Nope. Arbitrary. It's how it's copied and pasted. Could be any size. Doesn't mean anything at all. No secrets. No codes. A coin flip.
Just accurate, relevant definitions of CANON that everyone should understand when posting on this topic.
Please remember that the Bottom-Up approach only deals with the writers and their attitudes and activities late in the First Century.
It is the Top-Down approach that STARTS with the finished list that was handed down from around 425 AD, coins the word and definition for what it wants to find, and then looks for lists and collections and artifacts that date many, many years after the writers' deaths.
. I was referring to compilers and people controlling the manuscripts.
but that is unknown to you
how did you know they were unbelievers? . It is safe to assume the adversary had his agents in there, due to the high stakes.
I would argue it’s also paranoid to think the devil is always after you
how is the integrity of the Bible undermined? .The body of knowledge built up in a human mind can get undermined in the TRUST area when information from the wrong sources is considered too deeply. We see the integrity of the Word undermined step by step as she processes info from the devil. You know, it's the PFAL model, the PFAL Postulate.
I disagree - we should analyze everything regardless of the source…sometimes we dont know the source. We must be doing ver vigilant
again I say you fixate too much on the devil. Paranoia as a constant state of mind is unhealthy
spirit upon could be lost, and is described like it can be measured out.
spirit seed within is permanent, and described as being the full dose.
*/*/*/*
The attitude of confidence I have in my Bottom-Up theory is the large amount of scriptural background that is involved and the scope I have had on it for decades.
I understand the attitude of suspicion you have, and I can't blame you. You have not seen this large trove of scriptures, and you have not had decades to serenely ponder them, like I had.
It will take time for me to get all my trove of scriptures posted.
Yeah - you’re repeating the concepts wierwille taught… I don’t think they’re valid because humans still retain the image and likeness of God after the fall though it’s now tarnished…I don’t see measured out concept in scripture. I don’t see where you can be do definitive on this topic when it’s not given in scripture.
. I was referring to compilers and people controlling the manuscripts.
but that is unknown to you
how did you know they were unbelievers? . It is safe to assume the adversary had his agents in there, due to the high stakes.
I would argue it’s also paranoid to think the devil is always after you
how is the integrity of the Bible undermined? .The body of knowledge built up in a human mind can get undermined in the TRUST area when information from the wrong sources is considered too deeply. We see the integrity of the Word undermined step by step as she processes info from the devil. You know, it's the PFAL model, the PFAL Postulate.
I disagree - we should analyze everything regardless of the source…sometimes we dont know the source. We must be doing ver vigilant
again I say you fixate too much on the devil. Paranoia as a constant state of mind is unhealthy
Good questions.
I know people who are devil fixated on nearly any subject on the table.
THAT kind of behavior I abhor. When it wasn't genuine paranoia, it was then often a power trip Corps Nazi leaders used on us un-taught little people.
I do see the devil in operation when HIGH STAKES are involved. The develop of our modern canon involved bloody fighting at times in the political twists and turns fort the political power to say with sufficient loudness "THIS is the official list of books in the Bible."
That canon process was high stakes. It was not the devil involved in our daily lives, like leadership would be preoccupied with with imbalance. It was very high stakes long ago when the lists of the canon were developing. I do see the devil in there.
What it shows is the great interest the First Century writers had in keeping track of what they had written. They knew it was revelation (1 Thess 2:13)
The writers did NOT leave the official collection of writings (later to become the canon) for others to decide. That is what we see in their writings. We even see early compilations taking place in 2 Timothy, and the finished produce mentioned at the end of 2 Peter.
Of course the writers must have realized it was inspiration. You make it sound like the writers decided the canon. They probably didn’t envision the whole picture ( sometime in the future there will be a book where these are all compiled together). But knowing they were sacred texts there probably were steps to preserve and protect them - trusting God would oversee the project - spiritual continuity
Please remember that the Bottom-Up approach only deals with the writers and their attitudes and activities late in the First Century.
