Mike
-
Posts
6,834 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Everything posted by Mike
-
No. This one issue of the canon has sat dormant for 40 years. I was using this thread, and stated so, as a beta testing sight. I think this was the first big position change I ever declared here.
-
That is how I start out my research on the Bottom-Up approach. I am thankful other people have worked on the Top Down approach. Your quote of me was from two weeks ago. It was since then that I read some of T-Bones links and changed my position. I am pretty sure the major mis-communication between you and me on this issue is you have not been reading my responses to other people here.
-
I think it was WordWolf who opined I may have been referring to John's diet and homelessness. He was right. It was to that I was referring when I hinted that he was too weird to date your sister. But I responded to waysider above on more about that appearance of John the Baptist on that list: HOWEVER, it SORT of fit in with the rest of the people on that list. Do you remember that list? It seems that for some of the BIG jobs God had to resort to whoever (even wierdos) could get the job done, and done at the right time. Here is the post that contained the list containing John the Baptist: On 10/18/2022 at 7:19 PM, So_crates said: And, by the same token, you must realize there are some things WE will not budge on. ... As for me: ...Do I believe God would have entrusted what you claim was the most important revelation since the bible itself with a man who defined sin and refused to repent? Not God as I understand him in the bible. My response to So_crates was: Not God as I understood Him from the Bible, either. …initially But as I studied the Bible over the decades my understanding of God has changed some. When I first opened up the Bible in the early 1970s I was 22 years old. By that age I had absorbed churchy and cultural impressions as to what Bible teachers should be like. I envisioned Jesus-like characters could be the only ones God could entrust with big jobs. That’s how we humans must do it, I figured, when we hire out jobs to people. We want to examine a candidate’s past record, and see that they have been good, and thus predict that in the future they will probably be good for the job. So this early innocent impression of how things worked in the Bible was a deep expectation, as I started reading the Bible. But soon this expectation was challenged some, as I read in Genesis. I noticed right away that the story of Noah seemed to have some rather odd post-Flood scenes with Noah’s family that had to be censored out of the children’s Sunday School version… I guess. One clear thing is that Noah got drunk. Reading along the challenges got greater as I read about young Abraham involved in some kind of crazy wife-swapping protection scheme, but was stopped by the pagan Pharoah, who knew better. Later, Abraham had a child with Hagar, with Sarah’s approval? I also seem to remember him having concubines. The children’s Bible stories never had these parts in them, did they? It doesn’t stop there. My whole notion of who God could entrust big jobs to was constantly challenged in Genesis. I think we can skip Abraham’s son Isaac, after reading somewhere he had no concubines. But the grandson, Jacob, was a doozy! His name, before God changed it, meant “con artist” and he stole his brother’s birthright… with God’s approval??? He also had at least 4 wives, and maybe a concubine. I wonder how Sunday School teachers define “concubine” for the pre-pubescent children? Past the book of Genesis, the stories still are challenging to me. I marvel at God’s forgiveness of our future sins. Why doesn’t anyone ever talk about this? Look at all those revelations and miracles He gave to young David, fully foreknowing that in mid-life crisis David would resort to murdering his best friend. And how did God’s people receive the Psalms of David? Were the relatives of Uriah satisfied with David’s public repenting? Do you think that Bathsheba was David’s first “mistake,” or did he gradually work his way up to having sex with his best friend’s wife? Life experiences tell me it was the latter. And I did not realize the extent of Solomon’s late-life corruption until recent decades. What was the time-line of his life like? How deep into his concubines and their idols could he get, and still be able to pen God-breathed scriptures? I don’t know. It just blows my mind that God would give young Solomon all those revelations, but know in His foreknowledge that old Solomon would get totally corrupt… or nearly totally? Then there is that beautiful prophesy that came to Balaam, who was crookeder than a dog’s hind legs. Why did God entrust such wonderful words to him? John the Baptist was a real weirdo, yet the greatest prophet? Peter was pretty impetuous and had a violent temper, and pretty forgetful at times. Paul was a murdering de-programmer, and God entrusted a lot to him. I guess God’s criteria for selecting His big job workers is a lot different than the criteria we must use in selecting our Sunday School teachers. Why is this? Because we can only look at the past actions of a person, and we know nothing of their future actions, and we know nothing of their heart. But God does know a person’s future actions, and He does know their hearts. I guess God is far more interested in getting His big jobs accomplished, and less interested in conforming to our limited ways of judging candidates for a job.
-
The definition of "weirdo" is too loosey-goosey to take seriously. You all think that I am a weirdo here. LoL For me to use that term is an obvious departure from serious discussion. It was bait. HOWEVER, it SORT of fit in with the rest of the people on that list. Do you remember that list? IT seems that for some of the BIG jobs God had to resort to whoever, even wierdos, could get the job done, and at the right time. That gives weirdos like me some hope. And let's face it, devoting one's life to GSC is a bit weird, wouldn't you say?
-
I thought I answered that. It is to mark those who are not serious about discussing the canon. Guess what? You marked yourself. Suppose YOU tell ME why you want to talk about one throw away line, when there are many very meaty and logical lines for you to discuss.
