but Steve L, regardless of how outlandish Mike's claims and methods may seem
your so-called spiritual diagnosis of him seems juvenile, supersitious, presumptuous, ineffective, personal...
...and quite soakingly contrary to the rules of this forum
what's next...a hypertextual exorcism?
:blink:
Thanks Todd!
Instead of flagging the moderators on Steve I thought it better to let him keep it up and allow others to see that he truly is acting in the mold that the SNL Church Lady is based on. I think we are viewing a modern day version of what the Pharisees were in Jesus' time.
Oakspear thanked me on line not long ago for my NOT accusing or alluding to him being possessed by a devil. We all saw that kind of behavioral a lot in the ministry as certain individuals ran a muck. We all wish we had stood up to accusers like that back then, yet how many posters here allowed Steve to revisit that exact kind of behavior here upon me?
My hat is off to you, Todd, for calling a spade a spade, and shame on you others for not doing the same.
Yes, dmiller, Todd and I have conversed (in spite of our disagreements) often over the years. We've even done some collaborative work in graphic arts. Some time ago he and pamsandiego and I broke bread together and imbibed in beer. I think you along, with Steve, just failed your final exam in Abnormal Psychology.
Mark I hope you learn a much more sound lesson by THIS situation, instead of sheepishly going along with Steve's behavior.
Todd, I owe you. Thanks for speaking up, and thanks for not doing it sooner, because I think Steve needed the rope to hang himself most thoroughly.
***
Now, I'd like to get back to that topic, which is NOT my state of mental heath (boring as that is), and is NOT Christ formed within as Paul talked about it (exciting as that is), and is NOT working apparent errors in PFAL.
Now that we know what is NOT, here's what the topic IS: we've conducting a remedial class in "only rule for faith and practice" for those who want to finally learn what that's all about.
It may make you feel safe to believe that there are no invisible intelligences who wish you harm, but the only real safety lies in the mercy and grace and power of God through Jesus Christ.
</snip>
Steve, I hope you'll try to remember that not everyone here is christian. the point of this thread is should we be bound by one rule of faith and practice as described by vpw in pfal, I wasn't interested in discussing the validity of core beliefs of christianity except as they relate to vpw's claim.
thanks for attempting to educate me...your sub story sounds quite interesting too
but please know...
...i am aware of and acceptant of the realities and dangers of spiritual entities and forces and whatnot...as well as many fearless eastern approaches to evil demons
...i feel your summation of early christian beliefs and experience regarding demons is way too simplistic for me
...i am familiar with the usages and definitions of deisidaimonia
...i am also a devoted christian with experiences of my own
but most of all...i hope i am not required to attempt to explain my opinion of Mike to you
in order to point out that you are declaring to others that another poster is being influenced by demons
and that this not only seems like a "very foul ball" here at the GSC...but in dialogue in general
and i am guessing you are quite dead wrong about Mike going away because of your posts
but carry on if you feel you must...ill try not to say another word about it
We both agree that the "Word of God" is our only rule of faith and practice. We just disagree on what that means.
For one thing, in order for a rule to be used as a rule to measure (or judge) statements in the senses world, it too must be in the senses world. I have often asked posters if they are able to place their "only rule" on a scale and tell me how many pounds it weighs.
The Word of God is spiritual and has no physical mass or weight. The Word IN WRITTEN FORM does have physical mass and can be weighed. See the difference?
To absorb the Word of God we must first get to know His Word in written form. It's that written form that is our rule in judging matters in life and thought, and it guides us to the spiritual Word of God.
The Scriptures do not refer to themselves as "The Word," they call themselves "The Scriptures."
Not always. In II Peter he says we have a more sure word of prophecy. Later on he reveals it as Paul's epistles.
In the Bible, the term "the Word" refers to the whole message, the communication of God's mind and plan, and ultimately the embodiment of God's Word, His Son Jesus Christ. All of that is included when I say that my rule for faith and practice is God's Word. That is the only standard that is perfect. I gave my reasons for saying that one single printed book cannot be our only rule for faith and practice, but you never dealt with that reply.
Yes, and I'm sorry for that. That is such a hot post for comment I tucked it away and STILL have not gotten to it. In many of my posts since then I have partially answered it, sometimes to other posters, and I was hoping you were reading and seeing that I was addressing it. If time permits, I'll try again to get to it.
As for your claim that the written Word was "lost," you still demonstrate a lack of knowledge about Church history. You claim that "the revelation was being lost as fast as it was being written, and soon all would forsake the man whom God had chosen to co-ordinate the mystery revelation." While II Tim. 1:15 says, "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me," it doesn't say that everybody everywhere turned away from him. In fact it may not even mean "all without exception" in Asia. If everyone had turned away there would have been nobody to copy the NT documents, and no early church writings which quote virtually all of the NT so that we have further corroboration besides the MSS.
The reliability of the ancient fragments is only a tiny part of the loss issue. In that very post mentioned above you yourself testify to the more significant other parts of the loss due to language and culture change. The loss of the original intent would still be an issue to me EVEN IF we had the originals, intact, and a sure way of knowing they WERE in fact the originals.
I referred to the reliability of the Scriptures way back on the Snowstorm thread (here and here among other places), but you never dealt with that either. I said at the time that the NT documents are preserved better than any other ancient documents, with MS evidence that enables us to reconstruct the originals with astonishing accuracy. You simply blow that off and call the scholars "pointy-headed intellectuals" without really knowing what they do or how the reconstruction works.
No. I blew it off, knowing how the reconstruction works, BUT for other reasons.
You see, the accuracy measures are relative. They measure change from early fragments to later fragments. Those early fragments are not from the original period, but from one centuries later. There are no "still earlier" originals to see how accurate the existent "early" fragments are. Yes there is little change from the 4th century to the 8th century, but what about from the 1st century to the 4th? No one knows about the changes that occurred there because there are no originals to compare the 4th century fragments with.
So the accuracy and preservation occurred late in the game. The forsaking of Paul (which Peter also talks about) and the disruptions of the persecutions occurred early in the game.
This was how I answered you, but I did it in very abbreviated format. I think you missed it.
Your claims that "all we had (in 1967) were 4th century fragmentary mis-copies of mis-copies of copies" and that they were at "extreme variance with each other" are simply false.
Then why did Stevens and those later "criticize" them and feel a need to find the best of them to piece together a critical text? It was because the fragments did not agree. The fact that not too many crucial doctrines were involved in these disagreements (a few were) does not negate the fact that the fragments were copied in rather sloppy fashion compared to the OT copy processes.
The amazing abundance of MSS, combined with early church writers' quotations of the Scriptures enable scholars to compare and contrast, and with many other principles in the science of textual criticism, we can arrive at something very close to the original readings. The relatively few passages that are still in question do not affect any major doctrine. The majority of doctrinal differences among various Christian groups stems not from mistranslation or text corruption, but from misinterpretation. Not only that, but even VP said that 85-90% of the Bible interprets itself right where it's written, without having to dig.
Very close is not close enough. Change one word and you no longer have the Word. Chang language and culture and mindsets, and you catastrophically no longer have the Word.