It is the Top-Down approach that STARTS with the finished list that was handed down from around 425 AD, coins the word and definition for what it wants to find, and then looks for lists and collections and artifacts that date many, many years after the writers' deaths.
The books and letters that were agreed upon in the late 4th century and afterward were scriptures read in home fellowships and churches since the first century. It was based on religious tradition that originated with Paul. The Biblical canon didn't just fall out of the sky one day in the fifth century.
But other gospels and apocalypses were valued and read in fellowships where they spoke in the most natural, authentic tongues of angels, not counterfeit lo shontas. These books you may not know about, because the powers that be don't want you to know about them. Maybe for good reason.
Or, maybe because the devil wants them hidden because of their power. Maybe because the war god of Abraham said these 66 and no more. Maybe because men of God thought that they knew that they knew that they knew.
Did you read the Metzger article? It's NOT in conflict at the root level of your proposition- that men of God, inspired by God, lead by hs, worked to ensure the holiest of holy books were preserved and canonized, and all others were burned buried.
Yes, and I am not against that sort of inquiry. I am just not excited about that approach, due to the uncertainties involved. Science is great when you have data and artifacts to observe, but there is precious little they have to go on for what happened between 67 AD and about 120 AD.
It is those early years that the responsibly minded Biblical writers had to do their Authoritative collection and pass it on to responsible people for preservation.
Not sure what your hesitancy is about- if you have a chance to read FF Bruce’s books on NT docs you’d get a better idea of textual criticism- because they have the data and evidence to observe - the existing ancient manuscripts and other ancient texts by leaders quoting from them - I don’t understand why you doubt this process- textual research is not trying to create scripture in a lab - they’re examining the ancient docs and comparing copies - to see if a word was transposed - and like I shared in a post quoting Bruce’s works - small errors of copying were negligible and so no impact to basic tenets.
At that time I did not have a bias on the canon, other than that I was believing what I was taught in PFAL, just like I do now. I knew it was confusing and discouraging to take the Top-Down approach, which I did for a couple months.
Or was it confusing and discouraging because it didn’t jive with PFAL?
I don’t see how looking for the obvious meaning of the text would be confusing and discouraging. It should be encouraging that a simple reading of the Bible should be do enjoyable and enlightening.
what I think is confusing and discouraging is when wierwille / Bullinger using - I guess your bottom up approach come up with 4 crucified! What nonsense.. that’s why I have no confidence in wierwille and Bullinger’s work. I feel like they’re trying to pull something half the time. They have credibility issues
Mostly this. This is the organic machinery of canonization. The writers of scripture themselves didn't say, "among all the scriptures, ours and ours alone." It was an organic process (not even the right word) over time among men like Walter and victor. Holy Men of God making sure that that the right holy books and letters of God were vouchsafed.
I know people who are devil fixated on nearly any subject on the table.
THAT kind of behavior I abhor. When it wasn't genuine paranoia, it was then often a power trip Corps Nazi leaders used on us un-taught little people.
I do see the devil in operation when HIGH STAKES are involved. The develop of our modern canon involved bloody fighting at times in the political twists and turns fort the political power to say with sufficient loudness "THIS is the official list of books in the Bible."
That canon process was high stakes. It was not the devil involved in our daily lives, like leadership would be preoccupied with with imbalance. It was very high stakes long ago when the lists of the canon were developing. I do see the devil in there.
I don’t get what you see as high stakes. What high stakes? What does leadership preoccupied with imbalance mean? Imbalance of what? Maybe that leadership needs to get real jobs - and quit lording it over people.
PFAL asked questions- that’s good - but dictated what the answers should be - that’s not so good. All nonsense and plagiarized material aside , if PFAL was presented as one way or some different ways of exploring the Bible it probably would have been a little helpful.
Some of the criteria for development of the NT canon was the internal evidence of doctrinal consistency and the implications of divine inspiration:
1 is fairly easy to determine - one just has to compare the assortment of manuscripts and see if there is harmony across the board on a given topic. For example, if all docs address Jesus Christ being the end of the law - what about this one manuscript that mentions some sin offerings are still required? That would be a red flag to me on that one doc - in other words, probably disqualified from being in canon.
