p.s. I agree some people get too caught up with the Book, what books make up the book, and what each Greek, Hebrew, etc. word might mean and forget about their "spiritual life" whatever they want to call that experience. These issues are of historical and literary interest, as far as I am concerned.
Some people call preoccupation with the Bible "bibliolatry." We used to scoff in twi when critics accused us of that. Now I suspect they were right about some people but not all...
I think vp said ... "It's the word the word the word .... and nothing BUT the word."
Of course he obviously didn't live that life. So he wasn't a bibliolator, he was a fraudster.
And he said "it's either all God's Word, or none of it is"
You make a good point, about when someone else wants to control what you read ... and how to read it and what it means ... and if you live any other way you are going to haill ....
A. You must obey God ... so obey his word
B. Only we can rightly divide his Word ... we must be likeminded
Gardening is more wholesome ... it is that time here ...
Weigh everything with caution, I say. In particular, watch out for people who are trying to control what you read and find out what is motivating them.
For me the old phrase "line up with The Word of God" (I remember vp using that phrase) is subjective, and depends on who is defining what it means and describing how to do it.
In my experience, the actual doing of that is what has raised all my questions to begin with.
And "line it up" seems an odd expression to apply to language. Language IMO is a way of expressing ideas and is not an exact scientific endeavor, like math or physics. Not to mention how translating from one language to another includes interpretation, etc. This is not like solving equations. Anyhow, I suspect this discussion encompasses far too much for an Internet forum.
BTW - Ehrman raises intellectually honest questions, IMO. They are not flippant questions. And, I don't see any trite or vague phrases to explain anything. He does not insult my intelligence or assume I can't think for myself.
As you can readily see from all my posts, I think it's important to read as widely as one can on any topic, not in search of THE ANSWER, but to keep one's mind alive and well and curious.
Cheers!
penworks
I'm not trying to control what you read, Penworks, how can I? I do not even know where you live, OMG. And I never said that Ehrmann has flippant questions either. I just question the depth of his faith if he could let textual criticism excise it from his life.
To be fair to John, I think it's pretty much a given that most people know that the verse wasn't written in 1611.
Just to clarify, the emphasis of my sentence should have started with the fact the translation is from 1611 and may or may not reflect what the writer meant when he wrote it. It may not necessarily have the exact same definition of the 1611 English word ...
I did not mean to be unfair to John, only to say that sometimes a word's definition in one language doesn't carry the original meaning from another language, especially when that original language you're translating from is such a different culture from so long ago.
peace,
penworks
I'm not trying to control what you read, Penworks, how can I? I do not even know where you live, OMG. And I never said that Ehrmann has flippant questions either. I just question the depth of his faith if he could let textual criticism excise it from his life.
Just to clarify, the emphasis of my sentence should have started with the fact the translation is from 1611 and may or may not reflect what the writer meant when he wrote it. It may not necessarily have the exact same definition of the 1611 English word ...
I did not mean to be unfair to John, only to say that sometimes a word's definition in one language doesn't carry the original meaning from another language, especially when that original language you're translating from comes from such a different culture from so long ago.
peace,
penworks
To brideofjc: No need to take my comments personally. And no big deal about the Ehrman, Pagels, etc. opinions. We're mature enough here to agree to disagree, right?
penworks, I could see two interpretations of Tim. 3:16 - 1.) all scripture, writing/graphe, refers to the "Old Testament". We could use Jesus's breakdown of "scripture" in Luke:24:44, 45
And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and the Prophets and the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
This works with Paul's statement to Timothy - "and how from childhood you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."
Timothy being a young man, younger than Paul anyway, he would have been reading and studying those "OT" writings that were in existence at that time.
I could also see a broader interpretation of it, one that Paul may have inferred - that the understanding that he had by "revelation of Jesus Christ" that he wrote could be included within that - in other words, less the actual letter that he was writing and more the writings that he did that carried that information.
"Logos" is a big part of this, as most Christians use it synonymously for the bible, meaning "the Word of God", the bible. Today people tend to view logos as a word or words of expression, communication. There's more to logos though, than a word for a word.
And communication isn't the thing being communicated and a word isn't the only way to communicate. What's more important - how something is communicated or the thing being communicated?
I guess an argument can be made that if we only had one means of knowing something - only one form of communication possible or used, then that form would be essential, since it's the only one. But we know that words, language, writing, isn't the only form that God uses to communicate with people and the words of the bible aren't the sole means God has to communicate with us.
Still, if we accept upfront that the bible - the collection of "old" and "new" testament writings we have collected today - are words that God has inspired others to write, then other forms of communication should explain, confirm, corroborate, expand and increase on what we have.
I guess... Your question is one that I've spent time on too - it's a reasonable one. :)
Thanks, socks. You've given me much to ponder. Gotta go now and take care of family matters, but will check back later. Again, I appreciate your thought-out post.
penworks, I could see two interpretations of Tim. 3:16 - 1.) all scripture, writing/graphe, refers to the "Old Testament". We could use Jesus's breakdown of "scripture" in Luke:24:44, 45
And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and the Prophets and the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
This works with Paul's statement to Timothy - "and how from childhood you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."
Timothy being a young man, younger than Paul anyway, he would have been reading and studying those "OT" writings that were in existence at that time.
As I said in a previous post, it was probably not until Paul's final imprisonment that I believe that weight was being applied to the NEW corpus of documents as to whether they were worthy to be considered as Scripture. To the Jew only, they would have called it blasphemy, but to those who had faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, it would be truth. But at the first, yes, what we call the OT would have been what Jesus and Paul were referring to and not the letters that he was currently writing to the churches to correct problems.
"Logos" is a big part of this, as most Christians use it synonymously for the bible, meaning "the Word of God", the bible. Today people tend to view logos as a word or words of expression, communication. There's more to logos though, than a word for a word.
Logos can express the written form, the aural form and the living form.
And communication isn't the thing being communicated and a word isn't the only way to communicate. What's more important - how something is communicated or the thing being communicated?
I guess an argument can be made that if we only had one means of knowing something - only one form of communication possible or used, then that form would be essential, since it's the only one. But we know that words, language, writing, isn't the only form that God uses to communicate with people and the words of the bible aren't the sole means God has to communicate with us.
Indeed, the Lord God has taught me much while working in my garden, i.e. once I was pulling weeds and noticed that the true WEEDS had roots that went way down and were difficult to pull up out of the earth, but that the GOOD plants, even when I wasn't trying to, would just come up very easily, thus frustrating me because the wrong plants were coming up.