You said above that you were trying to get me to "be specific." Thank you. I needed a good laugh. I have been asking specific questions of you and trying to get you to be specific since I engaged in this discussion. You have yet to do so. Since you claim that PFAL is your only rule of faith and practice because you made the choice to accept it as God breathed, then you must have dealt with the apparent contradictions in order to make that choice and determine that there are no real errors in it.
Not necessarily all, and not necessarily to your satisfaction or understanding. I don't think apparent contradictions are the high priority you do. Many of them work themselves out AS OTHER sections, where there are no apparent contradictions, are studied. Remember how Dr taught us 15 years may pass before one may be worked out? Remember how I reminded you of this? I'm willing to wait for some. Some have been settled, and I forget how. Some were settled and I don't want to take the time detailing them.
Several of us have challenged you to demonstrate how you dealt with the apparent contradictions according to your methods, and all you have done is talk about how you won't use our methods or "play our game."
Yes, and I explained why several times. And especially not on this thread, where that's not the topic.
When Steve put forth what you had said was your methodology, i.e. listening to the "advanced Christ formed within," you seemed to imply that he was misrepresenting you. Yet you have not come out and said what your methodology is for determining that PFAL is perfect and God-breathed. You side-stepped the issue by going on about the mind of Christ in Galatians, but that is not the same thing as what Steve said you described in post #101, above. Let's get specific: is what he wrote an accurate representation of what you told him?
Not the "same thing" but a similar thing. Steve distorts subtly and to his ends. It takes a lot of time unraveling his knots, so I usually don't. It's becaues you do not read my posts very thoroughly and you still don't understand my position that you think what Steve said and what I hold are the "same thing." To the ignorant they are the "same thing" but to me they are merely similar. Remember how a good counterfeit needs to have a high resemblance to the genuine? In this issue you are ignorant. That's not the same as saying you are ignorant on all or even many things, but on my message, you ignore much and are, therefore, willingly ignorant. You need to go back and do some catch up work if you want to pass this class.
If your methodology consists of gaining wisdom from a spiritual source, we are commanded to not believe every spirit, but try them and see if they are of God. Did you do this, and if so, how?
One of the most recent posts I did and that you seem to have ignored, is that I refuted Steve on this point. My only rule for faith and practice is NOT this spirit Steve has conjured up. Did you read that post I put there just this day. Wouldn't that seem to say that I gain my wisdom from written PFAL as I posted this very day?
From what else I posted today, and that you ignored, you could deduce that the mind of Christ, which I run to in forsaking my natural man mind, feeds from and is nourished by written PFAL. It's kind of the opposite of what you just asked and Steve had accused. The Christ formed in me gets wisdom from written PFAL. You and Steve have it bass ackwards. Please read my posts if you want to know what my position and tell the SNL Church Lady that she is not getting any laughs.
What criteria did you use in deciding that PFAL was God-breathed?
What criteria did you use in deciding that Ephesians was God-breathed?
I'm very serious about this.
What proof do you have that the Bible is God's Word in written form?
What proof do you have that Ephesians, Genesis, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John are God's Word in written form?
The reason I'm serious is if you sit down and think this through THEN you'll begin to know the kind of process that I went through (not the exact process but the KIND of process) in my decision to lock onto PFAL as God-breathed.
Have you ever done this for yourself even?
And what criteria did you then use to deal with those stubborn apparent contradictions?
I've already addressed this to some degree.
I know you are aware that the devil can counterfeit revelation. What have you done to assure that what you are getting is genuine?
And YOU? What do YOU do for similar assurance that YOU are on the right track?
If you choose not to answer these questions, that's your choice. But don't keep claiming we don't know what you're talking about just because we disagree with you.
No. I don't ever do that. I claim that you don't know what I'm taking about because you keep on asking me questions that I have already posted the answers to. Get it?
The answers are right in front of you and you keep asking. It's because you skim, you ignore, and you smugly assume I don't know and have not thought through my position enough to warrant your FULL attention.
And read up on Church history and textual criticism. At least then you will be able to discuss them knowledgeably.
I have. Quit assuming I have not.
Read up on my posts and you will be able to discuss them knowledgeably. Go back to all the posts this year and re-read them. You don't know what you are missing. I do.
This thing is telling me I can only have so many block quotes in a post, so I'm dividing it in two.
Part 1:
For one thing, in order for a rule to be used as a rule to measure (or judge) statements in the senses world, it too must be in the senses world. I have often asked posters if they are able to place their "only rule" on a scale and tell me how many pounds it weighs.
The Word of God is spiritual and has no physical mass or weight. The Word IN WRITTEN FORM does have physical mass and can be weighed. See the difference?
To absorb the Word of God we must first get to know His Word in written form. It's that written form that is our rule in judging matters in life and thought, and it guides us to the spiritual Word of God.
I guess we just disagree on what "the written Word" is.
The Scriptures do not refer to themselves as "The Word," they call themselves "The Scriptures."
Not always. In II Peter he says we have a more sure word of prophecy. Later on he reveals it as Paul's epistles.
What it actually says is:
I Peter 1:
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 "Word of prophecy" is the message which is revealed in "the Scripture" (v. 20). Later in 3:15, it mentions how "our brother Paul has written" these things. But it doesn't call it "the Word" there either. And I notice you jumped to contradict that one statement, and never addressed the main point of that paragraph in my post, which was:
In the Bible, the term "the Word" refers to the whole message, the communication of God's mind and plan, and ultimately the embodiment of God's Word, His Son Jesus Christ. All of that is included when I say that my rule for faith and practice is God's Word. That is the only standard that is perfect.
I gave my reasons for saying that one single printed book cannot be our only rule for faith and practice, but you never dealt with that reply.
Yes, and I'm sorry for that. That is such a hot post for comment I tucked it away and STILL have not gotten to it. In many of my posts since then I have partially answered it, sometimes to other posters, and I was hoping you were reading and seeing that I was addressing it. If time permits, I'll try again to get to it.
Fair enough. But the partial answers you have given reflect Wierwille's faulty history of texts and textual criticism.
As for your claim that the written Word was "lost," you still demonstrate a lack of knowledge about Church history. You claim that "the revelation was being lost as fast as it was being written, and soon all would forsake the man whom God had chosen to co-ordinate the mystery revelation." While II Tim. 1:15 says, "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me," it doesn't say that everybody everywhere turned away from him. In fact it may not even mean "all without exception" in Asia. If everyone had turned away there would have been nobody to copy the NT documents, and no early church writings which quote virtually all of the NT so that we have further corroboration besides the MSS.
The reliability of the ancient fragments is only a tiny part of the loss issue. In that very post mentioned above you yourself testify to the more significant other parts of the loss due to language and culture change. The loss of the original intent would still be an issue to me EVEN IF we had the originals, intact, and a sure way of knowing they WERE in fact the originals.
I did not testify to "more significant other parts of the loss due to language and culture change." The language and culture changes are why the exact words in printed form cannot be a permanent, never changing standard. But they do not mean that the information is lost. It is still there and can be understood in light of the language and culture. Even Wierwille said that. There is no "loss of the original intent."
