T-Bone
-
Posts
7,529 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
255
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Everything posted by T-Bone
-
So you made your own canon. Cool. uhm …but is it really your own - or did you pull a wierwille - copy bits and pieces of PFAL and then called it a cannon - face the front of the class and fire!!!!!
-
You promote inconsistencies and throw out any intellectual standards. You become a standard unto yourself. You interpret yourself. You decide what is important to know and what is not important to know. Your methods suck! if wierwille could read your posts he would roll over in his grave - only momentarily of course -he’d settle back down remembering the dead are not alive now. wierwille’s stuff is pretty whacky . I didn’t think it was possible but you’ve ramped it up considerably- it’s some next level $hit. YOU make wierwille’s $hitty doctrine smell even worse than it already does. How is that even possible ? this deserves the official canonized wierwille-fan seal of approval and once more. it’s established! Bravo Mike!
-
It has occurred to me that you have been developing a PFAL canon for sometime now - but I’ve noticed there’s been a lot of hitches in your giddy up - too many rewrites. Oh well. Council of Nice to See Ya again Mike
-
Your premise assumes God inspired the writers by dictating what they should say. In effect being shoved around by the Holy Spirit. ..that is a one author book. I believe in limited inspiration - since the Bible says people were moved by the Holy Spirit- (when a song inspires you - it moves you…unless you’re doing karaoke and you hope you remember how the song goes…fyi - I couldn’t carry a tune so I got stuck playing the bass). This views the Bible as a coauthored book - it will have divine and human elements in it.
-
You see class , here’s the road down …what does that old snake in the grass do in PFAL? He asks his students “did the original God-breathed word really say that?” And a student usually responds “ well, it looks like it did cuz I can read plain King James English - but something tells me you think otherwise.” Then the phony cyclops eye-doctor-of-a-snake with a glint in his beady little eye says “the Bible doesn’t really say that . It says whatever I tell you it says I tells ya….For God only knows how many times I’ve got to cram it down your throat before you accept it as the God’s honest truth - then you’ll be just like me”. And the student weary from hours and hours of listening to a snake tossing a mean word salad finally concedes “if you say so.”( serpent continues to toss word salad while adding snake oil dressing) Then comes the clincher - the turncoat teacher proclaims “your cognitive skills will not surely die.” And the student choked down the word salad and handed a PFAL sign up card to another young and naive soul and they also choked down the word salad. And the eyes of them both were shut - really busy in REM sleep. What a bunch of dozers!
-
Jesus Christ said He is the way we should become followers of Jesus Christ instead of becoming a bookworm
-
Just as life imitates art a word-turd began as a fart
-
You are so funny Mike the development of the NT canon is not some theories! It’s historical fact! There were witnesses. Records kept. It wasn’t conceived in a motor coach with one glass eye, smoking a cig or 2 and while sucking on Drambuie.
-
No - that’s what you think. you're wrong ! and it’s the NT canon NOT. cannon
-
Another faulty premise I see is that just like wierwille - you seem to limit God and have an unhealthy fear and fixation of the devil. That appears to be the basis for your paranoia (unless you have other issues up your sleeve); you have already mentioned your mistrust and disdain for legitimate academia . And it looks to me like your security blanket is PFAL …you act most comfortable and most at ease when filtering every problem through the distorted lens of PFAL. According to you God is limited in what He can do - so I guess He can’t supervise genuine Christian leaders who are responsible for shepherding God’s flock according to what they regard as God’s measuring stick - that’s what “canon”means. You appear to harbor the same twisted fantasy that wierwille had - which is that he imagined himself as God’s high priest interpreting the Bible for God’s people. Are you trying to channel wierwille? What is this “God left hints in Scripture for us “ nonsense? To me - in the Bible - God always comes across as a straight shooter. His message is simple - truth is made plain that even a fool can’t miss it. But evidently wierwille missed it - coming up with nonsense like “Scripture interprets itself”. Evidently you’ve missed it saying God has to put hints in there. Do you know what wierwille’s problem was ? He thought he was always right. He was an authoritarian for gosh sakes - he’s always right - all who disagree with him are always wrong….Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike - you hitched your wagon to the wrong horse! You’re so distracted being worried about the devil infiltrating academia - that the “devil” was able to sneak by you in the guise of a pseudo-Christian cult-leader who is telling you “hey guys stay sharp the enemy is out there somewhere!” There’s always the possibility of phonies WITHIN the church: Matthew 23 II Peter 2 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 and who correctly explains the word of truth. II Timothy 2:16 NLT So it’s possible to incorrectly explain the word of truth…Incompetent preachers and religious con artists. We reject all shameful deeds and underhanded methods. We don’t try to trick anyone or distort the word of God. We tell the truth before God, and all who are honest know this. II Cor. 4:2 NLT This speaks of the possibility that some will embrace shameful deeds and underhanded methods - and they will try to trick people and distort the message of God. Mike , this is talking about crooked leaders - like wierwille - who YOU seem committed to defend. You worry the devil is jacking with history and yet it looks to me like wierwille being a coconspirator with the devil has hijacked the Bible “ forcing” you to view “the Word”his way. Your god seems so small. Your devil seems so big. Your high priest is a dumb-a$$ and your theories suck. Why would God have to resort to planting hints in the Bible (hints about WHAT- who knows?!?!) which only a couple of short-sighted deluded swamis can decrypt? If God’s message is truly from Him - and it’s important for us to know - it makes better sense that He would make sure His message was supervised…preserved…guarded by qualified people who held the Scriptures in high regard. Thus a natural and practical method such as the development of the NT canon seems more likely His preference.
