But I don't mind if other approaches to the canon are discussed here. I am able to discuss all sorts of ideas, even some that are uncomfortably different and opposed to all that I stand for.
I think we should allow other theories to be discussed here, but I have my favorite, and it will take some time for me to post all that I have. As I take breaks for reading my old notes, others should feel free to focus on the details and implications of specific ideas that are to be found in the many links supplied here already. Instead of just links to large works, I'd like to see the salient points brought here to paste for discussion of ideas.
Another faulty premise I see is that just like wierwille - you seem to limit God and have an unhealthy fear and fixation of the devil. That appears to be the basis for your paranoia (unless you have other issues up your sleeve);
you have already mentioned your mistrust and disdain for legitimate academia . And it looks to me like your security blanket is PFAL …you act most comfortable and most at ease when filtering every problem through the distorted lens of PFAL.
According to you God is limited in what He can do - so I guess He can’t supervise genuine Christian leaders who are responsible for shepherding God’s flock according to what they regard as God’s measuring stick - that’s what “canon”means.
You appear to harbor the same twisted fantasy that wierwille had - which is that he imagined himself as God’s high priest interpreting the Bible for God’s people.
Are you trying to channel wierwille?
What is this “God left hints in Scripture for us “ nonsense? To me - in the Bible - God always comes across as a straight shooter. His message is simple - truth is made plain that even a fool can’t miss it. But evidently wierwille missed it - coming up with nonsense like “Scripture interprets itself”. Evidently you’ve missed it saying God has to put hints in there.
Do you know what wierwille’s problem was ? He thought he was always right. He was an authoritarian for gosh sakes - he’s always right - all who disagree with him are always wrong….Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike - you hitched your wagon to the wrong horse! You’re so distracted being worried about the devil infiltrating academia - that the “devil” was able to sneak by you in the guise of a pseudo-Christian cult-leader who is telling you “hey guys stay sharp the enemy is out there somewhere!”
There’s always the possibility of phonies WITHIN the church:
Work hard so you can present yourself to God and receive his approval. Be a good worker, one who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly explains the word of truth. II Timothy 2:16 NLT
So it’s possible to incorrectly explain the word of truth…Incompetent preachers and religious con artists.
We reject all shameful deeds and underhanded methods. We don’t try to trick anyone or distort the word of God. We tell the truth before God, and all who are honest know this. II Cor. 4:2 NLT
This speaks of the possibility that some will embrace shameful deeds and underhanded methods - and they will try to trick people and distort the message of God. Mike , this is talking about crooked leaders - like wierwille - who YOU seem committed to defend.
You worry the devil is jacking with history and yet it looks to me like wierwille being a coconspirator with the devil has hijacked the Bible “ forcing” you to view “the Word”his way.
Your god seems so small. Your devil seems so big. Your high priest is a dumb-a$$ and your theories suck.
Why would God have to resort to planting hints in the Bible (hints about WHAT- who knows?!?!) which only a couple of short-sighted deluded swamis can decrypt?
If God’s message is truly from Him - and it’s important for us to know - it makes better sense that He would make sure His message was supervised…preserved…guarded by qualified people who held the Scriptures in high regard. Thus a natural and practical method such as the development of the NT canon seems more likely His preference.
THIS THREAD is established to explore this proposition:
The New Testament cannon was assembled
by Timothy, Mark, Luke, John and Paul,
and we are here to discuss passages in II Timothy
that support this idea.
But I don't mind if other approaches to the canon are discussed here. I am able to discuss all sorts of ideas, even some that are uncomfortably different and opposed to all that I stand for.
I think we should allow other theories to be discussed here, but I have my favorite, and it will take some time for me to
You are so funny Mike
the development of the NT canon is not some theories! It’s historical fact! There were witnesses. Records kept. It wasn’t conceived in a motor coach with one glass eye, smoking a cig or 2 and while sucking on Drambuie.
I wanted my banner to be as official as possible, changing as little as possible in Nathan_Jr's original wording...
Dang! That means I have to correct it an post it again.
I hate it when that happens.