And behold a teaching moment from the Lord Himself, telling me that basically people are just like plants, those that are too worldly are like the weeds and they don't want to let go of earthly things; but those that trust in the Lord have a very loose connection to earthly things and so can easily leave things behind if they are not Godly. I stood in utter awe of the simplicity of the teaching but the impact that it had on me. Hermeneutics move over!
I've found all the responses on this topic very interesting and thought-provoking. It's been said that one's ideas need to be challenged to become clear to oneself. Thus, the need for debate. Thus, democracy (or at least a republic ). So thanks everyone at gsc.
Socks, I like the way you pointed out that there are various ways "God" can communicate with us. Indeed! (Here I'll put in a plug for William James' Varieties of Religious Experience.
Real quick before I need to cook dinner - ya'll might find these helpful:
2. There are sites with the chronology of NT writings. One I like includes other events going on in the world at the time of the writings (but watch out, it's compiled by "atheists"
Regardless of whether or not we can nail down an exact definition of what is being referred to as "scripture" in 2 Peter 1: 20, in order to accept that definition we must first assume that the writer of 2 Peter 1: 20 is speaking for God, seeing as God would be the only one who would know who was and who wasn't "being moved." So first before we have faith in the God of the Bible we have to have faith in those that wrote it, that they were telling the truth, that they were inspired, that they had revelation, and were speaking for God. Perhaps, instead, it is a separate faith that is confirmed through experience after reading the Bible. I suspect it may be a combination of those things as well as being "raised in the Word" in our Christian society. A generalization, I know, not everyone was raised like that but I believe most of us here were.
Was this one of the first pronouncements of ex cathedra from the first pope? Looking at this as a book in the Canon it is one that has been questioned as authentic from the earliest of Christian authorities, Usebius of Caesarea and Origen were at least two of them. So who exactly wrote this and what their authority was in making such a claim is up for grabs if you ask me.
The bigger problem with the way this was read in TWI, though, is not what the scripture was but what this verse was referring to... how PI was taught. The verse was not talking about how we are to read "the scripture" or how were or were not supposed to interpret it but where the scripture being referred to came from. The context shows that the author says it came from God not from men, not from fables, not from PI! Even though "in the context" was how we were to research the Bible, this verse was taken out of context to enforce an idea of compliance with the Word of VPW. If we were not PIing and the scripture interpreted itself then VPW was not PIing and we should receive it as the actual God Breathed Word. This discouraged questions and common sense reading and reasoning. Private interpretation was/is so apart of TWI's theology that it was/is basically "way speak." Everyone knew what was meant by it and plenty knew how to use it to control and how to point the finger. YET, that is not what the verse is talking about.
As has been said many times here, when you throw this into the mix of the Law of Believing and the Fall of Man teachings as well as VPW's persona and attitude you have a concoction that, IMO, looks to be designed to get people to follow you without question and control them.
Was this one of the first pronouncements of ex cathedra from the first pope? Looking at this as a book in the Canon it is one that has been questioned as authentic from the earliest of Christian authorities, Usebius of Caesarea and Origen were at least two of them. So who exactly wrote this and what their authority was in making such a claim is up for grabs if you ask me.
You are absolutely right, Lindy.
The same goes for other writings of about the same second century period - liked the so-called Pastoral epistles (1 & II Timothy, Titus) most certainly not written by Paul.
One French writer, P. L Couchoud, joked that he got the sense that it was the same writer wearing different masks behind the production of the later NT material.
One of the primary intents behind the production of this apocrypha was one movement promoting their canon against the canons of other rival movements - and one way to carry this out was to argue for the inarguability and infallibility of their "product" against all others. That is why they are underscoring that their canon is "God breathed", is "complete" , is to be "rightly divided" according their "righteous" "teachings", conveniently validated in their canon against oft unnamed heretics and their teachings and their writings bearing uncanny resemblance to that of heretics who actually lived and thrived during the second century.
It served it's purpose, and alas all too well; preachers and charlatans continue to derive a number of expressions for promoting the authority of a "god-breathed Word" from those dubious writings - indeed, outright fictions - attached near the end of their new testaments.
Your input is very intriguing and makes me feel as if I'm not the only one with these sorts of questions. Thanks!
I've been thinking along these lines for some time now and have read in other sources some of what you outline here.
While it may not be important to some, to me it's very important to understand what these documents are before I go around quoting them and saying "Thus said the Lord," or claiming these documents are The Word of God.
That was what I felt when I brought up this issue to the founder of the first twi offshoot, which I mentioned in the beginning of this post. I understood he did not want to address my question. It's scary. It had been frightening for me at first to consider what I'd learned in twi might not be the whole story. If you start thinking about these things, you begin to doubt what you know. One question leads to another. Then you don't have a nice doctrine to promote.
I also am concerned when I hear people saying "I believe the Bible." What exactly does that phrase mean? It seems it could mean anything. Sure I believe it exists. Sure I believe there are some true sayings in it and much good advice for moral and compassionate living (if I ignore the violence in the O.T. and the ostracizing etc. in the N.T.).
But that's not what people usually mean. I just don't know what people mean unless I pin them down and ask them to clarify. I ask, "You believe WHAT about the Bible?" I honestly want to know. But often people get defensive so then I quit.
Sometimes they say, "It's God's Word whether you believe it or not." That just does not help me. When I left twi, they said, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." But they didn't explain what the BABY is. God?
At this point, I'm inclinded to go with something the religion historian, Karen Armstrong points out, "The major religions all insist that the practice of daily, hourly compassion will introduce us to God, Nirvana, and the Dao. An exegesis based on the 'principle of charity' would be a spiritual discipline that is deeply needed in our torn and fragmented world." The Bible - a Biography. pg. 229.
"I believe the bible" almost always means "I believe in God who I believe is responsible for the bible". Truth to tell, most people have never read the bible - all of it, to the end they could say they believe it. If a person's never bothered to read the whole thing, why bother making high claims as it's authenticity?
Smaller still the number who have read it more than once or studied much of it. Most believe what they've taken from it by choice or what's inspired them. Which is fine, but no cause to pound a lectern or take up a collection. :)
I like Armstrong, too by the way. Finished "The History of God" last year and have another of her's on the barbey for the summer.
hi penworks, and all you other greasespotters who've posted on this very intersting thread!.........indeed, an absolutely crucial question, the asking of which is equally crucial to undoing the answer vic eagerly supplied, and drilled so deeply into our consciousness of "things spiritual"!.........