I referred to the reliability of the Scriptures way back on the Snowstorm thread (here and here among other places), but you never dealt with that either. I said at the time that the NT documents are preserved better than any other ancient documents, with MS evidence that enables us to reconstruct the originals with astonishing accuracy. You simply blow that off and call the scholars "pointy-headed intellectuals" without really knowing what they do or how the reconstruction works.
No. I blew it off, knowing how the reconstruction works, BUT for other reasons.
You see, the accuracy measures are relative. They measure change from early fragments to later fragments. Those early fragments are not from the original period, but from one centuries later. There are no "still earlier" originals to see how accurate the existent "early" fragments are. Yes there is little change from the 4th century to the 8th century, but what about from the 1st century to the 4th? No one knows about the changes that occurred there because there are no originals to compare the 4th century fragments with.
So the accuracy and preservation occurred late in the game. The forsaking of Paul (which Peter also talks about) and the disruptions of the persecutions occurred early in the game.
This was how I answered you, but I did it in very abbreviated format. I think you missed it.
I didn't miss it. I pointed out that you were incorrect, and I stand by that. The change from early fragments to later fragments is only one part of textual criticism. It also has to do with comparing the vast number of MSS and weighing the evidence. It also has to do with other ways of determining what the most likely reading would be, including keys very much like VPW's keys in PFAL. For example, if two MSS have variant readings, but one fits better with other clear, uncontested verses on the same subject, then the one that fits is the more correct reading.
You even admit that there is little change from the 4th to the 8th centuries. You're right - NO ONE knows about the changes that occurred from the 1st century to the 4th. So if we have no evidence of change before, and evidence of little change later, why are you so convinced that there were such catastrophic changes? In addition, the quotes of the Scriptures in the early church writers, which were in fact earlier than the 4th century, also attest to the fact that there was no "catastrophic change" in the MSS prior to the 4th century. And again, not everyone forsook Paul.
Your claims that "all we had (in 1967) were 4th century fragmentary mis-copies of mis-copies of copies" and that they were at "extreme variance with each other" are simply false.
Then why did Stevens and those later "criticize" them and feel a need to find the best of them to piece together a critical text? It was because the fragments did not agree. The fact that not too many crucial doctrines were involved in these disagreements (a few were) does not negate the fact that the fragments were copied in rather sloppy fashion compared to the OT copy processes.
First of all, do you actually know what "criticize" means? I mentioned before that it seemed like you didn't, and I'm wondering even more. Second, Stephens and others compared readings because there were variances, but the part of your quote I said was false was that they were at "extreme variance," to the point that they were unrecoverable, as well as the claim that they were only "fragmentary mis-copies of mis-copies of copies."
You seem to agree then, that "not too many crucial doctrines were involved in these disagreements" (although you say "a few were"). Then exactly what do you mean when you say the Word was "irretrievably lost"? While the transmission of NT documents may not have had the same standards as the OT, I would hardly call them "sloppy" and in any case, what variances there are can be worked out by comparing the MSS. I can't believe that God would go to all that trouble to have his message written, and then not be able to preserve it better than that until the twentieth century. You, like Wierwille, attribute way too much power to the devil.
The amazing abundance of MSS, combined with early church writers' quotations of the Scriptures enable scholars to compare and contrast, and with many other principles in the science of textual criticism, we can arrive at something very close to the original readings. The relatively few passages that are still in question do not affect any major doctrine. The majority of doctrinal differences among various Christian groups stems not from mistranslation or text corruption, but from misinterpretation. Not only that, but even VP said that 85-90% of the Bible interprets itself right where it's written, without having to dig.
Very close is not close enough. Change one word and you no longer have the Word. Chang language and culture and mindsets, and you catastrophically no longer have the Word.
Says who? Didn't Wierwille and Bullinger teach that figures of speech involve changing words to make them more forceful? There is more than one way to say things, so if the wording is slightly changed it doesn't completely change the whole meaning. A prime example is the fact that "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are two ways to refer to the same thing (contrary to Wierwilles' theology). And I already pointed out that changes in language and culture do not mean a catastrophic loss of the message. They are translations which express the meaning in different words. You still have the same meaning, the same message, the same Word of God.
And even copyist errors in the MSS can most often be caught just by their context. For example, in the quote above, you wrote "chang" but I didn't assume you were referring to some Chinese guy. I could tell from the context that you meant "change." The vast majority of variances in the MSS are more like that than complete changes in the idea being communicated.
Plus, as I said (which you didn't comment on), "even VP said that 85-90% of the Bible interprets itself right where it's written." Many people have read the Bible, in any number of versions, and learned of God's great plan of salvation and good news of His coming Kingdom without a single commentary or study aid. The biggest contradictions are due to misinterpreting what it says, not to being unable to know what it says.
You said above that you were trying to get me to "be specific." Thank you. I needed a good laugh. I have been asking specific questions of you and trying to get you to be specific since I engaged in this discussion. You have yet to do so. Since you claim that PFAL is your only rule of faith and practice because you made the choice to accept it as God breathed, then you must have dealt with the apparent contradictions in order to make that choice and determine that there are no real errors in it.
Not necessarily all, and not necessarily to your satisfaction or understanding. I don't think apparent contradictions are the high priority you do. Many of them work themselves out AS OTHER sections, where there are no apparent contradictions, are studied. Remember how Dr taught us 15 years may pass before one may be worked out? Remember how I reminded you of this? I'm willing to wait for some. Some have been settled, and I forget how. Some were settled and I don't want to take the time detailing them.
Still dodging the questions.
Several of us have challenged you to demonstrate how you dealt with the apparent contradictions according to your methods, and all you have done is talk about how you won't use our methods or "play our game."
Yes, and I explained why several times. And especially not on this thread, where that's not the topic.
Your explanation of why consisted of repeating that you started by assuming PFAL was God-breathed. But if you want anybody to take you seriously, you're going to have to deal with these questions. And I agree that's not the topic of this thread or the Snowstorm thread. That's why the threads were started in the Doctrinal Forum (the first one not even by me, BTW). You have dodged and avoided direct questions there even more than here.
When Steve put forth what you had said was your methodology, i.e. listening to the "advanced Christ formed within," you seemed to imply that he was misrepresenting you. Yet you have not come out and said what your methodology is for determining that PFAL is perfect and God-breathed. You side-stepped the issue by going on about the mind of Christ in Galatians, but that is not the same thing as what Steve said you described in post #101, above. Let's get specific: is what he wrote an accurate representation of what you told him?
Not the "same thing" but a similar thing. Steve distorts subtly and to his ends. It takes a lot of time unraveling his knots, so I usually don't. It's becaues you do not read my posts very thoroughly and you still don't understand my position that you think what Steve said and what I hold are the "same thing." To the ignorant they are the "same thing" but to me they are merely similar. Remember how a good counterfeit needs to have a high resemblance to the genuine? In this issue you are ignorant. That's not the same as saying you are ignorant on all or even many things, but on my message, you ignore much and are, therefore, willingly ignorant. You need to go back and do some catch up work if you want to pass this class.
I have read your posts thoroughly and still don't "understand" your position because it's illogical, and you refuse to answer direct questions about how you came to your conclusions. OK, so they aren't the same thing. Then define what your method is, besides "starting with the assumption that PFAL is God-breathed."
