It is reported that the Greek speaking Christians were using the Greek Septuagint as the inspired Old Testament Books during the time in question. The Septuagint includes the Apocrypha or as the Catholics call it, "the Deuterocanonical books that are inspired by God."

I really like the approach of asking people Socratic questions as a means of gaining deeper insight into why they believe what they believe. For example, when I've asked people to explain to me how they know that the Bible is divinely inspired, many times I've had 2 Timothy 3:16 cited to me as an answer: > 16 **All Scripture is breathed out by God** and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. [2 Timothy 3:16-17, ESV] To those who consider that citing 2 Timothy 3:16 is a valid response, I would like to ask them two follow-up questions: - How can we know for sure that 2 Timothy 3:16 is itself divinely inspired? - How can we know for sure what is meant by "All Scripture"? What writings are included in that statement and why? ___ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83868/50422

2 Timothy 1:6-7 (ESV): > 6 For this reason I remind you **to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands**, 7 for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control. What did Paul mean when he advised Timothy to *"fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands"*? How was Timothy supposed to apply Paul's advice to his life? I would like to see an **overview** of how Christians usually answer these questions and how they go about applying whatever the passage is teaching to their own lives. Do most Christians tend to understand 2 Timothy 1:6-7 in the same way or is this one of those passages that cause a lot of controversy? ________ *Personal thoughts*: my educated guess is that Paul is probably using figurative language, similar to the "go buy more oil to keep your lamp burning" of the parable of the ten virgins (that's my own way of paraphrasing it by the way), to mean the gift of the Holy Spirit that Timothy probably received by Paul's literal laying of hands on him (like the many examples in the book of Acts) and as an invitation/command for Timothy to give himself more fully to the control of the Holy Spirit, although the exact concrete way in which he was supposed to do that is not totally clear to me.

This is slightly a take-off from:
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/12090/what-does-it-mean-that-all-scripture-is-god-breathed **The Bible** as we know it today wasn't canonized and compiled into a single volume until much later. In particular, I am concerned with the reference to all scripture being "God-breathed" (inspired) in 2 Timothy, as it was written long before (varying, based on which "canonization" we consider) any canonization. So what was meant/intended by the authors by the term "scripture" at the time of New Testament writings?

Here is a quote from an article about the verse I read in this link : > Verse 16 is a crucial text in our discussion. All Scripture (Greek: > graphe which is refering to the sacred writings). Here is an obvious > reference to the Old Testament, though it did not exclude the writings > presently being written in Timothy's own day, the New Testament. I talk with a Calvinist friend (who gave me the link above) as he said that *Paul teach Sola Scriptura to Timothy*. After I read the link, so I propose an analogy that "Scripture" is like "chilly".
He agree to the analogy, as he said *"all chilly is sufficient to make someone (who ate it) feel hot. With just only chilly, it can make someone feel hot. So is Scripture. With just only Scripture, the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work "*. Next I propose him an illustration :
There is already chilly in your house.
You like a hot/spicy food.
So then logically your wife can cook food for you with only that chilly in your house, as with just only chilly it will be sufficient to make you feel hot. But then, I see your wife go to the supermarket and buy another chilly. Comeback to the house, she starts cooking with the chilly in your house and with the one she just bought. The question *"why did your wife buy another chilly while only with the chilly at your home is sufficient to make you feel hot ?"* is analog with the title of my question ---> *"why make another Scripture, while only with the existing Scripture the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work ?"* Then my friend show me some sentences from the link above: > If I am a store owner who can fully equip a hiker to hike the Grand > Canyon and if I have the resources and abilities to provide everything > he needs in the way of supplies, hiking gear, shoes, maps, food, etc., > **does it not follow that I am a sufficient source of supply for the hiker?** I say :
Exactly. It does follow that the chilly in your house a sufficient source of supply to make you hot. Then I go on showing the article from the same link: > If he has to go next door to another shop for a few more things, and > then to a third shop for some things that neither mine nor the other > shop had, then none of us are sufficient to equip the hiker Me:
The analogy above doesn't apply to what I am asking. Your wife go to supermarket is not to buy a powder pepper or other things, but chilly. My friend doesn't have an answer.
So I ask the question here. ---------- Addition from the same article's link : > For Luther, the entire Bible is inspired. However, he was asking a > question concerning **which are the right BOOKS to be included in the > Bible** The sentence above show a condition that The Scripture already exist. Yet, later on some people want to ADD that existing Scripture. IF those some people ---*who want to add the existing Scripture*--- already had in mind that the existing Scripture alone is sufficient, then why did they want to add more it ? > The word canon comes from the Greek word kanon and means "a measuring > rod, ruler, norm, or standard by which other things are **measured or > judged**." Measured or judged by what ? By the Scripture ?

The scene of Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane has confused me for a time. How could Jesus be overcome with fear or anguish or what-have-you when his Spirit is one of power and self-control, not of fear? > **Luke 22:42-44 ESV** “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. > > **2 Timothy 1:7 ESV** for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control. Could it be that Jesus was not actually afraid, but anguish means something else? Other translations, actually most, say he was in agony or "in agony of spirit". What is an overview of doctrinal opinions on this?

In 2 Timothy 2:8-9, Paul writes: > 8 Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, **descended from David**. This is my gospel, 9 for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal (NIV, emphases mine) From my reading of this, Paul's gospel is Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. I understand why Jesus rising from the dead would be part of the Gospel, but why include descendant of David? Wouldn't something like Son of God be more important to have in your gospel?