"what is 'THE WORD' " is the first question one must ask of any one who purports to "believe" that this "word" MUST BE one's "ONLY RULE for faith and practice"......the first question to anyone who claims to be able to "rightly divide" that "word", and then to "teach it" as it has "not been known since the first century"!.....the answer to that first question determines the entire context and framework within which any serious discussion can ensue..........vic demanded that any who would "dare" to discuss "THE WORD" with him, accept the same presumptions as he himself had regarding the answer to "what is THE WORD"?.............for vic, and therefore for all of twi, the answer to "what does 'all scripture' refer to was..........the king james version of the bible, both old and new testaments, with the canon as accepted therein, with the accompanying hebrew massoretic texts of the OT, along with the Septuagint Greek text of the OT, and the various critical greek texts of the NT, as well as whatever greek manuscripts and fragments of the NT extant, and the lamsa bible with his pedangta estrangelo aramaic text thereof, as well as lamsa's underlying understanding of and methodology in translating from "the aramaic" into 20th century english according to "biblical useage"!............penworks..............please correct me if i'm in error here.....you were there.....you know!
but....that's just the beginning.........the real "word" in twi was what vic said it was..........and all the stuff i just listed above is there so vic could "prove" that all that which he said was "god-breathed" and all that he "just knew had to be there 'in the original' " was indeed, there!......and therefore, it all was true!.......that, IN FACT, is what vic's answer to what "scripture" refers to was!......imho...............it is this series of presumptions which must be unquestioningly accepted and adhered to if one is to be able to "receive the greatness of 'THE WORD' "........it is also this very same series of presumptions to which "the founder of the first twi offshoot", as well as its current president, subscribe.........just as they wholeheartedly did while in twi..........they have never stopped doing so..............which is why they are convinced vic himself would be so "very proud" of what their "ministry" is teaching and doing to move "THE WORD"!
for me, personally, "THE WORD", is jesus christ................"scipture", as referred to in IIpeter, is one way by which we can learn about jesus christ, who, the gospel of john says, IS "THE WORD".......much more than merely the bible in the flesh!.........it always struck me as odd, that twi proclaimed that, of all god's "works", the greatest was "his word".......and, that god "restricted" or "limited", or "confined" himself to the "written word" as defined by vic above, in his dealings with humankind.......how clever to imply that an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and infinite being would be foolish enough to attempt the impossible when expending his/her "best effort" at communicating truth and reality to the most important beings in his creation!.........clever indeed!...........because now, god and his word are in vic's court!............and, we've got all the resesarch principles and manuscripts to prove it!!.............we can now define "THE WORD" "with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision"!...........as it has not been known since the first century!.......... god teaches vic, vic "proves it", and then vic teaches us!.............substitute whichever mog floats your spiritual boat!!................or your offshoot!
penworks and others have provided a very good bibliography of works by various authors, which will increase our understanding of what "scripture"refers to......there are many others, to be sure,......but, at least the few mentioned are a start!................and, besides, the worst reading them might do, is at least raise your "comfort level" in asking the question, and inspire your determination in pursuing some answers other than vic's!........thereby expanding your understanding of "scripture", and your consciousness of "things spiritual".
again, for me, personally, it is absurd to either want or try to limit god to anything!............let alone a group of collected writings spanning thousands of years of human existence, written by human beings "as they were moved by the spirit of god", living in completely different cultures, economies, geographical locations, with varying degrees of literacy and intellect........a collection of writings, whose claim of "divine inspiration" has been believed by just as many human beings as those who have chosen to believe different writings by different humans who also claim "divine inspiration".....................i believe, that in order to more fully understand jesus christ, beyond the teachings of twi, one must strive to develope an entirely different "god-consciousness" from that which was imparted to us by vic during our years of believing in, and working for twi!.........only then, as i have posted in various threads here at the spot before, can the mental and "spiritual" prisons built by twi theology and practices, be unlocked........allowing genuine, unfettered, "pursuit of godliness" by those previously chained to vic's flawed, error-ridden, and perverse consciousness of god!............................................peace.
That was what I felt when I brought up this issue to the founder of the first twi offshoot, which I mentioned in the beginning of this post. I understood he did not want to address my question. It's scary. It had been frightening for me at first to consider what I'd learned in twi might not be the whole story. If you start thinking about these things, you begin to doubt what you know. One question leads to another. Then you don't have a nice doctrine to promote.
And the "scary" questions don't stop. Never in my past wildest, christian daze would I have ever imagined the questions now raised in my older - hopefully somewhat slightly wiser - mind. "Treading where angels dare not tread." But for all the uncertainties I think it's all worth it.
Hi I. Whether it be Peter or Pater , the "prophecy of the scripture" spoken about if from the vantage point of the first generation of followers of Jesus Christ - woulda hadda be the "OT"...? What they had. The prophecy part - what was foretold - as to the coming of the Messiah, the people of Israel, the world, etc. And stuff.
That verse sticks out - someone's being reminded, told, that the prophecies aren't open to interpretation. Yet, interpretation, understanding, was inevitable. So there's limits to be observed, but what are they? Clarity has to be achieved, and I suspect the topic of Jesus Christ would be a hot one. From another viewpoint it could even be used to refer to Paul - he claimed to receive by revelation of Jesus Christ, and offers interpretation of the OT in relation to Jesus and who He was. Who's zoomin' who? :) I've tried to take it from a more general view of allowing God to open the understanding.
Reply to DontWorryBeHappy: Your depiction of what it was like to do research at twi is very fair [and lively!]. I was in very similar meetings with vic and others and saw the same patterns of methodology. Sometimes it was very tense. Sometimes he picked a Greek word over a Syriac word or vice versa to fit with what he called his "scope of the Word" or what he'd say "had to be the original." In the end, vic was the authority.
Given the paramenters [straight-jackets for some of us] vp had declared, i.e. the PFAL keys to research and the fundamentalist claim that the bible had to have no "errors," only a certain kind of debate was acceptable before he made up his mind. And I saw no free debates to change anything after he decided what THE WORD was.
To be fair, some of us let his status intimidate us into not challenging him. But I know of some who did challenge him. They either walked away or were kicked out and the details of those situations mostly were relegated to the "lockbox," much like some women's stories we know of now...
Reply to InvisibleDan: Yeah, the unknown can be a disorienting place, but like you, I think it's worth the adventure of keeping a curious mind alive. My "faith" or "spiritual life" doesn't need written sources like it used to.
Reply to Socks: Mmm...gotta think about this last post of yours for awhile.