This thread is established to explore this proposition:
The New Testament Canon was assembled
by Paul, Timothy, Mark, Luke, and John.
And we are here to discuss passages in II Timothy that support this idea.
...Why would God have to resort to planting hints in the Bible (hints about WHAT- who knows?!?!) which only a couple of short-sighted deluded swamis can decrypt?
To encourage readers of His Word to be encouraged to trust the Bible as a primary source in seeking God.
Man has mishandled to some degree, and in some places the accuracy of the words in a translation or version are not so clear. Same goes with the collection of the Books of the Bible. The history of the Canon we do have reaching far back is wobbly as it peeks back farther and farther to the First Century.
There are lots of ways people mistrust the thousands of Bible versions and the several competing canons, but the standard canon story is a big discourager to those young Bible fans stumble upon it. I had it shoved in my face by unbelievers I was trying to witness to on NYC commuter trains in the early 1970s.
I was amazed at all the fun hints my Daddy left in the scriptures to assure His readers that He produced the originals, and that He was not an Absent Author.
If we have problems in His text, we can complain to management. Remember, Our Daddy is the Author and we have access to His throne room.
Just like God loves playing with His kids with SIT,
He lovers leaving all kinds of treasures (hints sometimes)
for us to find in His Word when we trust it.
*/*/*
"...Why would God have to resort to planting hints in the Bible (hints about WHAT- who knows?!?!) which only a couple of short-sighted deluded swamis can decrypt?"
In addition to the above paragraphs, I answer that question in my PFAL based paper from the 1970s. I have only posted a fraction of it. Have you read it? It is done in full conformity to the model I was taught, and my commentary is totally PFAL. But the scriptures speak for them selves.
I have hardly posted any other scriptures from my canon collection here, besides fragmentary verses from 2 Timothy, those two long lists in Installment #2. Those lists are the expansion of the "ababababababa" structure I mentioned a lot. One list corresponds to the "a"s and the other list corresponds to the "b"s.
If God’s message is truly from Him - and it’s important for us to know
- it makes better sense that He would make sure His message was supervised…preserved…guarded by qualified people who held the Scriptures in high regard. Thus a natural and practical method such as the development of the NT canon seems more likely His preference.
I am glad to say that, after oodles of lines of anti-idol blather up there, I can finally agree with that whole paragraph... almost.
I'd delete the unbolded words and put the word "will."
...and change "if to "since."
SINCE, God’s message is truly from Him - and it’s important for us to know
- it makes sense that He would make sure His message was supervised…preserved…guarded by qualified people who held the Scriptures in high regard. Thus a natural and practical method such as the development of the NT canon seems likely His will.
Now God does not always get His will, and there are a few twists and turns in that canon development, that I don't need to know much about.
So this is the Top-Down approach historically, looking back in time, or downward on a vertical time scale.
What I am proposing, a Bottom-Up approach, is NOT a negation of the Top-Down approach.
In my mind, however, it also is a demotion of the Top-Down approach in the learning curriculum for Bible students. But I have the advantage of having seen ALL the verses in my trove. No one here has had a chance to see them yet at all.
*/*/*
I am all for changing the vertical time scale to the standard horizontal, and the Top-Down, Bottom-Up terminology.
Any ideas for better buzz words.
Please stifle the humor.
Oh who am I kidding?
Show me your fight/flight humor.
I'm used to it and can easily delete it from the screenplay.
...the development of the NT canon is not some theories! It’s historical fact! There were witnesses. Records kept. <deleted anti-idol blather>
I agree. It also has gaps and uncertainties in the story, and sometimes bad guys were involved on both sides. It was centuries of fighting.
STILL I agree with the above from you in principle.
IN ADDITION to what you are talking about, the Bottom-Up approach with the scriptures has some unique certainties, such as the Author having complete foreknowledge and wisdom.
I wanted my banner to be as official as possible, changing as little as possible in Nathan_Jr's original wording...
Dang! That means I have to correct it an post it again.
I hate it when that happens.
This thread is established to explore this proposition:
The New Testament Canon was assembled
by Paul, Timothy, Mark, Luke, and John.
And we are here to discuss passages in II Timothy that support this idea.