~~~~
2 takes a little more thought. It’s been discussed earlier that there’s another aspect of assuming God inspired the writers - the written words of God are subsumed under the big umbrella of God’s attributes - like omniscience and omnipotence.
Here’s one of my litmus tests for theory and practice of hermeneutics. You can also file this under one of the many ways to shoot holes in Bullinger/ wierwille 4 crucified baloney. If God already knew that some time way in the future people would misunderstand how many were crucified with Jesus - if it was really that important then why didn’t He just plainly say in each Gospel or in at least one of them that there were 4 others crucified with Jesus. If it was that crucial to the case for arguing the death of Jesus - Don’t you think God in His foreknowledge would have headed that confusion off at the pass by locking in the number of those crucified?
Think about the case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I read a great book with that title that gets into looking at the Gospel record as an historian or lawyer would - and then you get into probabilities and proximity to event and witnesses- both hostile and friendly. A hostile witness would be someone who does NOT believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Along the lines of the January 6th committee the record notes certain individuals who opposed Jesus conspired to say Jesus’ disciples stole His body from the tomb.
Here I am about 2 thousand years after the facts of what actually happened. What do I make of the differences and minor conflicts in the Gospel records? Heteros or allos …thief or evil doer ? Well, different eye witnesses can relate different details…certain things may be out of sequence…even high tech CSI type tv shows allow for discrepancies in testimony of witnesses cuz no one is a freakin’ digital recorder! But all Gospels do agree on Jesus’ resurrection.
Edited by T-Bone 4 editors were crucified for missing the 12 typos during the 40 days and 40 nights of editing this post
FYI - just speaking for myself - I made a big mistake absorbing PFAL some 50 years ago…about 36 years ago I changed the process to analyze instead…. It helps keep out the riff raff of cult indoctrination if you know what I mean
Yes, actually I really DO know what you mean. That was the reason I did my analyzing FIRST, right after I took the class. It took years, but I was analyzing the contents of the class, not the mechanics of the Corps. I could see from a distance that there was too much VPW adulation going on in there. I sort of envied the new members of the Corps and their dedication, but they also looked impulsive and a little reckless, going all the way without a bunch of critical thinking tests of the material being taught.
I am so glad I analyzed PFAL first, and delayed going all the way. After 11 years of analysis, I went WoW, but that same year I advised my WoW sister to drop out of the Corps after her first year as an apprentice, or something like that.
The culty part of the ministry gave rise to the Corps Nazi platoon in the 1980s, as Craig's rule rose. Meanwhile many were forgetting the basic PFAL material.
The good advice from Christ Geer, that I search within the Bible for canon hints, was given to me in 1972, before he went into the Corps. He was a good guy then, and very smart. A bad leader would tell me my canon doubts were from a devil spirit, and that I should shove my questions under the rug.
Yeah - you’re repeating the concepts wierwille taught… I don’t think they’re valid because humans still retain the image and likeness of God after the fall though it’s now tarnished…I don’t see measured out concept in scripture. I don’t see where you can be do definitive on this topic when it’s not given in scripture.
I am ALWAYS going to be repeating "concepts wierwille taught"
You seem to have an anti-bias confirmation problem. Can't you remember VPW got those good concepts from good people?
We could talk a long time about spirit in Adam dying, and spirit upon being in measure, but that would be another thread. I am settled with concepts like "in that very day thou shalt surely die" and all the other concept in written PFAL. They passed my tests, and in a non-culty atmosphere, totally unsupervised.
I'm struggling with a question I hope you can answer, Mike.
How's come you were so smart 50 years ago and we were all so dumb?
In other categories I was stupid. I was always an oddball, but not by choice. I was usually too smart in theoretical areas, but too stupid in practical matters. This still plagues me.
Smartness and IQ are not all they are cracked up to be. I see nearly everyone is a genius in SOME category. What matters in life are what kinds of smartness is most useful for self and others.