Meanwhile, for those interested, here are a few sites that give some info on where the heck II Peter came from:
Second Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Commentaries and reference books have placed 2 Peter in almost every decade from 60 to ... Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter - 73k - Cached - Similar pages
More results from en.wikipedia.org »
2 Peter
Kummel presents the arguments that make all critical scholars recognize that II Peter is a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 430-4): ...
www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
Bible Basics - II Peter
This letter, like I Peter, bears the name of the apostle. But most scholars (even from early times) believe that it was written in the name of Peter, ...
netministries.org/Bbasics/BB2Peter.htm - 4k - Cached - Similar pages
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Epistles of Saint Peter
Eusebius of Caesarea (340), while personally accepting II Peter as authentic and canonical, nevertheless classes it among the disputed works (antilegomena), ...
www.newadvent.org/cathen/11752a.htm - 51k - Cached - Similar pages
USCCB - NAB - 2 Peter 1
1 [1] Symeon Peter: on the authorship of 2 Peter, see Introduction; on the spelling here of the Hebrew name Simon, cf Acts 15:14. The greeting is especially ...
www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2peter/2peter1.htm - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
("Knowing this first, that no prophesy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.")
Is this saying that no scripture is of any PI or is it isolating the prophetic components?
Add to that, verse 21 says "For the prophesy came not-------"
Then, of course, if you continue on into chapter2, which, if the part of the class about chapter and verse markings is correct, was all part of a larger context anyway, you find the warning about false TEACHERS.
So, I'm just asking, What's the emphasis here? Is it the scriptures or the prophesies of the scriptures?
Whether Peter was written by Peter or in his name ... it strikes me that there is a catch-22 in all of this.
Even accepting vp's parameters ... he is using the writings to verify the writings. We were supposed to believe vp was MOG because of what vp said God told him. We were supposed to believe these holy men of God spake as they were moved, because they told us they were moved by God.
At least if "scripture" referred to established OT text, it was more solid what was being referred to. But what is there to give any weight to anything Paul or others were writing? We have an OT religion that changed (for some) when JC showed up ... we have some Acts of some apostles and others ... which established a new order of some sort ... but their seems a lot of blind faith to accept any of those new writings over others more obscure that didn't make it to print.
With Paul saying all those had left him ... how do we know he stayed faithful? Didn't Peter have his own thing going on? Maybe Paul just made up that story about the snow on the gas pumps road to Damascus. Is there anything to show Paul or Peter had divine authority to tell us how to rightly divide "the divine word"?
I haven't seen the signs miracles and wonders from vp or Paul or Peter ... or Jesus for that matter. So what are we really going on? Maybe most of those early writings were established the same way vp established official twi dogma. Maybe the 13th apostle was a rebel against god, and his splinter group story just happened be the one to get widely published?
Truth to tell, most people have never read the bible - all of it, to the end they could say they believe it. If a person's never bothered to read the whole thing, why bother making high claims as it's authenticity?
IMO, the "high claims" of authenticity are not so high compared to the higher claims of authority and origin that for most of those same people comes without question. It seems that people need to start in a different place. Before we believe something is "God's Word" then we should first see if the person purporting that claim is at least the same person they are claiming to be. We do this more with most books we read in high school than we do with the Bible. I would bet more Christians know about the history concerning Shakespeare and his work or the history of the Mormon church than they do about the Bible and Christianity (arguably the most influential and controversial books and religions of all time.) They should teach it in school, IMO.
I think as one goes down this "frightening process" one realizes more and more that you do need to "strive to develope an entirely different 'god-consciousness'" as B Happy put it. It makes one more critical of their own faith (if they decide to keep it) and more excepting of others'.
That verse sticks out - someone's being reminded, told, that the prophecies aren't open to interpretation. Yet, interpretation, understanding, was inevitable. So there's limits to be observed, but what are they? Clarity has to be achieved...
Actually, I think the context shows that this verse is not talking about if they are open for interpretation but how they, "the prophecy of the scripture," came about. if one is going to accept this as a legitimate book and verse in which to view the Bible then one must get that clear.
:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were]moved by the Holy Ghost.
The author is saying these weren't "cunningly devised fables" (says the guy writing under the name of Peter <_< ). We are eye witnesses of this. We heard the voice from heaven. We have a more sure word... and you'd best take heed. Then he says, in light of those things, the "prophecy of the scripture" is not of any PI, because it (the prophecy of scripture) in fact came from men being moved by the Holy Spirit. It sounds much like the first few verses of Luke. Many had put pen to hand but he knew perfectly as an eye witness from the beginning and decided all these years later, 50,60,70 years later, to write his own memoirs of Jesus. Most likely only after Theophilus had asked him to.
So apparently, at the time this was written, from as little as 30-100 years or so after Jesus' purported death, there was some question as to whether the prophecy of the Messiah was true or not. Even during Jesus' time and before there was this skepticism.
Perhaps a little off topic but, what I find most interesting about all this canonical history is that it takes 30 years after the death of Jesus for anyone to write anything about him. That would be the rough date of Thessalonians thought to be the first epistle and earliest written reference to Jesus. The other interesting fact is that the first we hear about it is from a former Pharisee, possible Sanhedrin, Christian killer. We hear from him and then there is this virtual explosion of writings about Jesus for the next roughly 150 years when "the church" takes what it feels is legit and forms the canon we know of today for the most part. What happened for those first 30+ years when Jesus was walking around on water and turning it into wine? It takes at least 40 years for an account of Jesus' life to be written in "Mark", the first gospel to be written (a possible 'Q gospel' could be earlier). It takes over 60 years, basically a couple of generations, for any historian or non religious writer, much less a historian who wasn't even alive while Jesus walked the earth (Josephus), to write a small paragraph about him actually existing and doing stuff. Later still someone decides to forge in that this Jesus guy was "the Christ" we've been telling you to give us money for.
Anyways, I think in the end all this questioning of the authenticity of the books of the Bible lend themselves to education and not necessarily to lack of faith. In my experience most people of faith have personal experience(s) that anchors it beyond objective scrutiny. It should not be based solely on the book of the Bible as the Word of God. It should be something deeply personal and if it isn't then that needs to be explored one way or the other to the end of lack of that faith or a strengthening of that faith. If nothing else, I think Karen Armstrong put it pretty well. I think that goes for everyone. The more we focus on love and helping others the better we all are for it.
IMO, the "high claims" of authenticity are not so high compared to the higher claims of authority and origin that for most of those same people comes without question. It seems that people need to start in a different place. Before we believe something is "God's Word" then we should first see if the person purporting that claim is at least the same person they are claiming to be. We do this more with most books we read in high school than we do with the Bible. I would bet more Christians know about the history concerning Shakespeare and his work or the history of the Mormon church than they do about the Bible and Christianity (arguably the most influential and controversial books and religions of all time.) They should teach it in school, IMO.