-
This seems like grandstanding , making a smoke screen or something tricky -like you want us the believe you’re an independent thinker and not blindly following wierwille. This thread is about the NT canon and not about you…sooooooo Why don’t YOU start a thread and talk about SPECIFIC doctrine/teachings of wierwille that YOU disagree with and why. There must be some things you can easily name without having to do years of prep to compile all your notes. I don’t mean to be persnickety about this - but all too often you drag your feet when challenged to give a specific answer. To be honest I have a hard time believing you made anything your own when you whine about how you’ll have to scour GSC for your old posts and thesis or there’s problems with lost files due to bandwidth issues. Uh uh…not buying it ! If you really made something your own you should be able to whip out those salient points right off the top of your head. I want some details on what, where and why YOU DARE to DISAGREE with wierwille…or is this just all talk? Just some more Mike baloney. Mike start a thread Mike start a thread Mike start a thread sew what the sewer went out to sew a thread a stitch in time manifests nine Patches I’m depending on you son
- 702 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- novelty
- hermeneutics
- (and 8 more)
-
That might be a good idea for a thread. We need people familiar with BGL’s stuff to show a comparison. That leaves me out but I would be interested I seeing what if anything was different
-
The mods just wanna keep things from getting $hitty around here. next time put your money ($) where your Per$hookie-doo text is… uh oh…I’ve just leaked classified information of bathroom humor at my house….sshhhh I think the Feds are listening
-
Thanks !!!! You just confirmed it! THAT is EXACTLY how I understand your methods! You so funny Mike!
-
Mike, let me stop you right there. I think you still have wierwille’s faulty premise stuck in your head - intent on getting back to the original God-breathed word. Your top down/bottom up concept sounds like it’s based on that faulty premise. I could be wrong but I feel you’re trying to lead me on into your argument that claims it’s available to do that! You can stop the sales pitch. The Bible is what it is. What’s ironic about wierwille’s stated goal of wanting to get back to the original God-breathed word is that he wasn’t a big fan of textual criticism and legitimate historical and Biblical Text research - when that is the goal of those disciplines. It’s like “the law of believing “ that wierwille pushed. He had followers BELIEVING in something that doesn’t exist. I asked you this ages ago on another thread or two - what major impact would your findings or wierwille’s findings have on Christianity? Seriously?!?! Don’t give me the JCING reason. wierwille was not a deep thinking theologian and used that as a polarizing gimmick to distinguish himself from mainstream Christianity - and it fueled his wrath to bash Trinitarians….what I find hypocritical about it too is that I’ve met a lot more Trinitarians who exemplify the love and compassion of Jesus Christ than wierwille and his fan club who pronounce gloom and doom on Christians who think differently about God, Christ and the Holy Spirit than he did. Complicated systematic theology aside - what basic tenets of Christianity do you anticipate your findings will challenge? Did Jesus Christ stay dead in the tomb? Are the two great commandments of love God and neighbor now null and void? Do we toss NT docs and go back to ancient Hebrew religion of sacrifices and sin offerings? Christianity is more than a book. More than having a great knowledge of the Bible. It’s about living the Christian lifestyle in the real world. I believe God is real and a whole lot bigger than what wierwille made Him out to be. God interacts with the world in so many ways. He’s done it before - that’s called history. Why would God frown upon historians and textual criticism? Does He have something to hide? Development of the NT canon. Look into it.
