What ever happened to FIRST getting all that the Word says on one topic, and then seeing what fits with if all?
And I assume because I disagree with you I haven't developed a overall scope of scripture? It's your condescending manner of communicating that's so off putting. You've have straw manned and red herring us to death yet your position does not hold up to scrutiny and you seem to have real trouble staying on point in a discussion. Gotta say that's typical of the way international and I used to be the exact same way.
You literally have no actual trust in scripture without wierwille to interpret.
I was remembering some of the other ways I used back then to express myself. I am mis-understood here all the time. So_crates being the most egregious recent example. I experiment with ways to express my position
Once again, your communication is YOUR responsibility. It's not my responsibility to guess what you mean. If you're misunderstood, as you claim, it's your responsibility to find a better way to communicate what your trying to state and to correct the record.
You claim I misunderstood. Let's look at your premises:
In First and Second Timothy God lays out the standards of what a MOG should be like. Saint Vic crapped all over those standards. Yet God entrusted him with the most important revelation since the church epistles, according to you. According to you, it was God's grace in action and he got a free pass.
Now, I come along and say, if God, being no respecter of persons, is willing to give that much grace to a drunken, cheating rake, why even bother with the bible, and by extension PLAF, just follow Saint Vic's example, get born again and do as you please, living off that sweet, sweet grace.
Have I got it? Where exactly did I misunderstand?
8 hours ago, Mike said:
I am a life-long fan and reader of Kurt Godel and authors who write about him and logic. His theorems are a little like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in Physics, again a life-long study for me.
You can only go so far with logic, and then you are stranded.
Another thing that escapes most about logic are the Postulates that underlay a logical discussion.
What a novel proposition! Could you elaborate, please? Or could you point me to any New Testament scholarship that makes a case for this?
I'm curious. If you don't have the time, could you point me in the direction of further study?
I worked this canon idea with Walter Cummins from 1972 to about 1978. I have a very large paper folder on the topic.
I literally have hundreds of scriptures that touch on the idea of a canon. The biggest is 2 Timothy. Maybe I can digitize some of the papers I wrote then.
What a novel proposition! Could you elaborate, please? Or could you point me to any New Testament scholarship that makes a case for this?
I'm curious. If you don't have the time, could you point me in the direction of further study?
I was going to add this as a late edit to my previous response to you on the canon.
This topic of the NT canon bothered me, until I saw how 2 Timothy is structured. I wrote it up and sent it to Walter. He liked it and we conferred often on it over the years.
I got ZERO help from VPW; neither in any teachings, nor in face-to-face discussions.
I had seen the the NT canon confusion you see in academia, and even in Young's Concordance's article on it, so I asked him about it at the Rock'72 when he parked his camper next to my van. His short answer on this was: "I never teach on the canon. I only teach that Pau's Epistles were assembled in order at a very early date."
I worked on the project alone mostly, and showed my results to Walter several times. He said he agreed and had worked it himself.
And I assume because I disagree with you I haven't developed a overall scope of scripture? It's your condescending manner of communicating that's so off putting. You've have straw manned and red herring us to death yet your position does not hold up to scrutiny and you seem to have real trouble staying on point in a discussion. Gotta say that's typical of the way international and I used to be the exact same way.
You literally have no actual trust in scripture without wierwille to interpret.
Sorry if I had sounded condescending.
How do you work those scriptures I mentioned today?
*/*/*/*
I partially answered this in another response this morning: "You literally have no actual trust in scripture without wierwille to interpret."
This topic of the NT canon bothered me, until I saw how 2 Timothy is structured. I wrote it up and sent it to Walter. He liked it and we conferred often on it over the years.
I got ZERO help from VPW; neither in any teachings, nor in face-to-face discussions.
I had seen the the NT canon confusion you see in academia, and even in Young's Concordance's article on it, so I asked him about it at the Rock'72 when he parked his camper next to my van. His short answer on this was: "I never teach on the canon. I only teach that Pau's Epistles were assembled in order at a very early date."
I worked on the project alone mostly, and showed my results to Walter several times. He said he agreed and had worked it himself.