I am glad to say that, after oodles of lines of anti-idol blather up there, I can finally agree with that whole paragraph... almost.
I'd delete the unbolded words and put the word "will."
...and change "if to "since."
SINCE, God’s message is truly from Him - and it’s important for us to know
- it makes sense that He would make sure His message was supervised…preserved…guarded by qualified people who held the Scriptures in high regard. Thus a natural and practical method such as the development of the NT canon seems likely His will.
Now God does not always get His will, and there are a few twists and turns in that canon development, that I don't need to know much about.
So this is the Top-Down approach historically, looking back in time, or downward on a vertical time scale.
What I am proposing, a Bottom-Up approach, is NOT a negation of the Top-Down approach.
In my mind, however, it also is a demotion of the Top-Down approach in the learning curriculum for Bible students. But I have the advantage of having seen ALL the verses in my trove. No one here has had a chance to see them yet at all.
*/*/*
I am all for changing the vertical time scale to the standard horizontal, and the Top-Down, Bottom-Up terminology.
Any ideas for better buzz words.
Please stifle the humor.
Oh who am I kidding?
Show me your fight/flight humor.
I'm used to it and can easily delete it from the screenplay.
You see class , here’s the road down …what does that old snake in the grass do in PFAL?
He asks his students “did the original God-breathed word really say that?”
And a student usually responds “ well, it looks like it did cuz I can read plain King James English - but something tells me you think otherwise.”
Then the phony cyclops eye-doctor-of-a-snake with a glint in his beady little eye says “the Bible doesn’t really say that . It says whatever I tell you it says I tells ya….For God only knows how many times I’ve got to cram it down your throat before you accept it as the God’s honest truth - then you’ll be just like me”.
And the student weary from hours and hours of listening to a snake tossing a mean word salad finally concedes “if you say so.”( serpent continues to toss word salad while adding snake oil dressing)
Then comes the clincher - the turncoat teacher proclaims “your cognitive skills will not surely die.”
And the student choked down the word salad and handed a PFAL sign up card to another young and naive soul and they also choked down the word salad.
And the eyes of them both were shut - really busy in REM sleep.
What a bunch of dozers!
I agree. It also has gaps and uncertainties in the story, and sometimes bad guys were involved on both sides. It was centuries of fighting.
STILL I agree with the above from you in principle.
IN ADDITION to what you are talking about, the Bottom-Up approach with the scriptures has some unique certainties, such as the Author having complete foreknowledge and wisdom.
Your premise assumes God inspired the writers by dictating what they should say. In effect being shoved around by the Holy Spirit. ..that is a one author book.
I believe in limited inspiration - since the Bible says people were moved by the Holy Spirit- (when a song inspires you - it moves you…unless you’re doing karaoke and you hope you remember how the song goes…fyi - I couldn’t carry a tune so I got stuck playing the bass). This views the Bible as a coauthored book - it will have divine and human elements in it.
Edited by T-Bone I have a split personality- the typos were co-edited by me and the other (heteros) me
In addition to the above paragraphs, I answer that question in my PFAL based paper from the 1970s. I have only posted a fraction of it. Have you read it? It is done in full conformity to the model I was taught, and my commentary is totally PFAL. But the scriptures speak for them selves.
It has occurred to me that you have been developing a PFAL canon for sometime now - but I’ve noticed there’s been a lot of hitches in your giddy up - too many rewrites. Oh well. Council of Nice to See Ya again Mike
God does not always get His will, and there are a few twists and turns in that canon development, that I don't need to know much about.
So this is the Top-Down approach historically, looking back in time, or downward on a vertical time scale.
What I am proposing, a Bottom-Up approach, is NOT a negation of the Top-Down approach.