I think as one goes down this "frightening process" one realizes more and more that you do need to "strive to develope an entirely different 'god-consciousness'" as B Happy put it. It makes one more critical of their own faith (if they decide to keep it) and more excepting of others'.
Actually, I think the context shows that this verse is not talking about if they are open for interpretation but how they, "the prophecy of the scripture," came about. if one is going to accept this as a legitimate book and verse in which to view the Bible then one must get that clear.
The author is saying these weren't "cunningly devised fables" (says the guy writing under the name of Peter <_< ). We are eye witnesses of this. We heard the voice from heaven. We have a more sure word... and you'd best take heed. Then he says, in light of those things, the "prophecy of the scripture" is not of any PI, because it (the prophecy of scripture) in fact came from men being moved by the Holy Spirit. It sounds much like the first few verses of Luke. Many had put pen to hand but he knew perfectly as an eye witness from the beginning and decided all these years later, 50,60,70 years later, to write his own memoirs of Jesus. Most likely only after Theophilus had asked him to.
So apparently, at the time this was written, from as little as 30-100 years or so after Jesus' purported death, there was some question as to whether the prophecy of the Messiah was true or not. Even during Jesus' time and before there was this skepticism.
Perhaps a little off topic but, what I find most interesting about all this canonical history is that it takes 30 years after the death of Jesus for anyone to write anything about him. That would be the rough date of Thessalonians thought to be the first epistle and earliest written reference to Jesus. The other interesting fact is that the first we hear about it is from a former Pharisee, possible Sanhedrin, Christian killer. We hear from him and then there is this virtual explosion of writings about Jesus for the next roughly 150 years when "the church" takes what it feels is legit and forms the canon we know of today for the most part. What happened for those first 30+ years when Jesus was walking around on water and turning it into wine? It takes at least 40 years for an account of Jesus' life to be written in "Mark", the first gospel to be written (a possible 'Q gospel' could be earlier). It takes over 60 years, basically a couple of generations, for any historian or non religious writer, much less a historian who wasn't even alive while Jesus walked the earth (Josephus), to write a small paragraph about him actually existing and doing stuff. Later still someone decides to forge in that this Jesus guy was "the Christ" we've been telling you to give us money for.
Most of that happened because the original apostles and other believers sincerely believed that the Lord Jesus was coming back in their own personal lifetimes. Hence, why bother writing anything down. It was only in the waning years of the original apostles that it began to become clear to them that perhaps they had better write the life of Jesus down for future generations, in case the Lord didn't return as quickly as originally thought. You can read their concern and even terror about their dead loved ones in 1 Thess, which is why Paul wrote that the dead ones would not be left behind.
That's probably true Lindy, I'm making a general statement as to the simple fact that nearly no one reads the entire bible, from start to finish or spends any great degree of time learning what's in the whole book. If you don't you won't have questions about something you don't even know exists. If all you know is what someone else has told you about it in their interpretation and you only have that one opinion, you're limited. That's probably why it's impossible to have a coherent discussion with someone who doesn't know what you're talking about and isn't interested in understanding. If they've been taught to view questions and different opinions as dangerous, they'll steer clear or pop off a knee jerk answer.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
13
22
34
Popular Days
May 18
30
May 1
18
May 4
15
May 8
11
Top Posters In This Topic
sirguessalot 11 posts
Oakspear 13 posts
penworks 22 posts
brideofjc 34 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2008
30 posts
May 1 2008
18 posts
May 4 2008
15 posts
May 8 2008
11 posts
penworks
p.s. I agree some people get too caught up with the Book, what books make up the book, and what each Greek, Hebrew, etc. word might mean and forget about their "spiritual life" whatever they want to call that experience. These issues are of historical and literary interest, as far as I am concerned.
Some people call preoccupation with the Bible "bibliolatry." We used to scoff in twi when critics accused us of that. Now I suspect they were right about some people but not all...
peace,
penworks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I think vp said ... "It's the word the word the word .... and nothing BUT the word."
Of course he obviously didn't live that life. So he wasn't a bibliolator, he was a fraudster.
And he said "it's either all God's Word, or none of it is"
You make a good point, about when someone else wants to control what you read ... and how to read it and what it means ... and if you live any other way you are going to haill ....
A. You must obey God ... so obey his word
B. Only we can rightly divide his Word ... we must be likeminded
Gardening is more wholesome ... it is that time here ...
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
I'm not trying to control what you read, Penworks, how can I? I do not even know where you live, OMG. And I never said that Ehrmann has flippant questions either. I just question the depth of his faith if he could let textual criticism excise it from his life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Just to clarify, the emphasis of my sentence should have started with the fact the translation is from 1611 and may or may not reflect what the writer meant when he wrote it. It may not necessarily have the exact same definition of the 1611 English word ...
I did not mean to be unfair to John, only to say that sometimes a word's definition in one language doesn't carry the original meaning from another language, especially when that original language you're translating from is such a different culture from so long ago.
peace,
penworks
No need to take that personally.
peace,
penworks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
To brideofjc: No need to take my comments personally. And no big deal about the Ehrman, Pagels, etc. opinions. We're mature enough here to agree to disagree, right?
...cheers!
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
penworks, I could see two interpretations of Tim. 3:16 - 1.) all scripture, writing/graphe, refers to the "Old Testament". We could use Jesus's breakdown of "scripture" in Luke:24:44, 45
And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and the Prophets and the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
This works with Paul's statement to Timothy - "and how from childhood you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."
Timothy being a young man, younger than Paul anyway, he would have been reading and studying those "OT" writings that were in existence at that time.
I could also see a broader interpretation of it, one that Paul may have inferred - that the understanding that he had by "revelation of Jesus Christ" that he wrote could be included within that - in other words, less the actual letter that he was writing and more the writings that he did that carried that information.
"Logos" is a big part of this, as most Christians use it synonymously for the bible, meaning "the Word of God", the bible. Today people tend to view logos as a word or words of expression, communication. There's more to logos though, than a word for a word.
And communication isn't the thing being communicated and a word isn't the only way to communicate. What's more important - how something is communicated or the thing being communicated?
I guess an argument can be made that if we only had one means of knowing something - only one form of communication possible or used, then that form would be essential, since it's the only one. But we know that words, language, writing, isn't the only form that God uses to communicate with people and the words of the bible aren't the sole means God has to communicate with us.
