Mike
-
Posts
6,834 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Everything posted by Mike
-
In other categories I was stupid. I was always an oddball, but not by choice. I was usually too smart in theoretical areas, but too stupid in practical matters. This still plagues me. Smartness and IQ are not all they are cracked up to be. I see nearly everyone is a genius in SOME category. What matters in life are what kinds of smartness is most useful for self and others. Trust me, thought I grew up in a rich science atmosphere, I myself was very stupid in social matters that were important to me. I am thankful that I was smart enough to analyze PFAL right from the start. I still struggle for smarts in matters of practical living.
-
I am ALWAYS going to be repeating "concepts wierwille taught" You seem to have an anti-bias confirmation problem. Can't you remember VPW got those good concepts from good people? We could talk a long time about spirit in Adam dying, and spirit upon being in measure, but that would be another thread. I am settled with concepts like "in that very day thou shalt surely die" and all the other concept in written PFAL. They passed my tests, and in a non-culty atmosphere, totally unsupervised.
-
The good advice from Christ Geer, that I search within the Bible for canon hints, was given to me in 1972, before he went into the Corps. He was a good guy then, and very smart. A bad leader would tell me my canon doubts were from a devil spirit, and that I should shove my questions under the rug.
-
Yes, actually I really DO know what you mean. That was the reason I did my analyzing FIRST, right after I took the class. It took years, but I was analyzing the contents of the class, not the mechanics of the Corps. I could see from a distance that there was too much VPW adulation going on in there. I sort of envied the new members of the Corps and their dedication, but they also looked impulsive and a little reckless, going all the way without a bunch of critical thinking tests of the material being taught. I am so glad I analyzed PFAL first, and delayed going all the way. After 11 years of analysis, I went WoW, but that same year I advised my WoW sister to drop out of the Corps after her first year as an apprentice, or something like that. The culty part of the ministry gave rise to the Corps Nazi platoon in the 1980s, as Craig's rule rose. Meanwhile many were forgetting the basic PFAL material.
-
Good questions. I know people who are devil fixated on nearly any subject on the table. THAT kind of behavior I abhor. When it wasn't genuine paranoia, it was then often a power trip Corps Nazi leaders used on us un-taught little people. I do see the devil in operation when HIGH STAKES are involved. The develop of our modern canon involved bloody fighting at times in the political twists and turns fort the political power to say with sufficient loudness "THIS is the official list of books in the Bible." That canon process was high stakes. It was not the devil involved in our daily lives, like leadership would be preoccupied with with imbalance. It was very high stakes long ago when the lists of the canon were developing. I do see the devil in there.
-
Please remember that the Bottom-Up approach only deals with the writers and their attitudes and activities late in the First Century. It is the Top-Down approach that STARTS with the finished list that was handed down from around 425 AD, coins the word and definition for what it wants to find, and then looks for lists and collections and artifacts that date many, many years after the writers' deaths.
-
My eyes are learning to rest when I see these large fonts. Is that your intention? If so, thanks. I need the rest. Is there anything in them great big fonts that is still not responded to?
-
LoL I think it was from that field that I got the terms bottom-up and top-down. I'm all for better terms, where time is horizontal.
-
I doubt if that was what they did. My hunch is that they asked God, the same God that gave them the revelations to write was very keen on answering them when they asked which writings to include.
-
Yes, and I am not against that sort of inquiry. I am just not excited about that approach, due to the uncertainties involved. Science is great when you have data and artifacts to observe, but there is precious little they have to go on for what happened between 67 AD and about 120 AD. It is those early years that the responsibly minded Biblical writers had to do their Authoritative collection and pass it on to responsible people for preservation.
-
spirit upon could be lost, and is described like it can be measured out. spirit seed within is permanent, and described as being the full dose. */*/*/* The attitude of confidence I have in my Bottom-Up theory is the large amount of scriptural background that is involved and the scope I have had on it for decades. I understand the attitude of suspicion you have, and I can't blame you. You have not seen this large trove of scriptures, and you have not had decades to serenely ponder them, like I had. It will take time for me to get all my trove of scriptures posted.
-
Again, you seek specificity where it is not. What you can see in the Bottom-Up approach are the attitudes the writers and helpers had, and how they acted responsibly to form God's Canon, a list or collection of His written Word. They were hustling at the end to make sure they did assembly of writings that was done by revelation, just like the words we written by revelation. God guided the writers to collect their writings together, and not leave them to history in a disorganized state.
-
The Top-Down approach addresses BOTH of those issues. The Bottom-Up approach does NOT address those issues. It addresses the attitudes and practices of the writers, and how they valued having the revelation God gave them and wanted it to be preserved and promoted to others beyond the writers' deaths.
-
What I meant by that was "unaided by academic research from the the Top-Down mode."
-
At that time I did not have a bias on the canon, other than that I was believing what I was taught in PFAL, just like I do now. I knew it was confusing and discouraging to take the Top-Down approach, which I did for a couple months.
-
No thanks. It is not necessary for the topic. It was just my overall impression. I could be wrong there.
-
They did not initiate the modern study of the canon, obviously. They INDICATE that the writers had already begun MAKING THE COLLECTION that would late be called the canon.
-
What it shows is the great interest the First Century writers had in keeping track of what they had written. They knew it was revelation (1 Thess 2:13) The writers did NOT leave the official collection of writings (later to become the canon) for others to decide. That is what we see in their writings. We even see early compilations taking place in 2 Timothy, and the finished produce mentioned at the end of 2 Peter.
-
Good questions.
-
.My slang "healthy dose" of the spirit, was referring to Jesus' cousin, John the Baptist, having spirit upon him while in the womb. Here a "healthy dose" means a lot. No numerical implications, and no ratio, are in the slang.
-
I would say that the will(s) of God should be a separate thread, here in Doctrinal. The 3 levels of the will(s) of God is something I have a feeling for, but no practice explaining it all complete. It's a bit over my head. Maybe there already is a thread on this.
-
I am slowly BUILDING evidence, and giving you preview of what the evidence says. Please be patient as I build both the evidence and the arguments. This is an involved topic to discuss fully, and you are way too rushed, and trying to rush me. Now please slow down, and be patient, and absorbing the evidence, or else.... Or else, I'll make you reprove , correct, and warn me again.
-
What Timothy shows is the attitudes and activities of the writers was to be as responsible with distribution as they were responsible to God to get the writing accurate with the revelation. When you couple 2 Timothy with 2 Peter, you see the reverence to ALL of Paul's epistles at the end. That implies a collection with an understood table of contents. Be patient. So far I have only posted a fraction of the verses. Have you carefully read the verses that I did post?
-
Where did you get the idea that they SHOULD be listed in there, in order for my theory to be true? Remember to apply your critical thinking skills, and eliminate confirmation bias, to your own arguments. I think it is SUPER interesting that Paul mentions a few Biblical canon writers, in the same breath as he mentions a last meeting of them all, along with books and parchments.
-
No need for apologies. Thanks for the fast answers. I brought it up to say that the canon approval process during the years 100 to 400 did not all go according to God's plan, His will. But EVENTUALLY it did, and by the later centuries the canon was less and less an issue to most Christians.