I worked this canon idea with Walter Cummins from 1972 to about 1978. I have a very large paper folder on the topic.
I literally have hundreds of scriptures that touch on the idea of a canon. The biggest is 2 Timothy. Maybe I can digitize some of the papers I wrote then.
It's very easy to scan documents with a phone or tablet/iPad. I presume that's what you mean by digitizing.
What a novel proposition! Could you elaborate, please? Or could you point me to any New Testament scholarship that makes a case for this?
I'm curious. If you don't have the time, could you point me in the direction of further study?
So sorry. I thought you were OldSkool above.
I'd be happy to discuss this, though I am rusty on it. The last time I worked on it was before the ministry meltdown in 1986.
Did I mention that I had 4 surgeries inside my eyes last year. They helped a lot, but I am still training my outside eye muscles to read with both eyes.
So sorry. I thought you were OldSkool above.
I'd be happy to discuss this, though I am rusty on it. The last time I worked on it was before the ministry meltdown in 1986.
Please read what I said to OldSkool on this.
I'll start a new topic, Mike. Didn't mean to distract you or anyone else, but I must admit, this cannon idea of yours and Walter's is distracting me.
It's very easy to scan documents with a phone or tablet/iPad. I presume that's what you mean by digitizing.
Yes. I am able to do that, but I have to add that to my workload. Things like this take time.
It would actually be a pleasure to work on another project that is more positive toned like the canon.
I started my canon research when I noticed that academic churchianity research into the NT canon made it sound like it was a result of several centuries of fighting, literally to the death. Hard to see God's hand in that process. I always felt my faith failing as I read about this process. It looked like the canon we have was established by a 400 year fight.
So, what I did was mark in my Cambridge Wide Margin an "S" with a circle around it signifying this is a "Scripture talking about Scripture."This went on for about 10 years.
I was pretty amazed, because nearly every time I opened my Bible to read, I found another one or two "S" verses. My wide margin filled up with them. I transferred it all to paper files that are still in that 3" thick folder.
Early in that 10 year process I noticed that the ENTIRE epistle of 2 Timothy was devoted to the early assembly of the canon the Apostles recognized.THAT should be the first thing I digitize for you.I wrote up a short paper that shows this and sent it to Walter. His encouragement helped me sustain the project for those ten years.
You can start reading that Epistle with this in mind.The structure that I discovered was (a) the adversary’s attack on the integrity of the Word Paul taught, and (b) Timothy’s job to fight it and preserve Paul’s revelations.
That structure alternates over and over about 15 times in the Epistle.
Peter’s second Epistle does the same thing, except it only has the cycle once:Chapter 1 is (a), Chapter 2 is (b), Chapter 3 is (a) again.
Did I mention that I had 4 surgeries inside my eyes last year. They helped a lot, but I am still training my outside eye muscles to read with both eyes.
No worries. I know I have responded to you in my own condescending tones as well...I apologize for that.
I'll start a new topic, Mike. Didn't mean to distract you or anyone else, but I must admit, this cannon idea of yours and Walter's is distracting me.
Wow. Just wow.
I missed you Nathan_Jr over the weekend. We covered a lot of the "absent Christ" and I hope you get to read it. Boy! This GSC sure has a lot of homework attached to it.
No worries. I know I have responded to you in my own condescending tones as well...I apologize for that.
Thank you. I know it is easy to sound harsh in ASCII text, especially when typing lots of data. This is the very reason they invented emogees, and I should learn how to use them better. I eschew the over use of them that can flood the process, but I may have an imbalance there. :(
I'm definitely down with branching off a thread on Old and New Testament Canon, history of Greek texts...there's basically two main sources where our Greek texts originate - Antioch and Alexandria. The Roman Catholic Church has been heavily involved in suppression efforts, etc I need to quit playing on my phone and work for a while so I'll check in when I'm home. Peace.
*God did not intervene to help make the KJV happen.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
The best I understand it the NT canon was assembled by Paul, Mark, Luke, and John. God gave them revelation for it. Their canon was not recognized for a long time, but God kept giving revelations to whomever He could to preserve and pass on that canon. *He had his hand on the process all along.