If your methodology consists of gaining wisdom from a spiritual source, we are commanded to not believe every spirit, but try them and see if they are of God. Did you do this, and if so, how?
One of the most recent posts I did and that you seem to have ignored, is that I refuted Steve on this point. My only rule for faith and practice is NOT this spirit Steve has conjured up.
The only "refuting" of Steve was in this post:
My only rule is not as you suppose.
You get most of what I say dead wrong.
I only have time to correct you so much, and the rest I have to let slide.
I take PFAL in written form, book and magazine form, as my only rule for faith and practice.
Any surprise here? It has a Page #1 and it has enough volume to cover every aspect of life. It's available to me to refer to and to build into my life to measure all else by.
Other than that you thanked Todd for agreeing with you. But you did not refute Steve's claim; you just said he's wrong. To refute means "to prove wrong by argument or evidence." If he got it wrong, then correct the error. Define your methods with specific examples. Have you in fact used the term "advanced Christ formed within" and if so, can you define what you mean by that, and how it is different from the mind of Christ in Galatians?
Did you read that post I put there just this day. Wouldn't that seem to say that I gain my wisdom from written PFAL as I posted this very day?
From what else I posted today, and that you ignored, you could deduce that the mind of Christ, which I run to in forsaking my natural man mind, feeds from and is nourished by written PFAL. It's kind of the opposite of what you just asked and Steve had accused. The Christ formed in me gets wisdom from written PFAL. You and Steve have it bass ackwards. Please read my posts if you want to know what my position and tell the SNL Church Lady that she is not getting any laughs.
Then what is it that enables you to completely deny the plain factual errors in the supposedly God-breathed PFAL? You're STILL dodging the issue. It IS relevant to this thread because, for ANYTHING to be accepted as God-breathed and therefore worthy of being the only rule of faith and practice, it has to be at the very least shown to be without glaring errors and contradictions.
What criteria did you use in deciding that PFAL was God-breathed?
What criteria did you use in deciding that Ephesians was God-breathed?
Somehow I knew you would do that. Why can you not give a straight answer to a direct question?
I'm very serious about this.
What proof do you have that the Bible is God's Word in written form?
What proof do you have that Ephesians, Genesis, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John are God's Word in written form?
The reason I'm serious is if you sit down and think this through THEN you'll begin to know the kind of process that I went through (not the exact process but the KIND of process) in my decision to lock onto PFAL as God-breathed.
Have you ever done this for yourself even?
Yes. And I can tell you how I dealt with apparent contradictions in the Bible. Can you do the same for PFAL?
And what criteria did you then use to deal with those stubborn apparent contradictions?
I've already addressed this to some degree.
You only "addressed" it by saying you have dealt with some and didn't remember how, and some you dealt with but refuse to discuss, and some you still haven't dealt with.
I know you are aware that the devil can counterfeit revelation. What have you done to assure that what you are getting is genuine?
And YOU? What do YOU do for similar assurance that YOU are on the right track?
Again, why can't you just give a straight answer? You are starting to sound like a child, retorting, "Oh yeah? Well what about YOU?!!"
If you choose not to answer these questions, that's your choice. But don't keep claiming we don't know what you're talking about just because we disagree with you.
No. I don't ever do that. I claim that you don't know what I'm taking about because you keep on asking me questions that I have already posted the answers to. Get it?
The answers are right in front of you and you keep asking. It's because you skim, you ignore, and you smugly assume I don't know and have not thought through my position enough to warrant your FULL attention.
And I keep reminding you that you have NOT given straight answers to the direct questions being asked you. Get it? If you feel you have, please post a reference or a quote to what you think was your answer.
I am not assuming you don't know. I have been ASKING, and you have been NOT ANSWERING. You give round about obfuscations that dodge direct questions. If you reread my posts, I dealt with your earlier ones line by line, as I'm doing now. But the more you kept avoiding the questions and accusing me of starting from a preconceived negative viewpoint, I started to find that there was less and less to say in response. That doesn't mean I didn't read or understand what you wrote - there was just less to say in response.
And read up on Church history and textual criticism. At least then you will be able to discuss them knowledgeably.
I have. Quit assuming I have not.
I'm not assuming. You have clearly demonstrated that your understanding of those subjects is limited to Wierwille's version of it, which was as full of errors as the rest of his doctrines (a view I came to by examining them, BTW, not by assuming).
Read up on my posts and you will be able to discuss them knowledgeably. Go back to all the posts this year and re-read them. You don't know what you are missing. I do.
You seem to miss a lot of what I write too. I think it's because we were never on the same page. That's why I've been asking you to explain how you GOT on that page, but you keep dodging the questions.
Sir Guess, I think your attack on Steve was uncalled for. I asked him to clarify his statement, because to me, given the behavior in question it makes some sense.
What is being promoted, is contrary to the Christian walk, or our responsibilities as Christians as Jesus laid them out, rather separates us from the simplicity of the genuine Christian walk by distracting us with busy work and wild quests that if followed may someday result in some nebulous reward or promise of spirituality.
The people who designed this belief system, have been shown to be evil and have caused great harm, yet they are being presented as people of virtue and their ideas to be spiritually health.
Sir Guess, I don`t know what your belief system is either, but you don`t need to be blasting anyone else here for theirs. As far as I am concerned....You are no more reliable an authority on spiritual matters than those you belittle as juvenile. Heck, I have read just as implausible stuff from you as well.
So you have talked to Mike on the phone, so you call him brother...BIG freakin hairy deal...VPW was charismatic and managed to fool PLENTY of people into believing that he was a Christian and a man in whom God worked.
The evidence of the fruit in his life states clearly otherwise.
Steve, I am sorry if my request for clarification on what I thought was worth exploring has helped to bring you under fire. Not that I was claiming possession either, but questioning the source of the information of whomever is presenting it. VPW is long dead, whatever demonic forces were working in him could possibly be seeking to continue the legacy of harm as cleverly disguised bible teachings.
Speculating about the possibility that another poster is possessed (or some variation thereof) is not acceptable behavior. Since Mike was the target of such spiritualizing and he has opted not to request moderation, I'll let it stand, but knock it off or the thread will be shut down. Go after the message all you want, but please refrain from attacking the messenger.
Thank you, ModRocker, for your intervention AND for letting the record stand to be a reminder to all of what should not be done here. I can take it and have many times in the past. I think it's good to let the record speak as to what is not acceptable.
Thanks again to you and to Pawtucket for not only allowing me to post, but for all the work you do to tame and civilize this place.
I am now doing what I often decry others for doing: I am responding to a post without finishing my read of same. This is because of time constraints. I have only a small amount of time, and I see your two part response is huge. I'll do my best to read it when I can, but this may not be today. I have too many other responsibilities, but I'll try. I also have a small thing I have in my word processor that I am nearly done with and was working on before I tur4ned on my browser this morning to see your large response. I may post that if I finish it today, but I doubt I'll get a chance to work on this massive material. I think someone else responded massively after you but I'm not sure.
I'm so happy for the moderator support as well. I saw that red post first thing as I clicked on the "last post" button.
