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.

[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

So, it's only pertinent, interesting and/or beneficial for people of faith, and not to people 'not of faith' (considering there are millions, if not more, existing today).
Maybe 'people of faith' are all that matters?

[Realworldjack]

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.

Certainly, you are not under the impression that I am completely unaware of the debate concerning the authorship of the Pauline letters? Certainly, you did not think I would be shocked by such statements, and had never heard, or considered them? I will assure you, I am not only well aware of this debate, I am also very well read up on both sides of the issue. One thing I do know for certain about this issue, is that it has not in any way whatsoever been demonstrated that Paul would not have been the author of the letter in question, nor of any of the other letters which may be in question, as you seem to insist.

One thing I would have to give you is, if 2 Timothy was not authored by Paul, then it is certainly, and without a doubt, packed with, "fillers", and I mean, packed with them, with the sole purpose of attempting to make the letter seem to be authentic. Seeing as how short this letter actually is, this certainly does not leave very much room in order for this "fake" author to get whatever message it is he intended to be circulated, whatever that may have been? However, if Paul was indeed the author, then we simply have Paul communicating to Timothy, certain things, and events, Timothy would have been well aware of, since the author does not go into great detail concerning these things he brings up.

Now, we can go further into this debate if you wish, but the fact of the matter is, there have been book volumes wrote on both sides of the issue, with no resolution as of yet, so I highly doubt we will be able to come to some sort of resolution between us. I am fine with whatever position you take, but for one to insist the issue has been settled, sort of demonstrates one who simply believes, what they would rather believe.

The thing is, if Paul did indeed author this letter, then we indeed have evidence that Paul was indeed imprisoned, and that Luke would have been the only one left with Paul at the time, and as we couple this with the evidence we have that the author of "Acts" would have been a traveling companion of Paul, who just so happens to end his second letter addressed to Theophilus, with Paul being imprisoned, then we have very good evidence which strongly suggests, we have an author of one of the Gospels, which would have been alive at the time of Jesus.

Now, is it any wonder in the least as to why the critical scholars feel the need to question the authorship of 2 Timothy? This is exactly why, the type of argument you are attempting to give here, gives me all the more confidence in the position I hold.