These two statements appear to conflict.
I'm sure you must also be aware that Paul died before the Gospels came into being and that Mark was the first one written. Matthew and Luke are sourced from the information in Matthew.
I missed you Nathan_Jr over the weekend. We covered a lot of the "absent Christ" and I hope you get to read it. Boy! This GSC sure has a lot of homework attached to it.
I was in the woods with the geese, ducks, bass, deer, pigs, raccoons, skunks, armadillos, bobcats, trees, flowers, plants, and water.
Its amazing how easily you can see and hear God when you remove your nose from a book and your ears from a sermon.
I'm sure you must also be aware that Paul died before the Gospels came into being and that Mark was the first one written. Matthew and Luke are sourced from the information in Matthew.
*(Bolding added.)
These are great points, Waysider. He seems to be assuming Paul wrote the 2nd century epistle II Timothy. And it sounds like he is relying on II Peter, another 2nd century document. Who knows? I hope to find out, though.
I started a thread to discuss this topic. Please let your brain explode there.
Edited by Nathan_Jr Bits of brain all over the keyboard
Why is it you have avoided my explanations above where I negated all that by saying I DO look at these negative things in private, with those who need it, and I only post publically what I feel qualified to post, which are the positives.
But thanks for being such a sloppy reader, or deliberate obfuscator, because it allowed me to say AGAIN for others, that I prefer and insist on negatives being in private and at a lower priority FOR ME.
My public posting is devoted to helping us all remember what went right.All these negatives are out in the open, and need no more attention, especially from me.
<speaking close to the vest>
Now, I should answer another one of your posts to distract you from carefully reading the above paragraphs, and thus allowing me to repeat it the next time you forget to address what I actually say.
Mike your refusal to acknowledge admit or discuss any potential negative leaves out 50 % of the Bible. Your public versus private distinction is also horse puckey. You have never admitted anything privately either.
But clearly you have the mission of carrying on the whitewash.
Armed with your verses of holding fast to the good, your mission is to in the face of overwhelming fact, firsthand accounts, and scripture to spread good cheer.
“I can do all things through Christ that strengthens me”
Phil 4:17
it really is so surprising to me that the Way won’t let you back in.
Why do you think God hid Jesus from sight in Acts 1 ?
Im curious. If Jesus is hidden away from sight forever more until the return, then how does this make sense?
Acts 23:11
And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said,Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
Looks like an active Lord strengthening his people, talking with Paul and encouraging him in dire circumstances.
Why did the blood change...it was sinless. What scripture reference tells us his blood changed but the rest was flesh and bones. Whatever form Jesus Christ is today is different from what he was before he was resureccted. Im thinking this is more word salad.
But....let's play.
So....Im going to forego verse quotes but my logic comes straight from scripture.
Mankind is corrupted via the sin nature due to Adam's disobediance. Jesus Christ comes but doesnt have a sin nature, skipping the polluted blood part because sin nature appearantly has to do with blood. Don't claim to understand that part - it's just what it is; Jesus blood was sinless. Christ died to redeem mankind, taking our place in judgement and wrath. Jesus is resurected and is ascended to the right hand of God. Scripture notes he still has flesh and bones but scripture also calls him a life quickening SPIRIT. Again, don't claim to know how the watch works but I am looking at the time.
Now - Scripture states that those born again shall be changed from our current state of corruption to Christ's state of glorious incorruption as he will never again die and neither shall we.
If Christ is still flesh and bones the same as when during his monstry to Israel, then why does scripture plainly state that flesh and blood shall not inhereit the kingdom of God. Don't try and discount what I am saying because you are saying flesh and bones from a reference in the gospels. Flesh representing our current bodies, simply cannot inherit the kingdom of God. So Christ being flesh and bones the way he was when he walked the earth makes no sense and it's scripture that delieneates the difference.
So am I to understand that when we are changed to be like Christ on that day that we are going to just change back into what we were? You say I don't have an overall scope of the topic and I disagree. Your logic is circular at best. Jesus has changed from flesh and blood to flesh and bones? Christians will be changed from flesh and blood into what Christ is which is flesh and bones...?