I don't know what your posting reflects below on that situation, but I'm sure you've seen the record now and the judgment rendered by ModRocker, so I will probably gloss over those sections should they exist below, and let that matter die away.
o I'm dividing it in two.
I guess we just disagree on what "the written Word" is.
Yes we do disagree.
I think that versions, translations, and critical texts are modern man-made attempts to reconstruct the written Word of God. In some passages they totally succeed and in other passages they totally fail. They are man's opinions in essence, and the judgment as to which passages are in error and what the corrections should be are ALSO man's opinions and all are devoid of authority.
So I see you as not being able to put your hand to the written Word of God. You put your hand to materials that are approximately that, and then you opine as to what the accurate meaning is.
I don't think you can put your hand to a finished work and say THIS is the written Word of God. I don't think you can scan the first page of the written Word of God and post it here. You can post an approximation but not the finished authoritative WORD. I know you can't supply the Library of Congress Number for the written Word of God, only a man-made attempt to re-construct it.
I can do all these things. That is because of what God did for us. He made His finished Word available in written form to us, just like He did in the first century.
Now I'll read your total posting and take notes, but I have not the time to respond any more.
When this thread was started I immediately thought of two things, thermodynamic energies and reference electrodes. We don't know the true internal energy of anything. But we compare things relative to each other, and the math seems to work just fine.
Reference electrodes, even working electrodes, those always annoyed me. But again, relative measurements, and industry standards (multiple).
An explanation is like starring at a man in the distance who is standing in tall grass. We don't know the height of the man, because he's hidden by the grass (is he standing on a rock, or in a hole?). You could use his unknown height and compare it to say, a giraffe standing next to him. You don't know the "real" height of either.
I hear physicists are trying to distill all the known science down to one equation. Newtonian physics was combined under relativity. Combining those with the quantum world has been an obstacle. But there is a belief that these will be combined someday. That may happen, if it hasn't already. But even then something will pop up that doesn't fit the new understanding. So separate ways of viewing the universe will come up again. They are not opposed, neither is wrong, just different.
Half thoughts, I know.
So why couldn't we have multiple rules of faith and practice?
Sir Guess, I think your attack on Steve was uncalled for. I asked him to clarify his statement, because to me, given the behavior in question it makes some sense.
What is being promoted, is contrary to the Christian walk, or our responsibilities as Christians as Jesus laid them out, rather separates us from the simplicity of the genuine Christian walk by distracting us with busy work and wild quests that if followed may someday result in some nebulous reward or promise of spirituality.
</snip>
rascal, I don't think I've ever disagreed with you before, but I can't help but speak out about this. sirguessalot did not attack Steve, he called him on the carpet because Steve crossed a line. this is not a thread about whether we should be christian or not. I'm not a christian, so I found Steve's spirit warning to sirguessalot even more offensive than his pronouncement the Mike is possessed.
I think Mike is full of it, and yes I did mention channeling because the process that Mike was witnessed describing sounds more like channeling than anything else, but I'm not going to judge channeling here. I'm not here to judge people for being christian, being your type of christian, or for not being christian.
<snip>
Sir Guess, I don`t know what your belief system is either, but you don`t need to be blasting anyone else here for theirs. As far as I am concerned....You are no more reliable an authority on spiritual matters than those you belittle as juvenile. Heck, I have read just as implausible stuff from you as well.
</snip>
again, I think this was way over the top. sirguessalot didn't blast anyone for their beliefs, and yes he's into some weird stuff, but so am I and I've learned some things from him that have really helped me on my path to letting go of the 20 years I spent in twi. when it comes right down to it, christian faith is weird and illogical and it would be nice to discuss things from the point of view that no 2 of use are going to agree on every point. that freedom is precious to me.
<snip>
I hear physicists are trying to distill all the known science down to one equation. Newtonian physics was combined under relativity. Combining those with the quantum world has been an obstacle. But there is a belief that these will be combined someday. That may happen, if it hasn't already. But even then something will pop up that doesn't fit the new understanding. So separate ways of viewing the universe will come up again. They are not opposed, neither is wrong, just different.
Half thoughts, I know.
So why couldn't we have multiple rules of faith and practice?
I've been thinking about these things a lot lately as well. there will always be things we don't understand. some solutions seem right at the moment then are replaced with better theories. understanding evolves.
the concept of multiple rules doesn't make as much sense to me as sirguessalot's "rule-set" concept. it allows for evolving understanding so is perfect for someone like me who plans to learn and grow all my life.
Jesus said there were two rules on which everything was to be based.
I think that is where twi utterly failed. vpw's "one rule for faith and practice", his interpretation of the bible rolled in with "special revelation" that set him up as a despot, failed to rest squarely on the two rules of jesus, the cornerstone of christian faith.
Potato, I agree. I think that all of the studying and implementation of rules, principles, keys, laws etc. They all steered us away from our most basic and simple responsibilities.
I think that is where twi utterly failed. vpw's "one rule for faith and practice", his interpretation of the bible rolled in with "special revelation" that set him up as a despot, failed to rest squarely on the two rules of jesus, the cornerstone of christian faith.
I think you're confusing two separate things: what was taught to us especially in written form versus what people did at times.
We should be looking on this thread at the former and adopting the Golden Rule toward the latter in our hearts.
Love means forgiving and forgetting the mistakes of people as much and as soon as possible.
God will certainly help you do this IF you want to.
My focus in most of my posting is to demonstrate that hardly any of us ever got the details or even the general gist of what Dr was teaching in many sections of the class, and this “only rule” thread is a prime example of this.
The “only rule for faith and practice” idea he taught was a crucial central item in the film class. To me, it was the logical beginning of the class, with all the preceding material a long introduction.
I perceive that most grads only heard “only rule” as if it were a buzz word or phrase that was connected to loyalty to the one True God. Most confused it with things like the greatest commandment to love God and make Him first. To have only one God, however, is different from having only one rule for faith and practice. There are some similarities, but they are still vastly different ideas.
What I’ve seen grads do in almost every case is to present their “only rule” as if it were some kind of homage to God. Their embraced and declared “only rule” seems to whatever sounded nice to them and didn't have to be something of great specific and detailed importance.
I’ll be more specific soon as we analyze some declarations of “only rule” that have been put forward.
And if it’s truly the case that many grads missed this one MAJOR point in the class, then the next logical question to ask is “How many OTHER points were missed, forgotten, or only partially received?”
In Post #116 yesterday I offered three examples of the “only rule” idea as we were taught it. The first one was an analogy, the second one was a fairly good one but obviously flawed, and the third one was a rip snorting great and good “only rule” but unfortunately, one that’s no longer available for reasons of copy problems, changes in language, culture and mental pictures, poorly known figures of speech, and translations rooted in man’s theology.
The first example I gave was the US Constitution as an “only rule” for us politically. It’s like a rule in that it’s relatively unchangeable. It was purposely made difficult for even a large number of people to change. One citizen certainly can’t change the Constitution so it can serve as a rule to line up laws against. It’s big enough to cover a lot of situations, and small enough to be fully absorbed by competent professionals.