Still, if we accept upfront that the bible - the collection of "old" and "new" testament writings we have collected today - are words that God has inspired others to write, then other forms of communication should explain, confirm, corroborate, expand and increase on what we have.
I guess...
Your question is one that I've spent time on too - it's a reasonable one. :)
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Thanks, socks. You've given me much to ponder. Gotta go now and take care of family matters, but will check back later. Again, I appreciate your thought-out post.
enjoy your day!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Hello again,
I've found all the responses on this topic very interesting and thought-provoking. It's been said that one's ideas need to be challenged to become clear to oneself. Thus, the need for debate. Thus, democracy (or at least a republic
). So thanks everyone at gsc.
Socks, I like the way you pointed out that there are various ways "God" can communicate with us. Indeed! (Here I'll put in a plug for William James' Varieties of Religious Experience.
Real quick before I need to cook dinner - ya'll might find these helpful:
1. IMO this is a good source regarding N.T.: http://www.ntcanon.org/index.shtml
2. There are sites with the chronology of NT writings. One I like includes other events going on in the world at the time of the writings (but watch out, it's compiled by "atheists"
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/chri...ron_xian_nt.htm
happy studying...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Regardless of whether or not we can nail down an exact definition of what is being referred to as "scripture" in 2 Peter 1: 20, in order to accept that definition we must first assume that the writer of 2 Peter 1: 20 is speaking for God, seeing as God would be the only one who would know who was and who wasn't "being moved." So first before we have faith in the God of the Bible we have to have faith in those that wrote it, that they were telling the truth, that they were inspired, that they had revelation, and were speaking for God. Perhaps, instead, it is a separate faith that is confirmed through experience after reading the Bible. I suspect it may be a combination of those things as well as being "raised in the Word" in our Christian society. A generalization, I know, not everyone was raised like that but I believe most of us here were.
Was this one of the first pronouncements of ex cathedra from the first pope? Looking at this as a book in the Canon it is one that has been questioned as authentic from the earliest of Christian authorities, Usebius of Caesarea and Origen were at least two of them. So who exactly wrote this and what their authority was in making such a claim is up for grabs if you ask me.
The bigger problem with the way this was read in TWI, though, is not what the scripture was but what this verse was referring to... how PI was taught. The verse was not talking about how we are to read "the scripture" or how were or were not supposed to interpret it but where the scripture being referred to came from. The context shows that the author says it came from God not from men, not from fables, not from PI! Even though "in the context" was how we were to research the Bible, this verse was taken out of context to enforce an idea of compliance with the Word of VPW. If we were not PIing and the scripture interpreted itself then VPW was not PIing and we should receive it as the actual God Breathed Word. This discouraged questions and common sense reading and reasoning. Private interpretation was/is so apart of TWI's theology that it was/is basically "way speak." Everyone knew what was meant by it and plenty knew how to use it to control and how to point the finger. YET, that is not what the verse is talking about.
As has been said many times here, when you throw this into the mix of the Law of Believing and the Fall of Man teachings as well as VPW's persona and attitude you have a concoction that, IMO, looks to be designed to get people to follow you without question and control them.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
You are absolutely right, Lindy.
The same goes for other writings of about the same second century period - liked the so-called Pastoral epistles (1 & II Timothy, Titus) most certainly not written by Paul.
One French writer, P. L Couchoud, joked that he got the sense that it was the same writer wearing different masks behind the production of the later NT material.
One of the primary intents behind the production of this apocrypha was one movement promoting their canon against the canons of other rival movements - and one way to carry this out was to argue for the inarguability and infallibility of their "product" against all others. That is why they are underscoring that their canon is "God breathed", is "complete" , is to be "rightly divided" according their "righteous" "teachings", conveniently validated in their canon against oft unnamed heretics and their teachings and their writings bearing uncanny resemblance to that of heretics who actually lived and thrived during the second century.
It served it's purpose, and alas all too well; preachers and charlatans continue to derive a number of expressions for promoting the authority of a "god-breathed Word" from those dubious writings - indeed, outright fictions - attached near the end of their new testaments.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Lindy... and Invisible...,
Your input is very intriguing and makes me feel as if I'm not the only one with these sorts of questions. Thanks!
I've been thinking along these lines for some time now and have read in other sources some of what you outline here.
While it may not be important to some, to me it's very important to understand what these documents are before I go around quoting them and saying "Thus said the Lord," or claiming these documents are The Word of God.
That was what I felt when I brought up this issue to the founder of the first twi offshoot, which I mentioned in the beginning of this post. I understood he did not want to address my question. It's scary. It had been frightening for me at first to consider what I'd learned in twi might not be the whole story. If you start thinking about these things, you begin to doubt what you know. One question leads to another. Then you don't have a nice doctrine to promote.
I also am concerned when I hear people saying "I believe the Bible." What exactly does that phrase mean? It seems it could mean anything. Sure I believe it exists. Sure I believe there are some true sayings in it and much good advice for moral and compassionate living (if I ignore the violence in the O.T. and the ostracizing etc. in the N.T.).
But that's not what people usually mean. I just don't know what people mean unless I pin them down and ask them to clarify. I ask, "You believe WHAT about the Bible?" I honestly want to know. But often people get defensive so then I quit.
Sometimes they say, "It's God's Word whether you believe it or not." That just does not help me. When I left twi, they said, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." But they didn't explain what the BABY is. God?
At this point, I'm inclinded to go with something the religion historian, Karen Armstrong points out, "The major religions all insist that the practice of daily, hourly compassion will introduce us to God, Nirvana, and the Dao. An exegesis based on the 'principle of charity' would be a spiritual discipline that is deeply needed in our torn and fragmented world." The Bible - a Biography. pg. 229.
Guess that's my 2 cents for today.
Cheers!
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
"I believe the bible" almost always means "I believe in God who I believe is responsible for the bible". Truth to tell, most people have never read the bible - all of it, to the end they could say they believe it. If a person's never bothered to read the whole thing, why bother making high claims as it's authenticity?
Smaller still the number who have read it more than once or studied much of it. Most believe what they've taken from it by choice or what's inspired them. Which is fine, but no cause to pound a lectern or take up a collection. :)
I like Armstrong, too by the way. Finished "The History of God" last year and have another of her's on the barbey for the summer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
hi penworks, and all you other greasespotters who've posted on this very intersting thread!.........indeed, an absolutely crucial question, the asking of which is equally crucial to undoing the answer vic eagerly supplied, and drilled so deeply into our consciousness of "things spiritual"!.........
