole other, and different debate than what we have here. In other words, whether this letter would have been authored by Paul, or someone other than Paul, the command to Timothy, to bring Paul's cloak when Timothy came, would have nothing whatsoever to do with us.

[Difflugia]

While I would love to have this debate with you, this would be a whole other, and different debate than what we have here. In other words, whether this letter would have been authored by Paul, or someone other than Paul, the command to Timothy, to bring Paul's cloak when Timothy came, would have nothing whatsoever to do with us.

I completely disagree. If the letter had been written by Paul, then it would be a minor distraction and of little consequence. Since it wasn't and yet is treated as though it were, the statement has had a very profound effect on at least some Christians.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #3]

And even in the New Testament; what difference does it make that some guy fell asleep while listening to Paul drone on, and fell from a window sill?

Very good point! This is exactly why we need to keep in mind, the author of this letter, did not have us in mind as he wrote, but was rather addressing an audience at the time, which he referred to as, "Theophilus". Moreover, this author certainly had no idea the letter he had addressed to this "Theophilus" would one day be contained in what we now call the Bible, which he could not have possibly known about. Therefore, while the story you refer to may be of no concern to us, it may well have been a concern to the audience the author was addressing at the time.

Do you honestly believe that, other than perhaps being an interesting anecdote, this would have some import that concerned people? I don't.

Where in the world did I suggest "this would have some import that concerned people"? Rather, I am suggesting the author who identified his audience as Theophilus, was simply giving an account to his audience, of the actions of the apostles, which would have included Paul, and this would have been part of the account, he was relating to his audience at the time.

Well you did say, "Therefore, while the story you refer to may be of no concern to us, it may well have been a concern to the audience the author was addressing at the time."

Now, you may suggest, this would be a useless detail, and you would be correct, if this is where the story ended. However, it goes on to say,

Finally, completely overcome by sleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up as dead.

Now, I would suggest, this would make the account somewhat more interesting, at least to the audience the author was addressing at the time? However, even if it does not make the account any more interesting to you, my wife will tell accounts in great detail. My complaint to her often is, "please get to the point I need to hear". The point is, even if this author goes into details, his audience does not need to hear, (like my wife) what would this have to do with anything at all?

Not quite following you here, although I do fail to see what the story goes on to say, "Finally, completely overcome by sleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up as dead." matters. Paul may just as well have remarked that Eutychus over ate---it just doesn't matter. It's wasted space in the Bible.


.

[Difflugia]

Not quite following you here, although I do fail to see what the story goes on to say, "Finally, completely overcome by sleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up as dead." matters. Paul may just as well have remarked that Eutychus over ate---it just doesn't matter. It's wasted space in the Bible.

It's a straight-up joke ("Paul was so boring that...") and the punchline is that Paul brought him back from the dead.

[Miles]

Not quite following you here, although I do fail to see what the story goes on to say, "Finally, completely overcome by sleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up as dead." matters. Paul may just as well have remarked that Eutychus over ate---it just doesn't matter. It's wasted space in the Bible.

It's a straight-up joke ("Paul was so boring that...") and the punchline is that Paul brought him back from the dead.

Not according the version I read.

"Finally, completely overcome by sleep, he fell to the ground from the third storey and was picked up as dead. But Paul went down, bent over him and holding him gently in his arms, said, “Don’t be alarmed; he is still alive.”

When Paul say “Don’t be alarmed; he is still alive." "Still" means he was never dead in the first place. So the "as dead" can only mean he appeared to be dead.



.