You promote inconsistencies and throw out any intellectual standards. You become a standard unto yourself. You interpret yourself. You decide what is important to know and what is not important to know. Your methods suck!
if wierwille could read your posts he would roll over in his grave - only momentarily of course -he’d settle back down remembering the dead are not alive now.
wierwille’s stuff is pretty whacky . I didn’t think it was possible but you’ve ramped it up considerably- it’s some next level $hit. YOU make wierwille’s $hitty doctrine smell even worse than it already does. How is that even possible ?
this deserves the official canonized wierwille-fan seal of approval
I have hardly posted any other scriptures from my canon collection here, besides fragmentary verses from
So you made your own canon. Cool.
uhm …but is it really your own - or did you pull a wierwille - copy bits and pieces of PFAL and then called it a cannon - face the front of the class and fire!!!!!
There are lots of ways people mistrust the thousands of Bible versions and the several competing canons, but the standard canon story is a big discourager to those young Bible fans stumble upon it. I had it shoved in my face by unbelievers I was trying to witness to on NYC commuter trains in the early 1970s.
Incredible! They were shoving a NASB in your face but you stood your ground …uhm I meant stood on your little soap box - a PFAL-marked up KJV
I see you are rather bereft of content argument above.
But there's enough for me to pull out your error, when I feel like it.
Meanwhile, I get the message: you are short on logic and critical thinking skills FOR THE TOPIC, so you resort to a series of ad hominem attacks on me. and the usual blather on your anti-idol.
Your avoiding my points of logic, by literary temper tantrum, shows to all (and greatly encourages me) that I am making progress in my thesis here.
I can apply the letter "a" the ad hominems, and the letter "b" to the blathering at anti-idol. Then we could watch the "ababababab" structure in your posts past.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
So, besides the shots fired, what did you think of the "ababababa" explanation in 2 Timothy, Mrs. Lincoln?
I see you are rather bereft of content argument above.
But there's enough for me to pull out your error, when I feel like it.
Meanwhile, I get the message: you are short on logic and critical thinking skills FOR THE TOPIC, so you resort to a series of ad hominem attacks on me. and the usual blather on your anti-idol.
Your avoiding my points of logic, by literary temper tantrum, shows to all (and greatly encourages me) that I am making progress in my thesis here.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
So, besides the shots fired, what did you think of the "ababababa" explanation in 2 Timothy, Mrs. Lincoln?
Looks like you shot yourself in both feet Mr Lincoln
Incredible! They were shoving a NASB in your face but you stood your ground …
Another factual error.
I found the NASB on my own in the 1970s, and LOVED IT.
This was posted by me more than once lately; overlooked by you.
Years later, on an SNT tape, Craig gave a hearty endorsement of NASB, and said it was one of the best. I guess you overlooked that also.
It will be fascinating to see how many of the 2 Timothy points (there are many) you will overlook as you pound out a definite ababababab stucture, with "a" being ad-hominems on me, and "b" is your usual blather extolling your anti-idol
By applying the screwy “keys” and crowbars of PFAL – using either con artist finesse orbrute bully force-one can make any Bible verse “fit” into wierwille’s perverted and misguided theology !
Is not one of the primary "keys" of biblical interpretation a consideration of "to whom is it addressed"?
If so, then who spoke what is written in John 10:10, and to whom was it directed? Who were those words given to?
In other words, exactly who does the "you" in John 10:10 refer to?
Matthew 15
[22] And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
[23] But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
[24] But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Rom.15
[8] Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers
But, I suppose you can cut those verses out of the Bible if you don't like them. Or, you can just ignore them and claim that anything and everything that Jesus Christ said or did here in his earthly ministry was actually directed to anyone and everyone... then ANYONE can have POWER for Abundant Living !!! Because having a wonderfully rich and prosperous life right now is available for everyone that wants to pretend this is addressed to them...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
199
126
90
153
Popular Days
Oct 17
109
Oct 11
87
Oct 15
69
Oct 10
54
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 199 posts
T-Bone 126 posts
OldSkool 90 posts
Nathan_Jr 153 posts
Popular Days
Oct 17 2022
109 posts
Oct 11 2022
87 posts
Oct 15 2022
69 posts
Oct 10 2022
54 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
I haven't been following this thread but had a peek. This whole thread is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the canon of scripture. But I did note the following, originally posted by our
waysider
Ahhh, those were the days.
waysider
Bake 'em away, toys.