Let me put this forth: Whatever the heck God changed Jesus Chrst into at his resurection is beyond what we can comprehend at this time but whatever it is it's not what we are today. We get more than a blood transfusion when we are fully redeemed.
I'm sure you must also be aware that Paul died before the Gospels came into being and that Mark was the first one written. Matthew and Luke are sourced from the information in Matthew.
I had written prior to that:
The best I understand it the NT canon was assembled by Paul, Mark, Luke, and John. God gave them revelation for it. Their canon was not recognized for a long time, but God kept giving revelations to whomever He could to preserve and pass on that canon. *He had his hand on the process all along.I only saw one statement bold fonted by you there. Was it in conflict with the statements above it?
*/*/*/*/*
My statement "He had his hand on the process all along." was referring to God, not Paul, if that helps.
I see God's gentle had guiding the process for centuries with small revelations to those who had inherited the copies Timothy had.
Oops !!! I forgot to include Timothy in that list: Paul, Mark, Luke, John, and Timothy. There could have been others like Matthew, but the scriptures I found pointed directly to these.
*/*/*/*
Yes, I knew Paul died then, but he coordinated it up until his death, and then Timothy, Mark, and Luke had the ball to run with, according to 2 Timothy.
I disagree with your statement:
"Matthew and Luke are sourced from the information in Matthew."
Did you mean to write? :
"Mark and Luke are sourced from the information in Matthew."
According to my careful prosthesis, Mark and Luke were given revelation to steal the copyrighted material from Matthew, and then pick and choose what God wanted to be put in their Gospels.
Now any student of the Firesign Theatre KNOWS that I am joking in that one sentence. But on the serious side, I believe Mark and Luke put in writing whatever God told them to write, and if some of it was from Matthew, that was God's revelation to them. Much like today, and that is not a joke. Luke says he got it from above. We were taught to stand in awe that none of Paul's Secret Gospel appears in the 4 Gospels, even though they knew Paul well, because that writing was given to Paul.
*/*/*/*
The revelation it took to get these 1st Century massive written messages in order was an INTERVENTION by God IMO.
In the centuries following Paul and John finishing the NT canon, THAT is where I see God's gentle had guiding the process for centuries with small revelations to those who had inherited the copies Timothy and John and the others had assembled. This took about 3 or 4 hundred years to finish. Then God had to wait a long time to get Martin Luther to see Romans 10:9 and the like, and then drop everything for it, in spite of facing stiff persecution.
God probably got some revelations to various translators over the centuries, but finally found a tough daredevil in VPW to "put it all together" with massive revelation as to where to search, what to filter out, what to bring in, and what few things he needed to hear directly from God. This process lasted 42.5 years, and it was not all done by VPW. God inspired lots of people to work with him. Plus, God inspired lots of people to come to HQ and teach.
So I see, after the 1st Century, God's gentle hand giving revelations to many people for good handling of the surviving scriptures. God's only direct Intervention that I see was the 1942 promise to fix things, bigtime. We see God fixing damaged scriptures in Jer. 36, and elsewhere.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
427
271
423
257
Popular Days
Feb 14
142
Oct 13
105
Jan 18
101
Oct 8
88
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 427 posts
T-Bone 271 posts
OldSkool 423 posts
Nathan_Jr 257 posts
Popular Days
Feb 14 2023
142 posts
Oct 13 2022
105 posts
Jan 18 2023
101 posts
Oct 8 2022
88 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
First off, Biblically speaking, Christ has never been absent...that doctrine does not come close to occuring anywhere in the Bible. Yet the way international teaches the word of God takes the place of
Bolshevik
Mike's apparent anger toward Christ and emphasis on obedience . . . that's Wayworld . . . that's the annihilation of the individual
waysider
Soooo...He used ONE verse from the Amplified Bible, HALF a chapter from the New English Bible and required PFAL '77 students to get some version from the 1800's that has a name so unremarkable you can
Posted Images
OldSkool
And I assume because I disagree with you I haven't developed a overall scope of scripture? It's your condescending manner of communicating that's so off putting. You've have straw manned and red herring us to death yet your position does not hold up to scrutiny and you seem to have real trouble staying on point in a discussion. Gotta say that's typical of the way international and I used to be the exact same way.