"what is 'THE WORD' " is the first question one must ask of any one who purports to "believe" that this "word" MUST BE one's "ONLY RULE for faith and practice"......the first question to anyone who claims to be able to "rightly divide" that "word", and then to "teach it" as it has "not been known since the first century"!.....the answer to that first question determines the entire context and framework within which any serious discussion can ensue..........vic demanded that any who would "dare" to discuss "THE WORD" with him, accept the same presumptions as he himself had regarding the answer to "what is THE WORD"?.............for vic, and therefore for all of twi, the answer to "what does 'all scripture' refer to was..........the king james version of the bible, both old and new testaments, with the canon as accepted therein, with the accompanying hebrew massoretic texts of the OT, along with the Septuagint Greek text of the OT, and the various critical greek texts of the NT, as well as whatever greek manuscripts and fragments of the NT extant, and the lamsa bible with his pedangta estrangelo aramaic text thereof, as well as lamsa's underlying understanding of and methodology in translating from "the aramaic" into 20th century english according to "biblical useage"!............penworks..............please correct me if i'm in error here.....you were there.....you know!
but....that's just the beginning.........the real "word" in twi was what vic said it was..........and all the stuff i just listed above is there so vic could "prove" that all that which he said was "god-breathed" and all that he "just knew had to be there 'in the original' " was indeed, there!......and therefore, it all was true!.......that, IN FACT, is what vic's answer to what "scripture" refers to was!......imho...............it is this series of presumptions which must be unquestioningly accepted and adhered to if one is to be able to "receive the greatness of 'THE WORD' "........it is also this very same series of presumptions to which "the founder of the first twi offshoot", as well as its current president, subscribe.........just as they wholeheartedly did while in twi..........they have never stopped doing so..............which is why they are convinced vic himself would be so "very proud" of what their "ministry" is teaching and doing to move "THE WORD"!
for me, personally, "THE WORD", is jesus christ................"scipture", as referred to in IIpeter, is one way by which we can learn about jesus christ, who, the gospel of john says, IS "THE WORD".......much more than merely the bible in the flesh!.........it always struck me as odd, that twi proclaimed that, of all god's "works", the greatest was "his word".......and, that god "restricted" or "limited", or "confined" himself to the "written word" as defined by vic above, in his dealings with humankind.......how clever to imply that an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and infinite being would be foolish enough to attempt the impossible when expending his/her "best effort" at communicating truth and reality to the most important beings in his creation!.........clever indeed!...........because now, god and his word are in vic's court!............and, we've got all the resesarch principles and manuscripts to prove it!!.............we can now define "THE WORD" "with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision"!...........as it has not been known since the first century!.......... god teaches vic, vic "proves it", and then vic teaches us!.............substitute whichever mog floats your spiritual boat!!................or your offshoot!
penworks and others have provided a very good bibliography of works by various authors, which will increase our understanding of what "scripture"refers to......there are many others, to be sure,......but, at least the few mentioned are a start!................and, besides, the worst reading them might do, is at least raise your "comfort level" in asking the question, and inspire your determination in pursuing some answers other than vic's!........thereby expanding your understanding of "scripture", and your consciousness of "things spiritual".
again, for me, personally, it is absurd to either want or try to limit god to anything!............let alone a group of collected writings spanning thousands of years of human existence, written by human beings "as they were moved by the spirit of god", living in completely different cultures, economies, geographical locations, with varying degrees of literacy and intellect........a collection of writings, whose claim of "divine inspiration" has been believed by just as many human beings as those who have chosen to believe different writings by different humans who also claim "divine inspiration".....................i believe, that in order to more fully understand jesus christ, beyond the teachings of twi, one must strive to develope an entirely different "god-consciousness" from that which was imparted to us by vic during our years of believing in, and working for twi!.........only then, as i have posted in various threads here at the spot before, can the mental and "spiritual" prisons built by twi theology and practices, be unlocked........allowing genuine, unfettered, "pursuit of godliness" by those previously chained to vic's flawed, error-ridden, and perverse consciousness of god!............................................peace.
Edited by Don'tWorryBeHappyLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i liked that last post, don, even though i just scanned it, too long kinda like scripture ha
but what hit me is who can define jesus christ with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision
not me and i'm so glad i love him
i mean i'm so glad..... i love him.....
and actually i am so glad i love him
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Penworks,
Thank you.
And the "scary" questions don't stop. Never in my past wildest, christian daze would I have ever imagined the questions now raised in my older - hopefully somewhat slightly wiser - mind. "Treading where angels dare not tread." But for all the uncertainties I think it's all worth it.
Hi Socks.
Hi Mr. Happy.
Hi Excy.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Hi I. Whether it be Peter or Pater
, the "prophecy of the scripture" spoken about if from the vantage point of the first generation of followers of Jesus Christ - woulda hadda be the "OT"...? What they had. The prophecy part - what was foretold - as to the coming of the Messiah, the people of Israel, the world, etc. And stuff.
That verse sticks out - someone's being reminded, told, that the prophecies aren't open to interpretation. Yet, interpretation, understanding, was inevitable. So there's limits to be observed, but what are they? Clarity has to be achieved, and I suspect the topic of Jesus Christ would be a hot one. From another viewpoint it could even be used to refer to Paul - he claimed to receive by revelation of Jesus Christ, and offers interpretation of the OT in relation to Jesus and who He was. Who's zoomin' who? :) I've tried to take it from a more general view of allowing God to open the understanding.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Good morning.
Reply to DontWorryBeHappy: Your depiction of what it was like to do research at twi is very fair [and lively!]. I was in very similar meetings with vic and others and saw the same patterns of methodology. Sometimes it was very tense. Sometimes he picked a Greek word over a Syriac word or vice versa to fit with what he called his "scope of the Word" or what he'd say "had to be the original." In the end, vic was the authority.
Given the paramenters [straight-jackets for some of us] vp had declared, i.e. the PFAL keys to research and the fundamentalist claim that the bible had to have no "errors," only a certain kind of debate was acceptable before he made up his mind. And I saw no free debates to change anything after he decided what THE WORD was.
To be fair, some of us let his status intimidate us into not challenging him. But I know of some who did challenge him. They either walked away or were kicked out and the details of those situations mostly were relegated to the "lockbox," much like some women's stories we know of now...
Reply to InvisibleDan: Yeah, the unknown can be a disorienting place, but like you, I think it's worth the adventure of keeping a curious mind alive. My "faith" or "spiritual life" doesn't need written sources like it used to.
Reply to Socks: Mmm...gotta think about this last post of yours for awhile.