Posted Images
Mike
But I don't mind if other approaches to the canon are discussed here. I am able to discuss all sorts of ideas, even some that are uncomfortably different and opposed to all that I stand for.
I think we should allow other theories to be discussed here, but I have my favorite, and it will take some time for me to post all that I have. As I take breaks for reading my old notes, others should feel free to focus on the details and implications of specific ideas that are to be found in the many links supplied here already. Instead of just links to large works, I'd like to see the salient points brought here to paste for discussion of ideas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Another faulty premise I see is that just like wierwille - you seem to limit God and have an unhealthy fear and fixation of the devil. That appears to be the basis for your paranoia (unless you have other issues up your sleeve);
you have already mentioned your mistrust and disdain for legitimate academia . And it looks to me like your security blanket is PFAL …you act most comfortable and most at ease when filtering every problem through the distorted lens of PFAL.
According to you God is limited in what He can do - so I guess He can’t supervise genuine Christian leaders who are responsible for shepherding God’s flock according to what they regard as God’s measuring stick - that’s what “canon”means.
You appear to harbor the same twisted fantasy that wierwille had - which is that he imagined himself as God’s high priest interpreting the Bible for God’s people.
Are you trying to channel wierwille?
What is this “God left hints in Scripture for us “ nonsense? To me - in the Bible - God always comes across as a straight shooter. His message is simple - truth is made plain that even a fool can’t miss it. But evidently wierwille missed it - coming up with nonsense like “Scripture interprets itself”. Evidently you’ve missed it saying God has to put hints in there.
Do you know what wierwille’s problem was ? He thought he was always right. He was an authoritarian for gosh sakes - he’s always right - all who disagree with him are always wrong….Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike - you hitched your wagon to the wrong horse! You’re so distracted being worried about the devil infiltrating academia - that the “devil” was able to sneak by you in the guise of a pseudo-Christian cult-leader who is telling you “hey guys stay sharp the enemy is out there somewhere!”
There’s always the possibility of phonies WITHIN the church:
Matthew 23
II Peter 2
Work hard so you can present yourself to God and receive his approval. Be a good worker, one who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly explains the word of truth. II Timothy 2:16 NLT
So it’s possible to incorrectly explain the word of truth…Incompetent preachers and religious con artists.
We reject all shameful deeds and underhanded methods. We don’t try to trick anyone or distort the word of God. We tell the truth before God, and all who are honest know this. II Cor. 4:2 NLT
This speaks of the possibility that some will embrace shameful deeds and underhanded methods - and they will try to trick people and distort the message of God. Mike , this is talking about crooked leaders - like wierwille - who YOU seem committed to defend.
You worry the devil is jacking with history and yet it looks to me like wierwille being a coconspirator with the devil has hijacked the Bible “ forcing” you to view “the Word”his way.
Your god seems so small. Your devil seems so big. Your high priest is a dumb-a$$ and your theories suck.
Why would God have to resort to planting hints in the Bible (hints about WHAT- who knows?!?!) which only a couple of short-sighted deluded swamis can decrypt?
If God’s message is truly from Him - and it’s important for us to know - it makes better sense that He would make sure His message was supervised…preserved…guarded by qualified people who held the Scriptures in high regard. Thus a natural and practical method such as the development of the NT canon seems more likely His preference.
Edited by T-BoneRevisio provisio
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
No - that’s what you think.
you're wrong !
and it’s the NT canon NOT. cannon
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You are so funny Mike
the development of the NT canon is not some theories! It’s historical fact! There were witnesses. Records kept. It wasn’t conceived in a motor coach with one glass eye, smoking a cig or 2 and while sucking on Drambuie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oops! I pasted it from Nathan_Jr's post #1.
LoL
I wanted my banner to be as official as possible, changing as little as possible in Nathan_Jr's original wording...
Dang! That means I have to correct it an post it again.
I hate it when that happens.
This thread is established to explore this proposition:
The New Testament Canon was assembled
by Paul, Timothy, Mark, Luke, and John.
And we are here to discuss passages
in II Timothy that support this idea.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
To encourage readers of His Word to be encouraged to trust the Bible as a primary source in seeking God.