The second “only rule” candidate was the KJV Bible, not an analogy at all, and some people have literally devoted their lives to it. They don’t dare change any of it, and they cling to all the verses, even the ones that the critical texts and more modern Bibles have deleted. They decry the change in the English language and try their best to talk KJV style and maintain KJV vocabulary. They also love all the italicized words. They don’t dare change any of it, unless there is an obvious printer’s error in one edition. I guess if they keep the Golden Rule they probably do pretty well with this rule, but it also is quite limiting, in my opinion.
The third example is the orginal NT scriptures as they were given and understood by members of that culture and who had been prepared for it by extended verbal teaching by the Apostle Paul. That must have been a wonderful time for those who actually could put their hands on such documents. Scholars are constantly trying to “recover” these things in their original languages but they are always disagreeing with each other on the details of this. Even where they THINK they have the originals (and not missed any lost ones), unless you were born speaking those languages you’ll have to rely on many other scholars (who also disagree with each other) to get them translated into usable English. Even still, there are problems you’ll have with Orientalisms, figures of speech, and a lot of other things, like your own upbringing and pre-planted mental images that are darn hard to shake. I have posted that this “only rule” was irretrievable or catastrophically lost and VPW said that it was “buried.”
Does anyone remember where he used the word buried to describe this rule?
Let's make this a homework assignment, to find the place where he described the state of the written Word as “buried.”
Hint: I have posted this many times here, like about 5 times, but not lately. Every grad who was around in the early 70’s has read it, and many who came later read it.
So put on your thinking caps and see how good your memory is.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
74
42
33
32
Popular Days
Feb 2
66
Jan 30
53
Feb 1
50
Feb 3
23
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 74 posts
waysider 42 posts
potato 33 posts
Bolshevik 32 posts
Popular Days
Feb 2 2009
66 posts
Jan 30 2009
53 posts
Feb 1 2009
50 posts
Feb 3 2009
23 posts
Popular Posts
potato
the snowstorm thread branches yet again... my question is: is it necessary in life to have one sole source for your rule of faith and practice? Mike seems to contend that everyone needs to have on
waysider
Would that include VP Wierwille? Would that include VP Wierwille?
geisha779
Wordwolf, So glad that is what you took away rom my heart felt and honest post. Because I reject this doctrine and do not have any interest in reading the theology. . . I am hiding and possibly afra
Posted Images
Mike
Thanks Todd!
Instead of flagging the moderators on Steve I thought it better to let him keep it up and allow others to see that he truly is acting in the mold that the SNL Church Lady is based on. I think we are viewing a modern day version of what the Pharisees were in Jesus' time.
Oakspear thanked me on line not long ago for my NOT accusing or alluding to him being possessed by a devil. We all saw that kind of behavioral a lot in the ministry as certain individuals ran a muck. We all wish we had stood up to accusers like that back then, yet how many posters here allowed Steve to revisit that exact kind of behavior here upon me?
My hat is off to you, Todd, for calling a spade a spade, and shame on you others for not doing the same.
Yes, dmiller, Todd and I have conversed (in spite of our disagreements) often over the years. We've even done some collaborative work in graphic arts. Some time ago he and pamsandiego and I broke bread together and imbibed in beer. I think you along, with Steve, just failed your final exam in Abnormal Psychology.
Mark I hope you learn a much more sound lesson by THIS situation, instead of sheepishly going along with Steve's behavior.
Todd, I owe you. Thanks for speaking up, and thanks for not doing it sooner, because I think Steve needed the rope to hang himself most thoroughly.
***
Now, I'd like to get back to that topic, which is NOT my state of mental heath (boring as that is), and is NOT Christ formed within as Paul talked about it (exciting as that is), and is NOT working apparent errors in PFAL.
Now that we know what is NOT, here's what the topic IS: we've conducting a remedial class in "only rule for faith and practice" for those who want to finally learn what that's all about.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
Steve, I hope you'll try to remember that not everyone here is christian. the point of this thread is should we be bound by one rule of faith and practice as described by vpw in pfal, I wasn't interested in discussing the validity of core beliefs of christianity except as they relate to vpw's claim.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
for what its worth, Steve...
thanks for attempting to educate me...your sub story sounds quite interesting too
but please know...
...i am aware of and acceptant of the realities and dangers of spiritual entities and forces and whatnot...as well as many fearless eastern approaches to evil demons
...i feel your summation of early christian beliefs and experience regarding demons is way too simplistic for me
...i am familiar with the usages and definitions of deisidaimonia
...i am also a devoted christian with experiences of my own
but most of all...i hope i am not required to attempt to explain my opinion of Mike to you
in order to point out that you are declaring to others that another poster is being influenced by demons
and that this not only seems like a "very foul ball" here at the GSC...but in dialogue in general
and i am guessing you are quite dead wrong about Mike going away because of your posts
but carry on if you feel you must...ill try not to say another word about it
maybe someone will be interested enough
to find a mod interested enough
to check you
...
no sweat, dear brother Mike
just dont tell anyone...ya crazy
;)
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Welcome back, Mark.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
This thing is telling me I can only have so many block quotes in a post, so I'm dividing it in two.
Part 1:
I guess we just disagree on what "the written Word" is.
What it actually says is:
The "Word of prophecy" is the message which is revealed in "the Scripture" (v. 20). Later in 3:15, it mentions how "our brother Paul has written" these things. But it doesn't call it "the Word" there either. And I notice you jumped to contradict that one statement, and never addressed the main point of that paragraph in my post, which was:
In the Bible, the term "the Word" refers to the whole message, the communication of God's mind and plan, and ultimately the embodiment of God's Word, His Son Jesus Christ. All of that is included when I say that my rule for faith and practice is God's Word. That is the only standard that is perfect.
Fair enough. But the partial answers you have given reflect Wierwille's faulty history of texts and textual criticism.
I did not testify to "more significant other parts of the loss due to language and culture change." The language and culture changes are why the exact words in printed form cannot be a permanent, never changing standard. But they do not mean that the information is lost. It is still there and can be understood in light of the language and culture. Even Wierwille said that. There is no "loss of the original intent."
I didn't miss it. I pointed out that you were incorrect, and I stand by that. The change from early fragments to later fragments is only one part of textual criticism. It also has to do with comparing the vast number of MSS and weighing the evidence. It also has to do with other ways of determining what the most likely reading would be, including keys very much like VPW's keys in PFAL. For example, if two MSS have variant readings, but one fits better with other clear, uncontested verses on the same subject, then the one that fits is the more correct reading.
You even admit that there is little change from the 4th to the 8th centuries. You're right - NO ONE knows about the changes that occurred from the 1st century to the 4th. So if we have no evidence of change before, and evidence of little change later, why are you so convinced that there were such catastrophic changes? In addition, the quotes of the Scriptures in the early church writers, which were in fact earlier than the 4th century, also attest to the fact that there was no "catastrophic change" in the MSS prior to the 4th century. And again, not everyone forsook Paul.
First of all, do you actually know what "criticize" means? I mentioned before that it seemed like you didn't, and I'm wondering even more. Second, Stephens and others compared readings because there were variances, but the part of your quote I said was false was that they were at "extreme variance," to the point that they were unrecoverable, as well as the claim that they were only "fragmentary mis-copies of mis-copies of copies."
