What happens next?

[tabibito]

θεόπνευστος, adjective, given by inspiration of God?

Good enough. Every Schrift is inspired by God states where the Schrift originates, it is not a description of the Schrift; every Schrift given by God's inspiration describes the scripture in question. (Assuming that I understand the German correctly, γραφη = Schrift, not heilige Schrift). The way it is translated, every recipe and written count of sheep would be inspired by God, if the original meaning of γραφη were preserved

[Juvenal]

A flawed translation, and if it wasn't, it would be a demonstrably false claim in the Bible.

With all due respect, the problem isn't with the translation.

Normal people don't imagine the author was writing about his own writing, whoever that author might have been. Consequently, the author was referencing some more restricted collection of texts which, with the author unavailable for clarification, must be adjuticated by some other standard or authority.

With that much almost trivially understood, there's no need to carp on the translation which does little more than grammatically rewind the original. There's no contradiction between an adjectival phrase like "tall man" and the identity "the man is tall."

Even a heathen like myself is satisfied with the tautological "God-breathed scriptures are those scriptures which are God-breathed."

So we're left to our own devices to determine which texts are God-breathed — or, better, discarding the strait-jacket and blinders, determining which texts are "useful for instruction," and in what sense.

IMG_0747.jpeg

In early Christianity, before "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" was adopted to elevate Ernest Angley and every unschooled pew warmer as her own personal pope, the task was assigned to Jesus, or his apostles, as close an authority as remained after his passing. And his brother, too, but the less said about that, the more peaceful the discussion will remain.

And Paul, an upstart milkshake mixer salesman who stole the name and franchised it to become the place "where the things that should be fresh are frozen, and the things that should be frozen are out of order." Fair to say the handshake deal with the original owners was never honored.

In turning away from the corrupt authority of the Medici popes, the Reformation created millions and now billions of corrupt authorities in their place, who nevertheless rely unwittingly on the Church they've officially rejected to tell them which of their sacred texts they should consider God-breathed.

[tabibito]

With all due respect, the problem isn't with the translation.

The problem is with the translation - as detailed below.

Normal people don't imagine the author was writing about his own writing, whoever that author might have been. Consequently, the author was referencing some more restricted collection of texts which, with the author unavailable for clarification, must be adjuticated by some other standard or authority.

With that much almost trivially understood, there's no need to carp on the translation which does little more than grammatically rewind the original. There's no contradiction between an adjectival phrase like "tall man" and the identity "the man is tall."

FIRSTLY: Tall is inherently an adjective, inspire is not: your example is an apples and oranges comparison. SECONDLY: - to nominate only the most significant point of grammar - "inspired BY God" unmistakably identifies "inspired" as a verb.
Repeated posts on the topic in TWeb, which reflect the more general (all but universal) understanding, make it clear that "inspired by God" is not understood to be an adjective.

Even a heathen like myself is satisfied with the tautological "God-breathed scriptures are those scriptures which are God-breathed."

In English, scripture refers to writing regarded as having some connection at least with religion. The author of that passage used a word (graphe) that, in his own time, meant anything committed to writing - unless it was modified by an adjective, or unless context reveals a specified subset of gramma. The verse is not tautological; it literally says "God-inspired writing."

So we're left to our own devices to determine which texts are God-breathed — or, better, discarding the strait-jacket and blinders, determining which texts are "useful for instruction," and in what sense.

The point is, in broad terms, I believe, correct.

In early Christianity, before "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" was adopted to elevate Ernest Angley and every unschooled pew warmer as her own personal pope, the task was assigned to Jesus, or his apostles, as close an authority as remained after his passing. And his brother, too, but the less said about that, the more peaceful the discussion will remain.

Christian teachers get a lot of training in what commentators claim the scriptures say, but precious little in what the Biblical texts themselves have to say.

And Paul, an upstart milkshake mixer salesman who stole the name and franchised it to become the place "where the things that should be fresh are frozen, and the things that should be frozen are out of order." Fair to say the handshake deal with the original owners was never honored.

I consider the polemic against Paul to be based on nothing of substance.

In turning away from the corrupt authority of the Medici popes, the Reformation created millions and now billions of corrupt authorities in their place, who nevertheless rely unwittingly on the Church they've officially rejected to tell them which of their sacred texts they should consider God-breathed.

Agreed - well, the actual numbers a probably hyperbolic; and the problems started long before the Medici popes - but agreed in principle, certainly.

[Sparko]

So Luke's account of what Jesus said and did at that time, proves that he did not die.