Man has mishandled to some degree, and in some places the accuracy of the words in a translation or version are not so clear. Same goes with the collection of the Books of the Bible. The history of the Canon we do have reaching far back is wobbly as it peeks back farther and farther to the First Century.
There are lots of ways people mistrust the thousands of Bible versions and the several competing canons, but the standard canon story is a big discourager to those young Bible fans stumble upon it. I had it shoved in my face by unbelievers I was trying to witness to on NYC commuter trains in the early 1970s.
I was amazed at all the fun hints my Daddy left in the scriptures to assure His readers that He produced the originals, and that He was not an Absent Author.
If we have problems in His text, we can complain to management. Remember, Our Daddy is the Author and we have access to His throne room.
Just like God loves playing with His kids with SIT,
He lovers leaving all kinds of treasures (hints sometimes)
for us to find in His Word when we trust it.
*/*/*
"...Why would God have to resort to planting hints in the Bible (hints about WHAT- who knows?!?!) which only a couple of short-sighted deluded swamis can decrypt?"
In addition to the above paragraphs, I answer that question in my PFAL based paper from the 1970s. I have only posted a fraction of it. Have you read it? It is done in full conformity to the model I was taught, and my commentary is totally PFAL. But the scriptures speak for them selves.
I have hardly posted any other scriptures from my canon collection here, besides fragmentary verses from 2 Timothy, those two long lists in Installment #2. Those lists are the expansion of the "ababababababa" structure I mentioned a lot. One list corresponds to the "a"s and the other list corresponds to the "b"s.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I am glad to say that, after oodles of lines of anti-idol blather up there, I can finally agree with that whole paragraph... almost.
I'd delete the unbolded words and put the word "will."
...and change "if to "since."
SINCE, God’s message is truly from Him - and it’s important for us to know
- it makes sense that He would make sure His message was supervised…preserved…guarded by qualified people who held the Scriptures in high regard. Thus a natural and practical method such as the development of the NT canon seems likely His will.
Now God does not always get His will, and there are a few twists and turns in that canon development, that I don't need to know much about.
So this is the Top-Down approach historically, looking back in time, or downward on a vertical time scale.
What I am proposing, a Bottom-Up approach, is NOT a negation of the Top-Down approach.
In my mind, however, it also is a demotion of the Top-Down approach in the learning curriculum for Bible students. But I have the advantage of having seen ALL the verses in my trove. No one here has had a chance to see them yet at all.
*/*/*
I am all for changing the vertical time scale to the standard horizontal, and the Top-Down, Bottom-Up terminology.
Any ideas for better buzz words.
Please stifle the humor.
Oh who am I kidding?
Show me your fight/flight humor.
I'm used to it and can easily delete it from the screenplay.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I agree. It also has gaps and uncertainties in the story, and sometimes bad guys were involved on both sides. It was centuries of fighting.
STILL I agree with the above from you in principle.
IN ADDITION to what you are talking about, the Bottom-Up approach with the scriptures has some unique certainties, such as the Author having complete foreknowledge and wisdom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WoW! I got caught up on all my responding, I think.
Just for this page, though.
Who knows how many posts I missed on previous pages.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Just as life imitates art
a word-turd began as a fart
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Jesus Christ said He is the way
we should become followers of Jesus Christ instead of becoming a bookworm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You see class , here’s the road down …what does that old snake in the grass do in PFAL?
He asks his students “did the original God-breathed word really say that?”
And a student usually responds “ well, it looks like it did cuz I can read plain King James English - but something tells me you think otherwise.”
Then the phony cyclops eye-doctor-of-a-snake with a glint in his beady little eye says “the Bible doesn’t really say that . It says whatever I tell you it says I tells ya….For God only knows how many times I’ve got to cram it down your throat before you accept it as the God’s honest truth - then you’ll be just like me”.
And the student weary from hours and hours of listening to a snake tossing a mean word salad finally concedes “if you say so.”( serpent continues to toss word salad while adding snake oil dressing)
Then comes the clincher - the turncoat teacher proclaims “your cognitive skills will not surely die.”