You seem to agree then, that "not too many crucial doctrines were involved in these disagreements" (although you say "a few were"). Then exactly what do you mean when you say the Word was "irretrievably lost"? While the transmission of NT documents may not have had the same standards as the OT, I would hardly call them "sloppy" and in any case, what variances there are can be worked out by comparing the MSS. I can't believe that God would go to all that trouble to have his message written, and then not be able to preserve it better than that until the twentieth century. You, like Wierwille, attribute way too much power to the devil.
Says who? Didn't Wierwille and Bullinger teach that figures of speech involve changing words to make them more forceful? There is more than one way to say things, so if the wording is slightly changed it doesn't completely change the whole meaning. A prime example is the fact that "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are two ways to refer to the same thing (contrary to Wierwilles' theology). And I already pointed out that changes in language and culture do not mean a catastrophic loss of the message. They are translations which express the meaning in different words. You still have the same meaning, the same message, the same Word of God.
And even copyist errors in the MSS can most often be caught just by their context. For example, in the quote above, you wrote "chang" but I didn't assume you were referring to some Chinese guy. I could tell from the context that you meant "change." The vast majority of variances in the MSS are more like that than complete changes in the idea being communicated.
Plus, as I said (which you didn't comment on), "even VP said that 85-90% of the Bible interprets itself right where it's written." Many people have read the Bible, in any number of versions, and learned of God's great plan of salvation and good news of His coming Kingdom without a single commentary or study aid. The biggest contradictions are due to misinterpreting what it says, not to being unable to know what it says.
Still dodging the questions.
Your explanation of why consisted of repeating that you started by assuming PFAL was God-breathed. But if you want anybody to take you seriously, you're going to have to deal with these questions. And I agree that's not the topic of this thread or the Snowstorm thread. That's why the threads were started in the Doctrinal Forum (the first one not even by me, BTW). You have dodged and avoided direct questions there even more than here.
I have read your posts thoroughly and still don't "understand" your position because it's illogical, and you refuse to answer direct questions about how you came to your conclusions. OK, so they aren't the same thing. Then define what your method is, besides "starting with the assumption that PFAL is God-breathed."
To be continued....
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Part 2:
The only "refuting" of Steve was in this post:
Other than that you thanked Todd for agreeing with you. But you did not refute Steve's claim; you just said he's wrong. To refute means "to prove wrong by argument or evidence." If he got it wrong, then correct the error. Define your methods with specific examples. Have you in fact used the term "advanced Christ formed within" and if so, can you define what you mean by that, and how it is different from the mind of Christ in Galatians?
Then what is it that enables you to completely deny the plain factual errors in the supposedly God-breathed PFAL? You're STILL dodging the issue. It IS relevant to this thread because, for ANYTHING to be accepted as God-breathed and therefore worthy of being the only rule of faith and practice, it has to be at the very least shown to be without glaring errors and contradictions.
Somehow I knew you would do that. Why can you not give a straight answer to a direct question?
Yes. And I can tell you how I dealt with apparent contradictions in the Bible. Can you do the same for PFAL?
You only "addressed" it by saying you have dealt with some and didn't remember how, and some you dealt with but refuse to discuss, and some you still haven't dealt with.
Again, why can't you just give a straight answer? You are starting to sound like a child, retorting, "Oh yeah? Well what about YOU?!!"
And I keep reminding you that you have NOT given straight answers to the direct questions being asked you. Get it? If you feel you have, please post a reference or a quote to what you think was your answer.
I am not assuming you don't know. I have been ASKING, and you have been NOT ANSWERING. You give round about obfuscations that dodge direct questions. If you reread my posts, I dealt with your earlier ones line by line, as I'm doing now. But the more you kept avoiding the questions and accusing me of starting from a preconceived negative viewpoint, I started to find that there was less and less to say in response. That doesn't mean I didn't read or understand what you wrote - there was just less to say in response.
I'm not assuming. You have clearly demonstrated that your understanding of those subjects is limited to Wierwille's version of it, which was as full of errors as the rest of his doctrines (a view I came to by examining them, BTW, not by assuming).
You seem to miss a lot of what I write too. I think it's because we were never on the same page. That's why I've been asking you to explain how you GOT on that page, but you keep dodging the questions.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Sir Guess, I think your attack on Steve was uncalled for. I asked him to clarify his statement, because to me, given the behavior in question it makes some sense.
What is being promoted, is contrary to the Christian walk, or our responsibilities as Christians as Jesus laid them out, rather separates us from the simplicity of the genuine Christian walk by distracting us with busy work and wild quests that if followed may someday result in some nebulous reward or promise of spirituality.
The people who designed this belief system, have been shown to be evil and have caused great harm, yet they are being presented as people of virtue and their ideas to be spiritually health.
Sir Guess, I don`t know what your belief system is either, but you don`t need to be blasting anyone else here for theirs. As far as I am concerned....You are no more reliable an authority on spiritual matters than those you belittle as juvenile. Heck, I have read just as implausible stuff from you as well.
So you have talked to Mike on the phone, so you call him brother...BIG freakin hairy deal...VPW was charismatic and managed to fool PLENTY of people into believing that he was a Christian and a man in whom God worked.
The evidence of the fruit in his life states clearly otherwise.
Steve, I am sorry if my request for clarification on what I thought was worth exploring has helped to bring you under fire. Not that I was claiming possession either, but questioning the source of the information of whomever is presenting it. VPW is long dead, whatever demonic forces were working in him could possibly be seeking to continue the legacy of harm as cleverly disguised bible teachings.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
ModRocker
Speculating about the possibility that another poster is possessed (or some variation thereof) is not acceptable behavior. Since Mike was the target of such spiritualizing and he has opted not to request moderation, I'll let it stand, but knock it off or the thread will be shut down. Go after the message all you want, but please refrain from attacking the messenger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thank you, ModRocker, for your intervention AND for letting the record stand to be a reminder to all of what should not be done here. I can take it and have many times in the past. I think it's good to let the record speak as to what is not acceptable.
Thanks again to you and to Pawtucket for not only allowing me to post, but for all the work you do to tame and civilize this place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Mark,
I am now doing what I often decry others for doing: I am responding to a post without finishing my read of same. This is because of time constraints. I have only a small amount of time, and I see your two part response is huge. I'll do my best to read it when I can, but this may not be today. I have too many other responsibilities, but I'll try. I also have a small thing I have in my word processor that I am nearly done with and was working on before I tur4ned on my browser this morning to see your large response. I may post that if I finish it today, but I doubt I'll get a chance to work on this massive material. I think someone else responded massively after you but I'm not sure.
I'm so happy for the moderator support as well. I saw that red post first thing as I clicked on the "last post" button.
I don't know what your posting reflects below on that situation, but I'm sure you've seen the record now and the judgment rendered by ModRocker, so I will probably gloss over those sections should they exist below, and let that matter die away.
Yes we do disagree.
I think that versions, translations, and critical texts are modern man-made attempts to reconstruct the written Word of God. In some passages they totally succeed and in other passages they totally fail. They are man's opinions in essence, and the judgment as to which passages are in error and what the corrections should be are ALSO man's opinions and all are devoid of authority.