You literally have no actual trust in scripture without wierwille to interpret.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
How do you see things improving at the Return of Christ, if he is already personally present?
Why do you think God hid Jesus from sight in Acts 1 ?
What meaning do you attach to 2 Cor 5 ?
15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Once again, your communication is YOUR responsibility. It's not my responsibility to guess what you mean. If you're misunderstood, as you claim, it's your responsibility to find a better way to communicate what your trying to state and to correct the record.
You claim I misunderstood. Let's look at your premises:
In First and Second Timothy God lays out the standards of what a MOG should be like. Saint Vic crapped all over those standards. Yet God entrusted him with the most important revelation since the church epistles, according to you. According to you, it was God's grace in action and he got a free pass.
Now, I come along and say, if God, being no respecter of persons, is willing to give that much grace to a drunken, cheating rake, why even bother with the bible, and by extension PLAF, just follow Saint Vic's example, get born again and do as you please, living off that sweet, sweet grace.
Have I got it? Where exactly did I misunderstand?
I always love reading word salad.
How about this, rather than playing word games and trying to trick people into things, why don't you lay out your premises?
I figure either you don't know them because you have no ability to introspect or you realize they're bull.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
You want me to keep running in circles with you...I handled these verses two pages back.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I worked this canon idea with Walter Cummins from 1972 to about 1978. I have a very large paper folder on the topic.
I literally have hundreds of scriptures that touch on the idea of a canon. The biggest is 2 Timothy. Maybe I can digitize some of the papers I wrote then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I was going to add this as a late edit to my previous response to you on the canon.
This topic of the NT canon bothered me, until I saw how 2 Timothy is structured. I wrote it up and sent it to Walter. He liked it and we conferred often on it over the years.
I got ZERO help from VPW; neither in any teachings, nor in face-to-face discussions.
I had seen the the NT canon confusion you see in academia, and even in Young's Concordance's article on it, so I asked him about it at the Rock'72 when he parked his camper next to my van. His short answer on this was: "I never teach on the canon. I only teach that Pau's Epistles were assembled in order at a very early date."
I worked on the project alone mostly, and showed my results to Walter several times. He said he agreed and had worked it himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sorry if I had sounded condescending.
How do you work those scriptures I mentioned today?
*/*/*/*
I partially answered this in another response this morning:
"You literally have no actual trust in scripture without wierwille to interpret."
This topic of the NT canon bothered me, until I saw how 2 Timothy is structured. I wrote it up and sent it to Walter. He liked it and we conferred often on it over the years.
I got ZERO help from VPW; neither in any teachings, nor in face-to-face discussions.
I had seen the the NT canon confusion you see in academia, and even in Young's Concordance's article on it, so I asked him about it at the Rock'72 when he parked his camper next to my van. His short answer on this was: "I never teach on the canon. I only teach that Pau's Epistles were assembled in order at a very early date."
I worked on the project alone mostly, and showed my results to Walter several times. He said he agreed and had worked it himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oops!
I confused responses to OldSkool and Nathan_Jr
sorry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It's very easy to scan documents with a phone or tablet/iPad. I presume that's what you mean by digitizing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
So sorry. I thought you were OldSkool above.
I'd be happy to discuss this, though I am rusty on it. The last time I worked on it was before the ministry meltdown in 1986.
Please read what I said to OldSkool on this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oh NO!
I was more confused than I thought.
waysider was also in the mix.
Did I mention that I had 4 surgeries inside my eyes last year. They helped a lot, but I am still training my outside eye muscles to read with both eyes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I'll start a new topic, Mike. Didn't mean to distract you or anyone else, but I must admit, this cannon idea of yours and Walter's is distracting me.
Wow. Just wow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes. I am able to do that, but I have to add that to my workload. Things like this take time.