-
Somewhere we miscommunicated. I am not ignoring anything in history. I simply see the historical approach to the canon as lacking data for the very earliest centuries. I see the First Century comments by the Biblical writers that do shed light on this period of time. BOTH views help us. The secular and historical sources are very skimpy on data earlier than the 3rd century. Are you aware of that?
-
I do not make that assertion at all, ever. I do not assert that the "abababababa" leads to the thought, or proves that 2 Timothy was written by divine intervention or inspiration. I start out with the ASSUMPTION that 2 Timothy was given by divine inspiration. That is a major Postulate of mine, here. Then I look at the contents of the "abababa" structure and I see that both the Author and the writers had it in their minds to carefully protect and preserve what they had written, or were about to write. The structure and content lead me to believe that the construction of the canon list was on the minds of the writers, and that they acted responsibly and with practicality to protect and preserve the original NT scriptures. */*/*/*/*/*/*/* Yes, your point is accepted by me, that the mere structure of "ababababa" does not lead to believing that a document is divinely inspired. You could have an ancient document with a much more complicated structure, and that STILL wouldn't prove anything about it's divine origins. You are correct, the ancients did know how to write profane literature with structure. Oddly, Bullinger DOES make the claim that the Book of Job is so intricately structured that it's structure does invite the belief that it is of divine origin. But I believe Bullinger stops short of asserting that Job's structure was proof of it's divine origin. It's just a hint.
-
No, no. I never said the canon was that. It is the structure of 2 Timothy that can be described as "abababa." Then, with this structure in mind, the topic of the canon in 2 Timothy becomes more apparent.
-
Not fully, and everywhere, but where it DOES, it gets interesting.
-
I did stand-up comedy for about 5 years. I would sometimes use "throw away lines" to deal with drunk hecklers or rowdy people in the audience. It would give me some leverage over them. There are other uses for throw away lines. Here it helps me see who is able to focus on the flow of ideas, and who is trying to stop that flow. Why do you ask?
-
You don't get it. The Bottom-Up approach ignores the data available to the Top-Down approach. The Top-Down approach ignores the data available to the Bottom-Up approach. The Bottom-Up approach (mine) looks at very early First Century scriptural data, and extrapolates upward in time into the Second Century. The Top-Down approach looks at the abundance of 4th and 5th Century data, and extrapolates downward in time into the Third and maybe as far as the late Second Century. Get it now? The two approaches are different and use different data sets. I started out this thread very negative towards the Top-Down approach from my 1972 research into the Top-Down approach. But T-Bone has linked me to some better resources than I had in the 1970s, and I have changed my position to accept and appreciate that perspective. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses.
-
If that brief summary above sounds interesting, here is where you can find the whole paper: 1st installment – page 8 @ 30% mark, Sat 10-15-22 https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25333-new-testament-canon/page/8/ 2nd installment – page 8 @ 55% mark, Sat 10-15-22 https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25333-new-testament-canon/page/8/ 3rd installment – page 17 @ 20% mark, Tues Oct 18 https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25333-new-testament-canon/page/17/#comment-619950
-
Sure. The whole epistle has to do with things falling apart with the church and it's people and the ideas. So, Paul tells Timothy the latest details of this drama, and prepares him for one last big meeting between him, Timothy, Mark, and Luke. At that meeting they were going to do a lot of scripture work, so that it all could be passed on to future generations. That is how the whole epistle runs.
-
So has everyone had a chance to read my old paper on 2 Timothy and the canon from the 1970s, that I posted in 3 installments? I should mention that Walter did NOT like how far I went with the speculations on the cloak. What Walter liked was the "ababababa" listing, which I presented to him much earlier in a 1972 letter. Then a few years later, after hearing from him and Bernita about the Aramaic "bookhouse," I re-wrote the paper around 1976 to what I posted here in this thread. I slightly edited the posted version. Can't remember if I used Lamsa's name or not. */*/*/*/* So who is interested in the rest of my 40+ year old paper folder, and the trove of verses I collected over a ten year period? The verses are not as pointed to the canon of scripture, as much as they are scriptures that talk about scriptures. A common theme is the writers attitudes and activities. There are other patterns to them. 2 Timothy was the largest group of scriptures on the canon, but 2 Peter is a close second. I haven't gone into any detail on that epistle yet. This Bottom-Up approach to the canon with the scriptures is rich with data. It's a big Bible, and this general topic of the writers, their attitudes, and their activities comes up often. It is not confined to the formation of the NT canon like 2 Timothy and 2 Peter are. Quick reminder: I have mentioned that 2 Peter does one one cycle of the "aba" structure. while 2 Timothy has many cycles, like "ababababa." For 2 Peter the whole Chapter 1 is "a" and Chapter 2 is "b" and Chapter 3 is "a" again.
-
No, not at all my logic. It is BECAUSE vpw already has produced a teaching that went around the world and still is, enlightening people to God's loving Word, that I then see him fitting in with the many oddball characters in the Bible who did big jobs for God. Look at the context and how I was responding to So_Crates. I was first aware of the great blessings that stream from PFAL, and then, years later I slowly learned that there were some complaints against him.