And the student choked down the word salad and handed a PFAL sign up card to another young and naive soul and they also choked down the word salad.
And the eyes of them both were shut - really busy in REM sleep.
What a bunch of dozers!
Edited by T-BoneZzzzzzzzzzZzzzzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Your premise assumes God inspired the writers by dictating what they should say. In effect being shoved around by the Holy Spirit. ..that is a one author book.
I believe in limited inspiration - since the Bible says people were moved by the Holy Spirit- (when a song inspires you - it moves you…unless you’re doing karaoke and you hope you remember how the song goes…fyi - I couldn’t carry a tune so I got stuck playing the bass).
This views the Bible as a coauthored book - it will have divine and human elements in it.
Edited by T-BoneI have a split personality- the typos were co-edited by me and the other (heteros) me
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
It has occurred to me that you have been developing a PFAL canon for sometime now - but I’ve noticed there’s been a lot of hitches in your giddy up - too many rewrites. Oh well. Council of Nice to See Ya again Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You promote inconsistencies and throw out any intellectual standards. You become a standard unto yourself. You interpret yourself. You decide what is important to know and what is not important to know. Your methods suck!
if wierwille could read your posts he would roll over in his grave - only momentarily of course -he’d settle back down remembering the dead are not alive now.
wierwille’s stuff is pretty whacky . I didn’t think it was possible but you’ve ramped it up considerably- it’s some next level $hit. YOU make wierwille’s $hitty doctrine smell even worse than it already does. How is that even possible ?
this deserves the official canonized wierwille-fan seal of approval
and once more.
it’s established!
Bravo Mike!
Edited by T-BoneRamp it up - I’ll take it to go
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
“The
PartyMOGFODAT told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It wastheirhis final, most essential command.”(Forgive me, Mr. Orwell, for I have sinned.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
So you made your own canon. Cool.
uhm …but is it really your own - or did you pull a wierwille - copy bits and pieces of PFAL and then called it a cannon - face the front of the class and fire!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Incredible! They were shoving a NASB in your face but you stood your ground …uhm I meant stood on your little soap box - a PFAL-marked up KJV
bravo Mike!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I see you are rather bereft of content argument above.
But there's enough for me to pull out your error, when I feel like it.
Meanwhile, I get the message: you are short on logic and critical thinking skills FOR THE TOPIC, so you resort to a series of ad hominem attacks on me. and the usual blather on your anti-idol.
Your avoiding my points of logic, by literary temper tantrum, shows to all (and greatly encourages me) that I am making progress in my thesis here.
I can apply the letter "a" the ad hominems, and the letter "b" to the blathering at anti-idol. Then we could watch the "ababababab" structure in your posts past.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
So, besides the shots fired, what did you think of the "ababababa" explanation in 2 Timothy, Mrs. Lincoln?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Looks like you shot yourself in both feet Mr Lincoln
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That response gets an "a,"
and I don't mean "A."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Another factual error.
I found the NASB on my own in the 1970s, and LOVED IT.
This was posted by me more than once lately; overlooked by you.
Years later, on an SNT tape, Craig gave a hearty endorsement of NASB, and said it was one of the best. I guess you overlooked that also.
It will be fascinating to see how many of the 2 Timothy points (there are many) you will overlook as you pound out a definite ababababab stucture, with "a" being ad-hominems on me, and "b" is your usual blather extolling your anti-idol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Is not one of the primary "keys" of biblical interpretation a consideration of "to whom is it addressed"?
If so, then who spoke what is written in John 10:10, and to whom was it directed? Who were those words given to?
In other words, exactly who does the "you" in John 10:10 refer to?
Matthew 15
[22] And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
[23] But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
[24] But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Rom.15
[8] Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers
But, I suppose you can cut those verses out of the Bible if you don't like them. Or, you can just ignore them and claim that anything and everything that Jesus Christ said or did here in his earthly ministry was actually directed to anyone and everyone... then ANYONE can have POWER for Abundant Living !!! Because having a wonderfully rich and prosperous life right now is available for everyone that wants to pretend this is addressed to them...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fredgrant
Hmmm - where did you get that little gem?
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.