Trust me, thought I grew up in a rich science atmosphere, I myself was very stupid in social matters that were important to me. I am thankful that I was smart enough to analyze PFAL right from the start. I still struggle for smarts in matters of practical living.
Not sure what your hesitancy is about- if you have a chance to read FF Bruce’s books on NT docs you’d get a better idea of textual criticism- because they have the data and evidence to observe - the existing ancient manuscripts and other ancient texts by leaders quoting from them - I don’t understand why you doubt this process- textual research is not trying to create scripture in a lab - they’re examining the ancient docs and comparing copies - to see if a word was transposed - and like I shared in a post quoting Bruce’s works - small errors of copying were negligible and so no impact to basic tenets.
I don’t understand what your concern is
Bruce and Metzger are new to me.
Maybe I read the wrong canon historians back in 1972. All I know is that I had lots of doubts about the Divine inspiration as I read them. When I turned to read what Paul and the others had to say about writing and distributing freshly written scriptures I was encouraged.
I don’t get what you see as high stakes. What high stakes? What does leadership preoccupied with imbalance mean? Imbalance of what? ...
My 1972 impression of the history approaching 425 AD was war-like at times, with competing schools of thought. The devil/Satan had lots of chances of sneaking in counterfeit books, and snuffing out genuine ones.
We know that happened at the verse level INSIDE the writings; it's only logical the devil/Satan would exploit the opportunities (bloody fighting, for instance) OUTSIDE the writings in the gradual recognition of the final canon.
The corruptions I see that entered the text, and for 4 centuries entered into the clarity of the apostles original canon, are surgical and few, and among random noise glitches.But I see the VITAL topics, like how Christians can effectively take the place of the absent Christ, how we are more than conquerors, that we are sealed with seed spirit, never to lose it, and the lifelong opportunity to get back in fellowship and work with God and accumulate eternal rewards…. and many more things of the Mystery like that…. were HIGH STAKES targets of the devil/Satan.
There were other obfuscation techniques available(language evolution and death, Orientalisms, organized religion, etc) but text corruption for many centuries, and canon corruption for 4 centuries, were two of the biggies.
If God already knew that some time way in the future people would misunderstand how many were crucified with Jesus - if it was really that important then why didn’t He just plainly say in each Gospel...
Best I can remember, that importance was more in the minds of us students. That data, in itself, was not so important.
I get the impression that you, like many others, missed understanding in PFAL what was meant by the Gospel of John handling TIME in a manner different than the other Gospels.
I had a very difficult time explaining that TIME point in twig teachings or witnessing for years, but finally got it down.
Does your re-analysis (with differing Postulates) revolve around the Gospel of John?
Best I can remember, that importance was more in the minds of us students. That data, in itself, was not so important.
I get the impression that you, like many others, missed understanding in PFAL what was meant by the Gospel of John handling TIME in a manner different than the other Gospels.
I had a very difficult time explaining that TIME point in twig teachings or witnessing for years, but finally got it down.
Does your re-analysis (with differing Postulates) revolve around the Gospel of John?
It's not a re-analysis. It's merely a straightforward analysis. Bullinger's creativity requires lots of assumptions (postulates) and glove-fitting. An honest reading doesn't require a lot of assumptions to MAKE anything fit.
Yes, actually I really DO know what you mean. That was the reason I did my analyzing FIRST, right after I took the class. It took years, but I was analyzing the contents of the class, not the mechanics of the Corps. I could see from a distance that there was too much VPW adulation going on in there. I sort of envied the new members of the Corps and their dedication, but they also looked impulsive and a little reckless, going all the way without a bunch of critical thinking tests of the material being taught.
I am so glad I analyzed PFAL first, and delayed going all the way. After 11 years of analysis, I went WoW, but that same year I advised my WoW sister to drop out of the Corps after her first year as an apprentice, or something like that.
The culty part of the ministry gave rise to the Corps Nazi platoon in the 1980s, as Craig's rule rose. Meanwhile many were forgetting the basic PFAL material.