It proves he was resurrected back to life. The crucifixion and burial prove he was dead. The "swoon" hypothesis has been found lacking. Nobody could survive that beating he got, then the crucifixion and being stabbed in the side with a spear. Romans were experts at it, they would not allow someone to survive. They only released his body once they were sure he was dead.

[Cow Poke]

It proves he was resurrected back to life. The crucifixion and burial prove he was dead. The "swoon" hypothesis has been found lacking. Nobody could survive that beating he got, then the crucifixion and being stabbed in the side with a spear. Romans were experts at it, they would not allow someone to survive. They only released his body once they were sure he was dead.

Albeit temporarily dead.

[Sparko]

You obviously don't understand. Luke explains that he collected all the stories for his deposition. He admits that he didn't see anything....... So his whole account is hearsay.

Very clumsy of you, rogue.

Well you better throw out nearly every history book ever written then.

[CivilDiscourse]

Albeit temporarily dead.

[Sparko]

Whether the bible is the word of God or just made-up myths doesn't matter for the purposes of this argument about what Christians believe. We believe the bible is the word of God and that Jesus died and was was resurrected bodily, and that one day we too will be resurrected bodily and spend eternity in eternal physical bodies living in a physical universe. We could be totally wrong, but it is what we believe, and anyone not believing that Jesus was resurrected bodily and that we will be also is not a Christian.

[eider]

It proves he was resurrected back to life. The crucifixion and burial prove he was dead. The "swoon" hypothesis has been found lacking. Nobody could survive that beating he got, then the crucifixion and being stabbed in the side with a spear. Romans were experts at it, they would not allow someone to survive. They only released his body once they were sure he was dead.

That's what you think.
He was not buried! He was placed in a tomb and later found to have gone.
You have no idea about what kind of beating he got.
You have no idea about why the soldier stabbed him.

Romans DID allow survival from crosses, it's recorded!
They were ordered what do.

[eider]

Well you better throw out nearly every history book ever written then.

Duh!
Luke explained that he collected all!

Much of history was written by witnesses!

[Cow Poke]

That's what you think.
He was not buried! He was placed in a tomb and later found to have gone.

Laughing... um... that's how they did things back then, and the fact that He was "gone" is a major part of the Christian narrative.

You have no idea about what kind of beating he got.
You have no idea about why the soldier stabbed him.

Romans DID allow survival from crosses, it's recorded!
They were ordered what do.

So, as long as we toss out the Bible and go by your own ramblings.....

Did JimL pay you to post stuff to make him look smart?

[Sparko]

That's what you think.
He was not buried! He was placed in a tomb and later found to have gone.
You have no idea about what kind of beating he got.
You have no idea about why the soldier stabbed him.

Romans DID allow survival from crosses, it's recorded!
They were ordered what do.

Being put in a tomb is being "buried"

Yeah we do know the beating he got. It was something Romans did regularly for crucifixions. They would flay the backs and make having their back against the cross as painful as possible. They wanted the victims to suffer. And regardless of WHY the Roman stabbed him, the fact is that he did stab him and nobody could survive all that punishment. Romans weren't idiots. They know when someone was dead and someone was alive. Not to mention Jesus was covered in like 100 pounds of ointments and wrapped tightly in a shroud and left in a cold dark sealed tomb. No way anyone could survive that.

[eider]

Laughing... um... that's how they did things back then, and the fact that He was "gone" is a major part of the Christian narrative.

You haven't really got a clue about 'how they did things'.
You just bawl out your chosen agenda.

So, as long as we toss out the Bible and go by your own ramblings.....

Did JimL pay you to post stuff to make him look smart?

We aren't tossing out the Bible, just some of the New Testament and your own ramblings.

JimL is going to eclipse you in debate without using me as any comparison.

[Cow Poke]

You haven't really got a clue about 'how they did things'.
You just bawl out your chosen agenda.

We aren't tossing out the Bible, just some of the New Testament and your own ramblings.

JimL is going to eclipse you in debate without using me as any comparison.

[Sparko]

Duh!
Luke explained that he collected all!

Much of history was written by witnesses!

Some of history was written by witnesses. Most history is written by those who came later. Heck just look at any history book written in the last 100 years written about the Romans, or Greeks or any ancient near east history. Zero were written by anyone witnessing the events.
And what Luke recorded was also recorded by others who were witnesses. Like John. He also records the event with Thomas touching Jesus' wounds and being resurrected physically. And all 4 gospels mention that he rose physically and the tomb was empty.