It would actually be a pleasure to work on another project that is more positive toned like the canon.
I started my canon research when I noticed that academic churchianity research into the NT canon made it sound like it was a result of several centuries of fighting, literally to the death. Hard to see God's hand in that process. I always felt my faith failing as I read about this process. It looked like the canon we have was established by a 400 year fight.
So, what I did was mark in my Cambridge Wide Margin an "S" with a circle around it signifying this is a "Scripture talking about Scripture." This went on for about 10 years.
I was pretty amazed, because nearly every time I opened my Bible to read, I found another one or two "S" verses. My wide margin filled up with them. I transferred it all to paper files that are still in that 3" thick folder.
Early in that 10 year process I noticed that the ENTIRE epistle of 2 Timothy was devoted to the early assembly of the canon the Apostles recognized. THAT should be the first thing I digitize for you. I wrote up a short paper that shows this and sent it to Walter. His encouragement helped me sustain the project for those ten years.
You can start reading that Epistle with this in mind. The structure that I discovered was (a) the adversary’s attack on the integrity of the Word Paul taught, and (b) Timothy’s job to fight it and preserve Paul’s revelations.
That structure alternates over and over about 15 times in the Epistle.
Peter’s second Epistle does the same thing, except it only has the cycle once: Chapter 1 is (a), Chapter 2 is (b), Chapter 3 is (a) again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
No worries. I know I have responded to you in my own condescending tones as well...I apologize for that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I missed you Nathan_Jr over the weekend. We covered a lot of the "absent Christ" and I hope you get to read it. Boy! This GSC sure has a lot of homework attached to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thank you. I know it is easy to sound harsh in ASCII text, especially when typing lots of data. This is the very reason they invented emogees, and I should learn how to use them better. I eschew the over use of them that can flood the process, but I may have an imbalance there. :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I'm definitely down with branching off a thread on Old and New Testament Canon, history of Greek texts...there's basically two main sources where our Greek texts originate - Antioch and Alexandria. The Roman Catholic Church has been heavily involved in suppression efforts, etc I need to quit playing on my phone and work for a while so I'll check in when I'm home. Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
These two statements appear to conflict.
I'm sure you must also be aware that Paul died before the Gospels came into being and that Mark was the first one written. Matthew and Luke are sourced from the information in Matthew.
*(Bolding added.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I was in the woods with the geese, ducks, bass, deer, pigs, raccoons, skunks, armadillos, bobcats, trees, flowers, plants, and water.
Its amazing how easily you can see and hear God when you remove your nose from a book and your ears from a sermon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
These are great points, Waysider. He seems to be assuming Paul wrote the 2nd century epistle II Timothy. And it sounds like he is relying on II Peter, another 2nd century document. Who knows? I hope to find out, though.
I started a thread to discuss this topic. Please let your brain explode there.
Edited by Nathan_JrBits of brain all over the keyboard
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Mike your refusal to acknowledge admit or discuss any potential negative leaves out 50 % of the Bible. Your public versus private distinction is also horse puckey. You have never admitted anything privately either.
But clearly you have the mission of carrying on the whitewash.
Armed with your verses of holding fast to the good, your mission is to in the face of overwhelming fact, firsthand accounts, and scripture to spread good cheer.
“I can do all things through Christ that strengthens me”
Phil 4:17
it really is so surprising to me that the Way won’t let you back in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Im curious. If Jesus is hidden away from sight forever more until the return, then how does this make sense?
Acts 23:11
And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said,Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
Looks like an active Lord strengthening his people, talking with Paul and encouraging him in dire circumstances.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Why did the blood change...it was sinless. What scripture reference tells us his blood changed but the rest was flesh and bones. Whatever form Jesus Christ is today is different from what he was before he was resureccted. Im thinking this is more word salad.
But....let's play.
So....Im going to forego verse quotes but my logic comes straight from scripture.