Mike ????????????
WTF ?
I guess I was mistaken about our recent conversation. I thought WE were having a mini-breakthrough talking TO each other rather than talking PAST each other.
Maybe you don’t realize this but to me - to ME, Mike you come off insulting and condescending almost every time I OPEN myself up TO YOU - I make MYSELF VULNERABLE TO YOU, by admitting how naive I was for believing the nonsense of PFAL or deciding to go in the corps .
And how do YOU respond? You go on and on about how you were so much smarter than me because you thoroughly analyzed stuff before buying into it. You were smarter than me to not go in the corps.
You’re lucky I am communicating to you via a post and not by phone or Zoom. It’s a little easier to practice some self-restraint this way - cuz once I fire off a post it might be harder to recall that bullet. Of this was live I’d probably be cussing up a storm - and then I’d feel bad for attacking you.
But you know what ? I’m gonna blow this off with a new provisio of talking either AT or PAST you. Because YOU have taken advantage of my upfront and honest way of trying to communicate with YOU - I will now require fruit that PROVES you are repentant and want reconciliation. Don’t worry I’ll know it when I see it.
On the slim chance that you are unaware of how hypocritical and condescending you are or that you are so deluded that you really think you thoroughly analyzed PFAL before buying into it 100% - then YOU will have to solve that problem YOURSELF! I’m no therapist or expert on anything so I can’t diagnose you and can’t help fix you. I’m the coworker - the 3rd person that comes along in the guy who fell down in the manhole story I heard on The West Wing. I HUMBLED MYSELF to YOU by relating I fell for wierwille’s con in the worst way - I REPEATEDLY jumped down into that cult-indoctrinated manhole mindset you’ve fallen into years ago and strived to show you the way out since I’m very familiar with the escape routes.
And how do you respond ?
This has been YOUR response . YOUR response! This has been YOUR response almost every time: “you idiot, why did you come down here?!?! It’s great down here. I’m having the time of my life!”
I have a “policy” of not writing people off. I would love to break my own policy - but instead a genuine two-way communication is being held in abeyance.
Maybe you don’t realize this but to me - to ME, Mike you come off insulting and condescending almost every time I OPEN myself up TO YOU - I make MYSELF VULNERABLE TO YOU, by admitting how naive I was for believing the nonsense of PFAL or deciding to go in the corps .
And how do YOU respond? You go on and on about how you were so much smarter than me because you thoroughly analyzed stuff before buying into it. You were smarter than me to not go in the corps.
Which is the exact reason I stopped responding and posting on these topics. It's pointless because there is no honest diuscussion with Mike. He has an agenda (get us to retake PFLAP), he seems to think were all stupid for not believing what he does, it's obvious he doesn't really read anyone's posts besides looking for cannon fodder, passive/agressive veiled insults - constantly, and .... he uses textbook trolling tactics that are designed to disrupt, distract, etc. I really wanted to get into this topic but Mike makes it all about himself and we oblige. Anywho. I actually applaud you and Nathan_Jr's stick-tuit-ness because someone has to respond to the constant BS. My 2 cents anyway.
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
Please remember that the Bottom-Up approach only deals with the writers and their attitudes and activities late in the First Century.
It is the Top-Down approach that STARTS with the finished list that was handed down from around 425 AD, coins the word and definition for what it wants to find, and then looks for lists and collections and artifacts that date many, many years after the writers' deaths.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Good questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yeah - you’re repeating the concepts wierwille taught… I don’t think they’re valid because humans still retain the image and likeness of God after the fall though it’s now tarnished…I don’t see measured out concept in scripture. I don’t see where you can be do definitive on this topic when it’s not given in scripture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I know people who are devil fixated on nearly any subject on the table.
THAT kind of behavior I abhor. When it wasn't genuine paranoia, it was then often a power trip Corps Nazi leaders used on us un-taught little people.
I do see the devil in operation when HIGH STAKES are involved. The develop of our modern canon involved bloody fighting at times in the political twists and turns fort the political power to say with sufficient loudness "THIS is the official list of books in the Bible."