> All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness... (2 Timothy 3:16) Certainly the New Testament wasn't available to the writer at the time, and most likely he'd not seen any of the letters therein. So, when he writes "all scripture" would he have been including his writing of 2 Timothy 3:16, since he'd have no way of knowing that it would be considered "scripture" as he was writing it? And would he have been including "any" books of the new testament since he'd not seen any of it? Or, is he simply referring to the OT? Also, keeping in mind the rule of testimony and testifying on one's own behalf. EDIT: According to your site and it’s writings: The word for "scripture" in the Greek text is (ἡ) γραφή, often occurring in the plural, (τῆς) γραφῆς, which literally means "writing(s)." So then: “Every scripture inspired by God is also profitable for doctrine, for reproof,” Could be stated: “Every writing inspired by God is also profitable for doctrine, for reproof,” T herefore it could be said that: “Any” writing(s) could be found to be “inspired by God”. Which leads us to the question: Who’s to say? Makes one wonder how many of the great poets and writers we’ve had sent in disguise to warn as prophets or lead as teachers that have been exempt from canonization. Amy Grant, Neil Young, Charles Bukowski, C.S. Lewis, Steve Martin… you get the idea. I suppose then it comes down to man arguing with man on who’s inspired by God and who isn’t. You’ve opened up a can of worm holes for me.

2 Timothy 3:16 says: > All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness... (NIV) From the perspective of Biblical Inerrancy, how is this compatible with Hebrews 7:18 , which speaking of the law of Moses says: > The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (NIV) ? If there are various approaches that are too disctint and sufficiently nuanced to be comprehensively covered here, what is a basic overview of such approaches?

Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done (2 Timothy 4:14). Forgiveness is central in Christianity with all the great churches.Jesus own words:Forgive them father for they know not what they do. Here we see the Apostle Paul speaking about "repayment" for harm done to him. What is the Catholic doctrine on this verse or how one is to understand judgment vs forgiveness in this verse?

In 2 Tim. 4:14, Paul said that > Alexander the copper-smith did many evil things to me; the Lord will recompense him according to his works. Is there any tradition on what exactly Alexander did here? That is, what did the Chruch Fathers have to say about this passage? Assuming there is some tradition, how much credibility have modern scholars assigned to it?

>Work hard so you can present yourself to God and receive his approval. What does that mean? >Be a good worker. What does that mean? >one who does not need to be ashamed an who correctly explains the word of truth. What does that mean? This is one verse of scripture. I just broke it down into three pieces so i can get a better understanding [2 Timothy 2:15 (NLT)] [1] >Work hard so you can present yourself to God and receive his approval. Be a good worker, one who does not need to be ashamed an who correctly explains the word of truth. Would anybody mind helping me understand this verse? Thanks in advance.

In II Timothy 4:14-15, Paul writes: > Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord > will repay him for what he has done. You too should be on your > guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message. Paul wants God to repay Alexander the metalworker. In other words Paul wants him to be punished. Why Paul wants a man he hates to suffer? Paul very well knows what a "Christian Love" is, and What Jesus did to those who treated him enemies. Is there any specific reason why he did so?

2 Timothy 1:9 states: > Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according > to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was > given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. If this verse says what I think it does, that we were chosen to be saved "before the world began," doesn't that prove the Calvinist Doctrine of Election?

> No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully. The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits. Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. *(2 Timothy 2:4-7, KJV)* These statements seem disconnected to me. Considering that Paul is asking Timothy to consider these things, I would think there is some connection between these counsels.

Paul refers to the gift of spirit that Timothy had in both I and II Timothy. > KJV 2 Timothy 1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. What gift did Timothy have? Was he afraid to use it? The verse that immediately follows the verse above seems to suggest this. > KJV 2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. From the following verse, I can gather: 1. The gift that would be received by Timothy was foretold (given by prophecy) 2. It was given by Laying on of Hands (Paul's hands by first verse quoted) > KJV 1 Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

> 2 Timothy 3v8 > > "Just as **Jannes** and **Jambres** opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected." Who were they?

2 Timothy 2:11-13 (RSVCE) has: > The saying is sure: > > If we have died with him, we shall also live with him; > > if we endure, **we shall also reign with him**; > > if we deny him, he also will deny us; > > if we are faithless, he remains faithful— for he cannot deny himself. What is the Catholic understanding of *'we shall also reign with him'*? One difficulty, if all reign, who are the subjects? One Protestant perspective is the thinking that the subjects would be the people in the Millennial Rule of Christ; the ones that were not raptured or survived through the tribulation. Also a thought is that people would still have families and offspring born of them during that time. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ **Ideas Board** *sketches* *'Let them be masters ...'* [Gn 1:26]; Joseph and Potiphar [Genesis 39:8-9 (RSVCE)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+39%3A+8-9&version=RSVCE)* ; 31 and he has filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, with intelligence, with knowledge, and with all craftsmanship, 32 to devise artistic designs, to work in gold and silver and bronze,* [[Exodus 35:31-32 (RSVCE)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+35%3A31-32&version=RSVCE)] ; [David's Adminstration](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Chronicles+18%3A+14-17&version=RSVCE)[1 Chronicles 18: 14-17]; *'Truly, I tell you, he will set him over all his possessions.'* [cf. Lk 12:44]; [The Parable of Talents](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A+14-30&version=RSVCE) ; you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel [(Matthew 19:28 (RSVCE)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A+28&version=RSVCE) , *'I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.'* [[John 10:10 (RSVCE)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:10&version=RSVCE)] , etc. Also Kings Pele, Elvis, etc. Filling the stations abandoned by the fallen angels? King of kings; All nations shall serve and obey him (nations continue?); you are **royal priesthood**