-
You’re never going to figure out much on the compiling of the NT docs or the development of the NT canon from internal evidence. Because there is NO internal running log of “updates” . I don’t understand what your concern is - and why you don’t feel confident to consult outside resources. Maybe have a little more faith in God’s guidance and start developing better cognitive skills. They can work hand in hand. Trust is earned. And if you would like others to trust your research you’ll have to show some trust of others . Solid institutions of learning and legitimate scholars are a great resource. Nobody has all the answers. You have the freedom to pick and choose what makes sense to you. Standards in education and peer review is a good thing. Otherwise some people will try to pull a fast one on you. You really should reflect on how much of an authoritarian wierwille was and how that may have impacted your life , cognitive skills and even might have fostered a little paranoia and distrust of anyone or group or resource outside his sphere of influence….ultimately that is counterproductive to anyone truly interested in learning and research. Reflect on what is meant by holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Even in PFAL wierwille says it doesn’t mean they were shoved about - they used their vocabulary …their style…and if you think about even their worldview. If you look at the Bible as a coauthored book (divine/human) you might get a bead on how God works…intervenes…interferes…orchestrates in the real world. It gets messy - because people are the sloppy ones in this “odd couple”. Maybe put a little faith in the way God works with people. Do you think God was in the middle of things when leaders got together to develop the NT canon? If you review some of those links I gave you’ll find they believed in the Godly inspiration of the documents . They set high standards for doctrinal coherency. You’ll have to trust people to some degree.
- 702 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- novelty
- hermeneutics
- (and 8 more)
-
is that what's called sole food?
-
Your theory sucks! The reason I’m suspicious of your theory is because it appears uninformed…and it seems like your grabbing at straws since your other arguments didn’t work. The earliest known complete list of the 27 books is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD.The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first. These councils also provided the canon of the Old Testament, which included the deuterocanonical books. There is no scholarly consensus on the date of composition of the latest New Testament texts. John A. T. Robinson, Dan Wallace, and William F. Albright dated all the books of the New Testament before 70 AD. Many other scholars, such as Bart D. Ehrman and Stephen L. Harris, date some New Testament texts much later than this; Richard Pervo dated Luke–Acts to c. AD 115, and David Trobisch places Acts in the mid-to-late second century, contemporaneous with the publication of the first New Testament canon. The New Oxford Annotated Bible states, "Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus's life and teaching." From: Wikipedia: The New Testament Besides Wikipedia other books and articles place the compiling of the books far beyond the lifetime of the writers (see hyperlinks below)…Most scholars lean toward the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, which would imply that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon. Christians assume the early church fathers recognized the authority inherent in what were considered sacred texts because of the proximity of the apostolic connection. The early church looked to the apostles and there writings for the authoritative word about what was sound doctrinally. There’s no biblical or historical evidence for a second generation of apostles. See also: The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? By FF Bruce The Canon of Scripture by FF Bruce How We Got the Bible by Neil R Lightfoot who compiled the Bible and when? When was the Bible assembled? Got Questions: How and when was the canon of the Bible put together? Got Questions: How do we decide which books belong in the Bible since the Bible does not say which books belong in the Bible? even now the 2nd or 3rd time I'm waving my freak flag high has already been absolutely held in abeyance
-
Mike said: What I am talking about is a DIFFERENT VIEW of the canon process that one can have from INSIDE the Bible. T-Bone’s response: holy schnikeys !!!!! You’re going into the quantum realm of the King James Bible ?!?! Please take every precaution. I hear that India paper often used in printing some Bibles is pretty thin – so you better get yourself extra small…you might want to consult Tony Stark, Scott Lang and Doctor Hank Pym for technical details…of course, you know Stark, Lang and Doctor Pym are make-believe characters – but you’ve never had a problem with make-believe doctors anyway. ~ ~ ~ ~ Mike said: Picture it instead of asking history how the canon formed, and asking God by searching for clues He left in there for us. T-Bone’s response: Gee…where have I heard that idea before? Hmmmmm…oh yeah: In the authorized book on TWI, titled “The Way Living in Love” (by Elena S. Whiteside, co 1972, American Christian Press, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-89132), on page 178 of “The Way Living in Love” wierwille stated “I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on. And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others. Well, I nearly flew off my chair. I couldn't believe that God would talk to me.” You so funny Mike! The subtle implication of wierwille’s claim shifts the Bible’s authority away from the text-in-context and onto wierwille’s “assumed authority”. Considering wierwille’s claim that God would teach him the Word as it had not been known since the first century – it is worth noting that Christians back in that apostolic age had no Bible – the New Testament had not been written…there was no New Testament canon! So much for asking God by searching for clues He left in there for us. Biblical research ministry my a$$ - wierwille was clueless having no real knowledge of hermeneutics or the biblical languages, no real understanding of the ancient cultures, and seemed incapable of distinguishing the difference between honest and dishonest handling of the Scriptures. You’re free to choose your own path – and if you want to follow wierwille’s road map to crazy town that’s your business…you can insist all you want to…silly temper tantrums and wacky wierwille-esque theories don’t move the credibility needle.