That canon process was high stakes. It was not the devil involved in our daily lives, like leadership would be preoccupied with with imbalance. It was very high stakes long ago when the lists of the canon were developing. I do see the devil in there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Of course the writers must have realized it was inspiration. You make it sound like the writers decided the canon. They probably didn’t envision the whole picture ( sometime in the future there will be a book where these are all compiled together). But knowing they were sacred texts there probably were steps to preserve and protect them - trusting God would oversee the project - spiritual continuity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The books and letters that were agreed upon in the late 4th century and afterward were scriptures read in home fellowships and churches since the first century. It was based on religious tradition that originated with Paul. The Biblical canon didn't just fall out of the sky one day in the fifth century.
But other gospels and apocalypses were valued and read in fellowships where they spoke in the most natural, authentic tongues of angels, not counterfeit lo shontas. These books you may not know about, because the powers that be don't want you to know about them. Maybe for good reason.
Or, maybe because the devil wants them hidden because of their power. Maybe because the war god of Abraham said these 66 and no more. Maybe because men of God thought that they knew that they knew that they knew.
Did you read the Metzger article? It's NOT in conflict at the root level of your proposition- that men of God, inspired by God, lead by hs, worked to ensure the holiest of holy books were preserved and canonized, and all others were burned buried.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Not sure what your hesitancy is about- if you have a chance to read FF Bruce’s books on NT docs you’d get a better idea of textual criticism- because they have the data and evidence to observe - the existing ancient manuscripts and other ancient texts by leaders quoting from them - I don’t understand why you doubt this process- textual research is not trying to create scripture in a lab - they’re examining the ancient docs and comparing copies - to see if a word was transposed - and like I shared in a post quoting Bruce’s works - small errors of copying were negligible and so no impact to basic tenets.
I don’t understand what your concern is
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Or was it confusing and discouraging because it didn’t jive with PFAL?
I don’t see how looking for the obvious meaning of the text would be confusing and discouraging. It should be encouraging that a simple reading of the Bible should be do enjoyable and enlightening.
what I think is confusing and discouraging is when wierwille / Bullinger using - I guess your bottom up approach come up with 4 crucified! What nonsense.. that’s why I have no confidence in wierwille and Bullinger’s work. I feel like they’re trying to pull something half the time. They have credibility issues
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Mostly this. This is the organic machinery of canonization. The writers of scripture themselves didn't say, "among all the scriptures, ours and ours alone." It was an organic process (not even the right word) over time among men like Walter and victor. Holy Men of God making sure that that the right holy books and letters of God were vouchsafed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I don’t get what you see as high stakes. What high stakes? What does leadership preoccupied with imbalance mean? Imbalance of what? Maybe that leadership needs to get real jobs - and quit lording it over people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
PFAL asked questions- that’s good - but dictated what the answers should be - that’s not so good. All nonsense and plagiarized material aside , if PFAL was presented as one way or some different ways of exploring the Bible it probably would have been a little helpful.
Some of the criteria for development of the NT canon was the internal evidence of doctrinal consistency and the implications of divine inspiration:
1 is fairly easy to determine - one just has to compare the assortment of manuscripts and see if there is harmony across the board on a given topic. For example, if all docs address Jesus Christ being the end of the law - what about this one manuscript that mentions some sin offerings are still required? That would be a red flag to me on that one doc - in other words, probably disqualified from being in canon.
~~~~
2 takes a little more thought. It’s been discussed earlier that there’s another aspect of assuming God inspired the writers - the written words of God are subsumed under the big umbrella of God’s attributes - like omniscience and omnipotence.
Here’s one of my litmus tests for theory and practice of hermeneutics. You can also file this under one of the many ways to shoot holes in Bullinger/ wierwille 4 crucified baloney. If God already knew that some time way in the future people would misunderstand how many were crucified with Jesus - if it was really that important then why didn’t He just plainly say in each Gospel or in at least one of them that there were 4 others crucified with Jesus. If it was that crucial to the case for arguing the death of Jesus - Don’t you think God in His foreknowledge would have headed that confusion off at the pass by locking in the number of those crucified?