So I see you as not being able to put your hand to the written Word of God. You put your hand to materials that are approximately that, and then you opine as to what the accurate meaning is.
I don't think you can put your hand to a finished work and say THIS is the written Word of God. I don't think you can scan the first page of the written Word of God and post it here. You can post an approximation but not the finished authoritative WORD. I know you can't supply the Library of Congress Number for the written Word of God, only a man-made attempt to re-construct it.
I can do all these things. That is because of what God did for us. He made His finished Word available in written form to us, just like He did in the first century.
Now I'll read your total posting and take notes, but I have not the time to respond any more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
When this thread was started I immediately thought of two things, thermodynamic energies and reference electrodes. We don't know the true internal energy of anything. But we compare things relative to each other, and the math seems to work just fine.
Reference electrodes, even working electrodes, those always annoyed me. But again, relative measurements, and industry standards (multiple).
An explanation is like starring at a man in the distance who is standing in tall grass. We don't know the height of the man, because he's hidden by the grass (is he standing on a rock, or in a hole?). You could use his unknown height and compare it to say, a giraffe standing next to him. You don't know the "real" height of either.
I hear physicists are trying to distill all the known science down to one equation. Newtonian physics was combined under relativity. Combining those with the quantum world has been an obstacle. But there is a belief that these will be combined someday. That may happen, if it hasn't already. But even then something will pop up that doesn't fit the new understanding. So separate ways of viewing the universe will come up again. They are not opposed, neither is wrong, just different.
Half thoughts, I know.
So why couldn't we have multiple rules of faith and practice?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
rascal, I don't think I've ever disagreed with you before, but I can't help but speak out about this. sirguessalot did not attack Steve, he called him on the carpet because Steve crossed a line. this is not a thread about whether we should be christian or not. I'm not a christian, so I found Steve's spirit warning to sirguessalot even more offensive than his pronouncement the Mike is possessed.
I think Mike is full of it, and yes I did mention channeling because the process that Mike was witnessed describing sounds more like channeling than anything else, but I'm not going to judge channeling here. I'm not here to judge people for being christian, being your type of christian, or for not being christian.
again, I think this was way over the top. sirguessalot didn't blast anyone for their beliefs, and yes he's into some weird stuff, but so am I and I've learned some things from him that have really helped me on my path to letting go of the 20 years I spent in twi. when it comes right down to it, christian faith is weird and illogical and it would be nice to discuss things from the point of view that no 2 of use are going to agree on every point. that freedom is precious to me.
I've been thinking about these things a lot lately as well. there will always be things we don't understand. some solutions seem right at the moment then are replaced with better theories. understanding evolves.
the concept of multiple rules doesn't make as much sense to me as sirguessalot's "rule-set" concept. it allows for evolving understanding so is perfect for someone like me who plans to learn and grow all my life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
If I had to declare ONE rule of faith and practice, it would be The Golden Rule.
It transcends religious boundaries and theological inclinations.
But that's just me. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Jesus said there were two rules on which everything was to be based.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I think that is where twi utterly failed. vpw's "one rule for faith and practice", his interpretation of the bible rolled in with "special revelation" that set him up as a despot, failed to rest squarely on the two rules of jesus, the cornerstone of christian faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Potato, I agree. I think that all of the studying and implementation of rules, principles, keys, laws etc. They all steered us away from our most basic and simple responsibilities.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think you're confusing two separate things: what was taught to us especially in written form versus what people did at times.
We should be looking on this thread at the former and adopting the Golden Rule toward the latter in our hearts.
Love means forgiving and forgetting the mistakes of people as much and as soon as possible.
God will certainly help you do this IF you want to.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
My focus in most of my posting is to demonstrate that hardly any of us ever got the details or even the general gist of what Dr was teaching in many sections of the class, and this “only rule” thread is a prime example of this.
The “only rule for faith and practice” idea he taught was a crucial central item in the film class. To me, it was the logical beginning of the class, with all the preceding material a long introduction.
I perceive that most grads only heard “only rule” as if it were a buzz word or phrase that was connected to loyalty to the one True God. Most confused it with things like the greatest commandment to love God and make Him first. To have only one God, however, is different from having only one rule for faith and practice. There are some similarities, but they are still vastly different ideas.
What I’ve seen grads do in almost every case is to present their “only rule” as if it were some kind of homage to God. Their embraced and declared “only rule” seems to whatever sounded nice to them and didn't have to be something of great specific and detailed importance.
I’ll be more specific soon as we analyze some declarations of “only rule” that have been put forward.
And if it’s truly the case that many grads missed this one MAJOR point in the class, then the next logical question to ask is “How many OTHER points were missed, forgotten, or only partially received?”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Wait, are you saying there was a point to "The Class"?
That, is a different thread entirely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
...moving right along...
In Post #116 yesterday I offered three examples of the “only rule” idea as we were taught it. The first one was an analogy, the second one was a fairly good one but obviously flawed, and the third one was a rip snorting great and good “only rule” but unfortunately, one that’s no longer available for reasons of copy problems, changes in language, culture and mental pictures, poorly known figures of speech, and translations rooted in man’s theology.
The first example I gave was the US Constitution as an “only rule” for us politically. It’s like a rule in that it’s relatively unchangeable. It was purposely made difficult for even a large number of people to change. One citizen certainly can’t change the Constitution so it can serve as a rule to line up laws against. It’s big enough to cover a lot of situations, and small enough to be fully absorbed by competent professionals.
The second “only rule” candidate was the KJV Bible, not an analogy at all, and some people have literally devoted their lives to it. They don’t dare change any of it, and they cling to all the verses, even the ones that the critical texts and more modern Bibles have deleted. They decry the change in the English language and try their best to talk KJV style and maintain KJV vocabulary. They also love all the italicized words. They don’t dare change any of it, unless there is an obvious printer’s error in one edition. I guess if they keep the Golden Rule they probably do pretty well with this rule, but it also is quite limiting, in my opinion.
The third example is the orginal NT scriptures as they were given and understood by members of that culture and who had been prepared for it by extended verbal teaching by the Apostle Paul. That must have been a wonderful time for those who actually could put their hands on such documents. Scholars are constantly trying to “recover” these things in their original languages but they are always disagreeing with each other on the details of this. Even where they THINK they have the originals (and not missed any lost ones), unless you were born speaking those languages you’ll have to rely on many other scholars (who also disagree with each other) to get them translated into usable English. Even still, there are problems you’ll have with Orientalisms, figures of speech, and a lot of other things, like your own upbringing and pre-planted mental images that are darn hard to shake. I have posted that this “only rule” was irretrievable or catastrophically lost and VPW said that it was “buried.”
Does anyone remember where he used the word buried to describe this rule?
Let's make this a homework assignment, to find the place where he described the state of the written Word as “buried.”
Hint: I have posted this many times here, like about 5 times, but not lately. Every grad who was around in the early 70’s has read it, and many who came later read it.
So put on your thinking caps and see how good your memory is.
The word is.......... “buried!”
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't remember, because vpw was a terrible teacher.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I do remember because I was a good student.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
What does this mean? Did vpw lose it? How did he know it was lost?
Link 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.