-
Yeah I read your approach - it sounds just like wierwille’s & Bullinger’s approach. read a much earlier post of mine from Bullinger’s appendix on the NT canon- he should have hand that appendix removed
-
I’m not sure - but does it really matter - either way he’s skating on thin ice.
-
you so funny Mike ! Goodness - you must have slept through that session of PFAL - can’t say that I blame you …been there done that myself. zzzzZzzz zzzZz Seeing how you have a big credibility issue - I don’t see any reason to believe you actually looked into all that 50 years ago - I’ll be generous and relate to you that in PFAL wierwille (and Bullinger in the shadows. ) openly state we ought to consider the internal evidence of the Bible - what “The Word says of itself”. So you’re not saying anything different than what he said - so don’t make like you figured that out all by your lonesome. And news flash - if you would have read those hyperlink articles I gave you you would find out that examining the internal evidence of each NT doc was one of the criteria in establishing the canon. I recommend you look before you leap to a conclusion on those articles . That is all.
-
once again Your comments are irrelevant for a few reasons: 1. Your posts on the literary structures have NOTHING to do with the criteria that was used to develop the NT canon – and contribute NOTHING of value to this thread. 2. Concerning your comment The strange anomaly in the Llamsa Bible in the Eli, Eli verse – is also extraneous to the this topic since it has have NOTHING to do with the criteria that was used to develop the NT canon – and it also contributes NOTHING of value to this thread. 3. Concerning your comments here : I first noticed it with my critical thinking skills around 1975, and asked a few people about it. But no one ever knew, and it remained a mystery to me for decades. It was answered unexpectedly at an chance encounter at Starbucks. This person was an "expert." Their answer floored me. It will you too, when you integrate into the big picture..... with my Postulate set. So, that's two "critical thinking skills" drills for you to cut your teeth on: 1- Who fathered Jesus? 2- What is "wrong" with the Llamsa verse? Your comments here are immaterial to this thread – and your typical pretentiousness of attempting to impress me or others by affecting greater importance because of talents, skills, Bible knowledge and scientific knowledge than you actually possess – have an effective rating of 0 …and with the condescending attitude you frequently display, your effectiveness goes to – 10 …and recalling your comments on other threads where you denigrate critical things skills – your success rate of arguing your cases drops to – 50 …and the fact that you can’t intelligently articulate your thinking process – or simply walk someone through how you came up with a theory or conclusion except by referring to something you heard wierwille teach demonstrates you really have NO critical skills to speak of – and it makes me think who are YOU to judge Mike ? ~ ~ ~ ~ I'll put some hyperlinks to help you get back on track with exploring what WAS the criteria for developing the NT canon: Wikipedia: The New Testament Lifeway: Establishing the New Testament Canon What criteria were used to determine the canon of Scripture? NT Greek org: The Criteria Used for Developing NT canon in the First Four Centuries of the Christian Church hope that helps
-
Yeah - I think you're being sensible about this...thanks for the feedback.
-
I’m never surprised by your arguments because they’re usually predictably based on the lies, illogic, and depraved bias of wierwille’s PFAL. Been there…done that…a lot of it is variations/mutations of a theme…cue the music – PFAL has something just for you It teaches you keys to unlock those doors And how to walk right through (that's someone who tried the key and it didn't work - now they're using their head to bash in the door...oh wait...that's not a door - that's a brick wall)