Think about the case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I read a great book with that title that gets into looking at the Gospel record as an historian or lawyer would - and then you get into probabilities and proximity to event and witnesses- both hostile and friendly. A hostile witness would be someone who does NOT believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Along the lines of the January 6th committee the record notes certain individuals who opposed Jesus conspired to say Jesus’ disciples stole His body from the tomb.
Here I am about 2 thousand years after the facts of what actually happened. What do I make of the differences and minor conflicts in the Gospel records? Heteros or allos …thief or evil doer ? Well, different eye witnesses can relate different details…certain things may be out of sequence…even high tech CSI type tv shows allow for discrepancies in testimony of witnesses cuz no one is a freakin’ digital recorder! But all Gospels do agree on Jesus’ resurrection.
Edited by T-Bone4 editors were crucified for missing the 12 typos during the 40 days and 40 nights of editing this post
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes, actually I really DO know what you mean. That was the reason I did my analyzing FIRST, right after I took the class. It took years, but I was analyzing the contents of the class, not the mechanics of the Corps. I could see from a distance that there was too much VPW adulation going on in there. I sort of envied the new members of the Corps and their dedication, but they also looked impulsive and a little reckless, going all the way without a bunch of critical thinking tests of the material being taught.
I am so glad I analyzed PFAL first, and delayed going all the way. After 11 years of analysis, I went WoW, but that same year I advised my WoW sister to drop out of the Corps after her first year as an apprentice, or something like that.
The culty part of the ministry gave rise to the Corps Nazi platoon in the 1980s, as Craig's rule rose. Meanwhile many were forgetting the basic PFAL material.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The good advice from Christ Geer, that I search within the Bible for canon hints, was given to me in 1972, before he went into the Corps. He was a good guy then, and very smart. A bad leader would tell me my canon doubts were from a devil spirit, and that I should shove my questions under the rug.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm struggling with a question I hope you can answer, Mike.
How's come you were so smart 50 years ago and we were all so dumb?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I am ALWAYS going to be repeating "concepts wierwille taught"
You seem to have an anti-bias confirmation problem. Can't you remember VPW got those good concepts from good people?
We could talk a long time about spirit in Adam dying, and spirit upon being in measure, but that would be another thread. I am settled with concepts like "in that very day thou shalt surely die" and all the other concept in written PFAL. They passed my tests, and in a non-culty atmosphere, totally unsupervised.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
In other categories I was stupid. I was always an oddball, but not by choice. I was usually too smart in theoretical areas, but too stupid in practical matters. This still plagues me.
Smartness and IQ are not all they are cracked up to be. I see nearly everyone is a genius in SOME category. What matters in life are what kinds of smartness is most useful for self and others.
Trust me, thought I grew up in a rich science atmosphere, I myself was very stupid in social matters that were important to me. I am thankful that I was smart enough to analyze PFAL right from the start. I still struggle for smarts in matters of practical living.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Bruce and Metzger are new to me.
Maybe I read the wrong canon historians back in 1972. All I know is that I had lots of doubts about the Divine inspiration as I read them. When I turned to read what Paul and the others had to say about writing and distributing freshly written scriptures I was encouraged.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
My 1972 impression of the history approaching 425 AD was war-like at times, with competing schools of thought. The devil/Satan had lots of chances of sneaking in counterfeit books, and snuffing out genuine ones.
We know that happened at the verse level INSIDE the writings; it's only logical the devil/Satan would exploit the opportunities (bloody fighting, for instance) OUTSIDE the writings in the gradual recognition of the final canon.
The corruptions I see that entered the text, and for 4 centuries entered into the clarity of the apostles original canon, are surgical and few, and among random noise glitches. But I see the VITAL topics, like how Christians can effectively take the place of the absent Christ, how we are more than conquerors, that we are sealed with seed spirit, never to lose it, and the lifelong opportunity to get back in fellowship and work with God and accumulate eternal rewards…. and many more things of the Mystery like that…. were HIGH STAKES targets of the devil/Satan.