Meanwhile, for those interested, here are a few sites that give some info on where the heck II Peter came from:
Second Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Commentaries and reference books have placed 2 Peter in almost every decade from 60 to ... Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter - 73k - Cached - Similar pages
More results from en.wikipedia.org »
2 Peter
Kummel presents the arguments that make all critical scholars recognize that II Peter is a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 430-4): ...
www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
Bible Basics - II Peter
This letter, like I Peter, bears the name of the apostle. But most scholars (even from early times) believe that it was written in the name of Peter, ...
netministries.org/Bbasics/BB2Peter.htm - 4k - Cached - Similar pages
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Epistles of Saint Peter
Eusebius of Caesarea (340), while personally accepting II Peter as authentic and canonical, nevertheless classes it among the disputed works (antilegomena), ...
www.newadvent.org/cathen/11752a.htm - 51k - Cached - Similar pages
USCCB - NAB - 2 Peter 1
1 [1] Symeon Peter: on the authorship of 2 Peter, see Introduction; on the spelling here of the Hebrew name Simon, cf Acts 15:14. The greeting is especially ...
www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2peter/2peter1.htm - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm still stuck on this II Peter 1:20 thing.
("Knowing this first, that no prophesy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.")
Is this saying that no scripture is of any PI or is it isolating the prophetic components?
Add to that, verse 21 says "For the prophesy came not-------"
Then, of course, if you continue on into chapter2, which, if the part of the class about chapter and verse markings is correct, was all part of a larger context anyway, you find the warning about false TEACHERS.
So, I'm just asking, What's the emphasis here? Is it the scriptures or the prophesies of the scriptures?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Whether Peter was written by Peter or in his name ... it strikes me that there is a catch-22 in all of this.
Even accepting vp's parameters ... he is using the writings to verify the writings. We were supposed to believe vp was MOG because of what vp said God told him. We were supposed to believe these holy men of God spake as they were moved, because they told us they were moved by God.
At least if "scripture" referred to established OT text, it was more solid what was being referred to. But what is there to give any weight to anything Paul or others were writing? We have an OT religion that changed (for some) when JC showed up ... we have some Acts of some apostles and others ... which established a new order of some sort ... but their seems a lot of blind faith to accept any of those new writings over others more obscure that didn't make it to print.
With Paul saying all those had left him ... how do we know he stayed faithful? Didn't Peter have his own thing going on? Maybe Paul just made up that story about the snow on the gas pumps road to Damascus. Is there anything to show Paul or Peter had divine authority to tell us how to rightly divide "the divine word"?
I haven't seen the signs miracles and wonders from vp or Paul or Peter ... or Jesus for that matter. So what are we really going on? Maybe most of those early writings were established the same way vp established official twi dogma. Maybe the 13th apostle was a rebel against god, and his splinter group story just happened be the one to get widely published?
The possibilities are endless ....
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Socks-
IMO, the "high claims" of authenticity are not so high compared to the higher claims of authority and origin that for most of those same people comes without question. It seems that people need to start in a different place. Before we believe something is "God's Word" then we should first see if the person purporting that claim is at least the same person they are claiming to be. We do this more with most books we read in high school than we do with the Bible. I would bet more Christians know about the history concerning Shakespeare and his work or the history of the Mormon church than they do about the Bible and Christianity (arguably the most influential and controversial books and religions of all time.) They should teach it in school, IMO.I think as one goes down this "frightening process" one realizes more and more that you do need to "strive to develope an entirely different 'god-consciousness'" as B Happy put it. It makes one more critical of their own faith (if they decide to keep it) and more excepting of others'.
Actually, I think the context shows that this verse is not talking about if they are open for interpretation but how they, "the prophecy of the scripture," came about. if one is going to accept this as a legitimate book and verse in which to view the Bible then one must get that clear.
The author is saying these weren't "cunningly devised fables" (says the guy writing under the name of Peter <_< ). We are eye witnesses of this. We heard the voice from heaven. We have a more sure word... and you'd best take heed. Then he says, in light of those things, the "prophecy of the scripture" is not of any PI, because it (the prophecy of scripture) in fact came from men being moved by the Holy Spirit. It sounds much like the first few verses of Luke. Many had put pen to hand but he knew perfectly as an eye witness from the beginning and decided all these years later, 50,60,70 years later, to write his own memoirs of Jesus. Most likely only after Theophilus had asked him to.
So apparently, at the time this was written, from as little as 30-100 years or so after Jesus' purported death, there was some question as to whether the prophecy of the Messiah was true or not. Even during Jesus' time and before there was this skepticism.
Perhaps a little off topic but, what I find most interesting about all this canonical history is that it takes 30 years after the death of Jesus for anyone to write anything about him. That would be the rough date of Thessalonians thought to be the first epistle and earliest written reference to Jesus. The other interesting fact is that the first we hear about it is from a former Pharisee, possible Sanhedrin, Christian killer. We hear from him and then there is this virtual explosion of writings about Jesus for the next roughly 150 years when "the church" takes what it feels is legit and forms the canon we know of today for the most part. What happened for those first 30+ years when Jesus was walking around on water and turning it into wine? It takes at least 40 years for an account of Jesus' life to be written in "Mark", the first gospel to be written (a possible 'Q gospel' could be earlier). It takes over 60 years, basically a couple of generations, for any historian or non religious writer, much less a historian who wasn't even alive while Jesus walked the earth (Josephus), to write a small paragraph about him actually existing and doing stuff. Later still someone decides to forge in that this Jesus guy was "the Christ" we've been telling you to give us money for.
Anyways, I think in the end all this questioning of the authenticity of the books of the Bible lend themselves to education and not necessarily to lack of faith. In my experience most people of faith have personal experience(s) that anchors it beyond objective scrutiny. It should not be based solely on the book of the Bible as the Word of God. It should be something deeply personal and if it isn't then that needs to be explored one way or the other to the end of lack of that faith or a strengthening of that faith. If nothing else, I think Karen Armstrong put it pretty well. I think that goes for everyone. The more we focus on love and helping others the better we all are for it.
Just my two bits.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I was referring to the couple years of Jesus' ministry, his death and then the following years up to Paul's epistle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
That's probably true Lindy, I'm making a general statement as to the simple fact that nearly no one reads the entire bible, from start to finish or spends any great degree of time learning what's in the whole book. If you don't you won't have questions about something you don't even know exists. If all you know is what someone else has told you about it in their interpretation and you only have that one opinion, you're limited. That's probably why it's impossible to have a coherent discussion with someone who doesn't know what you're talking about and isn't interested in understanding. If they've been taught to view questions and different opinions as dangerous, they'll steer clear or pop off a knee jerk answer.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.