Mankind is corrupted via the sin nature due to Adam's disobediance. Jesus Christ comes but doesnt have a sin nature, skipping the polluted blood part because sin nature appearantly has to do with blood. Don't claim to understand that part - it's just what it is; Jesus blood was sinless. Christ died to redeem mankind, taking our place in judgement and wrath. Jesus is resurected and is ascended to the right hand of God. Scripture notes he still has flesh and bones but scripture also calls him a life quickening SPIRIT. Again, don't claim to know how the watch works but I am looking at the time.
Now - Scripture states that those born again shall be changed from our current state of corruption to Christ's state of glorious incorruption as he will never again die and neither shall we.
If Christ is still flesh and bones the same as when during his monstry to Israel, then why does scripture plainly state that flesh and blood shall not inhereit the kingdom of God. Don't try and discount what I am saying because you are saying flesh and bones from a reference in the gospels. Flesh representing our current bodies, simply cannot inherit the kingdom of God. So Christ being flesh and bones the way he was when he walked the earth makes no sense and it's scripture that delieneates the difference.
So am I to understand that when we are changed to be like Christ on that day that we are going to just change back into what we were? You say I don't have an overall scope of the topic and I disagree. Your logic is circular at best. Jesus has changed from flesh and blood to flesh and bones? Christians will be changed from flesh and blood into what Christ is which is flesh and bones...?
Let me put this forth: Whatever the heck God changed Jesus Chrst into at his resurection is beyond what we can comprehend at this time but whatever it is it's not what we are today. We get more than a blood transfusion when we are fully redeemed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I had written prior to that:
The best I understand it the NT canon was assembled by Paul, Mark, Luke, and John. God gave them revelation for it. Their canon was not recognized for a long time, but God kept giving revelations to whomever He could to preserve and pass on that canon. *He had his hand on the process all along.I only saw one statement bold fonted by you there. Was it in conflict with the statements above it?
*/*/*/*/*
My statement "He had his hand on the process all along." was referring to God, not Paul, if that helps.
I see God's gentle had guiding the process for centuries with small revelations to those who had inherited the copies Timothy had.
Oops !!! I forgot to include Timothy in that list: Paul, Mark, Luke, John, and Timothy. There could have been others like Matthew, but the scriptures I found pointed directly to these.
*/*/*/*
Yes, I knew Paul died then, but he coordinated it up until his death, and then Timothy, Mark, and Luke had the ball to run with, according to 2 Timothy.
I disagree with your statement:
"Matthew and Luke are sourced from the information in Matthew."
Did you mean to write? :
"Mark and Luke are sourced from the information in Matthew."
According to my careful prosthesis, Mark and Luke were given revelation to steal the copyrighted material from Matthew, and then pick and choose what God wanted to be put in their Gospels.
Now any student of the Firesign Theatre KNOWS that I am joking in that one sentence. But on the serious side, I believe Mark and Luke put in writing whatever God told them to write, and if some of it was from Matthew, that was God's revelation to them. Much like today, and that is not a joke. Luke says he got it from above. We were taught to stand in awe that none of Paul's Secret Gospel appears in the 4 Gospels, even though they knew Paul well, because that writing was given to Paul.
*/*/*/*
The revelation it took to get these 1st Century massive written messages in order was an INTERVENTION by God IMO.
In the centuries following Paul and John finishing the NT canon, THAT is where I see God's gentle had guiding the process for centuries with small revelations to those who had inherited the copies Timothy and John and the others had assembled. This took about 3 or 4 hundred years to finish. Then God had to wait a long time to get Martin Luther to see Romans 10:9 and the like, and then drop everything for it, in spite of facing stiff persecution.
God probably got some revelations to various translators over the centuries, but finally found a tough daredevil in VPW to "put it all together" with massive revelation as to where to search, what to filter out, what to bring in, and what few things he needed to hear directly from God. This process lasted 42.5 years, and it was not all done by VPW. God inspired lots of people to work with him. Plus, God inspired lots of people to come to HQ and teach.
So I see, after the 1st Century, God's gentle hand giving revelations to many people for good handling of the surviving scriptures. God's only direct Intervention that I see was the 1942 promise to fix things, bigtime. We see God fixing damaged scriptures in Jer. 36, and elsewhere.
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.