There were other obfuscation techniques available (language evolution and death, Orientalisms, organized religion, etc) but text corruption for many centuries, and canon corruption for 4 centuries, were two of the biggies.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Best I can remember, that importance was more in the minds of us students. That data, in itself, was not so important.
I get the impression that you, like many others, missed understanding in PFAL what was meant by the Gospel of John handling TIME in a manner different than the other Gospels.
I had a very difficult time explaining that TIME point in twig teachings or witnessing for years, but finally got it down.
Does your re-analysis (with differing Postulates) revolve around the Gospel of John?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It's not a re-analysis. It's merely a straightforward analysis. Bullinger's creativity requires lots of assumptions (postulates) and glove-fitting. An honest reading doesn't require a lot of assumptions to MAKE anything fit.
This will be handled in another thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike ????????????
WTF ?
I guess I was mistaken about our recent conversation. I thought WE were having a mini-breakthrough talking TO each other rather than talking PAST each other.
Maybe you don’t realize this but to me - to ME, Mike you come off insulting and condescending almost every time I OPEN myself up TO YOU - I make MYSELF VULNERABLE TO YOU, by admitting how naive I was for believing the nonsense of PFAL or deciding to go in the corps .
And how do YOU respond? You go on and on about how you were so much smarter than me because you thoroughly analyzed stuff before buying into it. You were smarter than me to not go in the corps.
You’re lucky I am communicating to you via a post and not by phone or Zoom. It’s a little easier to practice some self-restraint this way - cuz once I fire off a post it might be harder to recall that bullet. Of this was live I’d probably be cussing up a storm - and then I’d feel bad for attacking you.
But you know what ? I’m gonna blow this off with a new provisio of talking either AT or PAST you. Because YOU have taken advantage of my upfront and honest way of trying to communicate with YOU - I will now require fruit that PROVES you are repentant and want reconciliation. Don’t worry I’ll know it when I see it.
On the slim chance that you are unaware of how hypocritical and condescending you are or that you are so deluded that you really think you thoroughly analyzed PFAL before buying into it 100% - then YOU will have to solve that problem YOURSELF! I’m no therapist or expert on anything so I can’t diagnose you and can’t help fix you. I’m the coworker - the 3rd person that comes along in the guy who fell down in the manhole story I heard on The West Wing. I HUMBLED MYSELF to YOU by relating I fell for wierwille’s con in the worst way - I REPEATEDLY jumped down into that cult-indoctrinated manhole mindset you’ve fallen into years ago and strived to show you the way out since I’m very familiar with the escape routes.
And how do you respond ?
This has been YOUR response . YOUR response! This has been YOUR response almost every time: “you idiot, why did you come down here?!?! It’s great down here. I’m having the time of my life!”
I have a “policy” of not writing people off. I would love to break my own policy - but instead a genuine two-way communication is being held in abeyance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Which is the exact reason I stopped responding and posting on these topics. It's pointless because there is no honest diuscussion with Mike. He has an agenda (get us to retake PFLAP), he seems to think were all stupid for not believing what he does, it's obvious he doesn't really read anyone's posts besides looking for cannon fodder, passive/agressive veiled insults - constantly, and .... he uses textbook trolling tactics that are designed to disrupt, distract, etc. I really wanted to get into this topic but Mike makes it all about himself and we oblige. Anywho. I actually applaud you and Nathan_Jr's stick-tuit-ness because someone has to respond to the constant BS. My 2 cents anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The secret weapon is where (W-H-E-R-E) you keep those two cents. Go to the other New Testament Canon thread to find out.
It's self-analyzing, perfect logic. Kinda like perfect prayer. Lo shonta!
Edited by Nathan_JrAbadaba doo!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
ROFLMAO! After watching that salient little clip I have to say that I won't be touching pennies anylonger....lo-shonta!
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.