-
Here is a piece of new material to ponder. We were taught the standard canon in the PFAL class... in a way. Back in the 1970s, before students showed up for Session One they were told to get a KJV Bible and to memorize the books in that Bible. I think that practice went all the way to 1995, with only minor modifications. That was our first exposure to the canon, and VPW never challenged that canon, and he only built more and more respect for that canon, all through the duration of the class.
-
What is speculation on my part is thinking that the writers were successful in getting their authoritative canon list to survive the generations following. I am speculating that God's gentle hand was on the process, which is based on many scriptures relating how He and other writers handled their responsibilities. Most of those scriptures I have not yet posted. What is NOT speculation on my part is noting the documented feelings and desires and activities of the NT writers as the First Century was beginning to close. All theories are speculations on future knowing, based on past knowing. A good theory can look like nothing but speculation for a while, and then sudden confirmation can come out of the blue. There is plenty of speculation in the Top-Down approach to the canon as you get closer and closer to the Second and First Centuries, and the physical evidence becomes exceedingly scarce. So, both approaches have their strengths and their weaknesses. I say a combined approach is best, and can generate the most certainty that the canon we have is worth a life's investment.
-
Would you feel comfortable if your sister was dating him?
-
It was in the Aramaic, I was told, that the word is literally "book house." Lamsa's Bible has it translated "book carrier."
-
On 10/20/2022 at 9:24 AM Pacific Time, I wrote: “As I have stated several times now, I see the evangelists ATTITUDES and ACTIVITIES to be indicators that they knew of the need for a list, a future canon, and they they were active in assembling such a list.” You responded with: You changed your line from ASSEMBLY to ATTITUDES. That's fine and predictable. victor moved the goal post all the time, too. … Attitudes and activities. Fine. So what? This has nothing to do with how (H-O-W) or that (T-H-A-T) a canon was formed over the subsequent centuries. … We have letters from early church fathers and council meeting minutes as evidence showing the gradual formation of the canon. I'm sure their attitude was the same as the evangelists or any group concerned with assembling an authoritative list of books - a canon. There was no changing of goal posts. I simply changed how I put things in a differing context. Go back and see what I was saying, please. You are describing the Top-Down approach there. I was describing the Bottom-Up approach. The two approaches have A LOT to do with each other. They are both looking at the same formation of an authoritative list, but at different Century marks. T-Bones posts are giving a good view of the view you favor: the Top-Down approach. My initial exposure to this approach in 1972 was not good. My resources were limited and low quality, and I was young in the Word. I am glad to have learned from T-Bone’s links and quotations. For the BottomUp approach to the early canon list, the scriptures document how the writers were concerned and doing things about the list in the First Century. It doesn’t give the us their final list, but it alludes to one forming, and directly states that the writers were focused on making sure things went right.
-
I blame my spell checker for getting the wrong "add" to its data base. But thanks for the tip; that's what beta testing is all about. When the book and then the movie are getting ready for release, I'll make sure you get credit for spell checking.
-
No, no no. Joseph Smith introduced TONS of new doctrine, and MANY new books to the "canon." VPW's collaterals add ZERO new doctrine, and add ZERO new books to the canon. BIG, BIG DIFFERENCES. ...trivial similarities.
-
Actually, YES, it is speculation on my part, as I spelled it out the action in the later centuries. What is NOT speculation is my reading of the MANY verses that plainly say the writers were also given the responsibility to keep the written revelations decent and in order. That would include a list of the most "sure" documents. The gentle hand of God is not a speculation, but an expectation that is justified by His stated will. I have only begun to document the MANY verses that state the writers' recognized responsibilities to not just get the revelations into written form, but to also send them off into posterity with protection and guidance. I still have many more verses to post. So far we have been limited to discuss 2 Timothy verses. */*/*/* As far as cognitive dissonance, you may not understand how that works. The one suffering from it will have TWO trains of thought chugging away inside, but the two trains of thought are opposed to each other. Can you better identify the two opposing thoughts that are simultaneously at work in one brain? I think you only identified one thought opposing reality. That is not how it works.
-
That is NOT what I am saying! Are you deliberately twisting what I am saying? What I am saying is IF God can work some big jobs with those sinners, think of how much BETTER He can work with us, who are NOT sinning. There was NEVER a hint of encouragement in my words to go out and "get a pass" on sin. We may be in for some big surprises in how the rewards are passed out (or withheld) for those who milked God's grace, mercy, and forgiveness. It is none of our business whom God picks to do His big jobs. His selection is aimed at getting the jobs done, and has nothing to do with what we do, or what sensibilities of justice we may harbor.
-
Last bullet: A still fluid, but developing list.... What is fluid is the set of lists that, at that time, were varying from each other a little. But within that set of lists, I believe, was the list the writers themselves had assembled and passed on. This one list, flowing along with the other lists in the set, slowly dominated because God's gentle hand was on it.
