Please don't think it was an extensive collaboration. Over the course of about 10 years, we met a total of 3 times for discussion, and exchanged a few letters. He confirmed some of what I wrote, nixxed one, and added some items for me to consider. I'll share what I know.
Thanks for the clarification. I look forward to you sharing some notes from your limited collaboration with him. Or just your own notes. Walter doesn't matter to me. This can be the last time we ever have to mention his name, if it's all the same to you.
Thanks for the clarification. I look forward to you sharing some notes from your limited collaboration with him. Or just your own notes. Walter doesn't matter to me. This can be the last time we ever have to mention his name, if it's all the same to you.
Before I do that, I'll collect my comments on the other thread and re-write a little to post here. I'm headed out to go dancing with the Deadheads soon, so not today.
The OT had an impressive technology to protect it that resembles computer file transfer techniques of today and the way nuclear weapons are manufactured, called the Massorah, or the Fence.
The Masorah is the transmission of religious tradition or the religious tradition itself? From this the Masoretic Text is derived, right? The MT dates from the 7th to 11th century. AND the variants among the MT, the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls are not insignificant.
Would you please elaborate on this advanced technology?
Before I do that, I'll collect my comments on the other thread and re-write a little to post here. I'm headed out to go dancing with the Deadheads soon, so not today.
Cat on a tin roof, dogs in a pile. Nothing left to do but....
HERE is an interesting youtube from the "Who Wrote The Bible?" series that deals with the origin and chronology of the gospels. The episodes that precede it deal with the old testament, while the episodes that follow it deal with the epistles, as well as Daniel and Revelation.
The Masorah is the transmission of religious tradition or the religious tradition itself? From this the Masoretic Text is derived, right? The MT dates from the 7th to 11th century. AND the variants among the MT, the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls are not insignificant.
Would you please elaborate on this advanced technology?
No. I said about all I can remember from many years ago. I am not up to speed on this topic. I simply answered a question with what I finally settled upon in the early 80s. There is plenty written on it out there. This was my favorite topic from about 1972 to '82. I have not touched it then. Today was my first review of it since then, I think. I may have posted a little on it long ago.
My own work on the OT canon was very skimpy because I learned early that IF the OT scriptures were in the same disarray that the NT suffered, then John the Baptist would have had to correct the problems so that Jesus would have something solid. But God had everything arraigned for the Nativity and including prophets and several people prophesying. I am confident that young Jesus had a perfect set of scriptures to learn from.
The OT had an impressive technology to protect it that resembles computer file transfer techniques of today and the way nuclear weapons are manufactured, called the Massorah, or the Fence.
The NT had no Massorah, and before the ink was dry, most of Paul's leaders had lost it, and there were persecutions happening by then by Nero. Paul was shamed, being in prison, and Timothy was unrecognized by the reprobate church that it had become by the death of Paul. No one knows what happened to Timothy, as he is not in any historical records, just a skimpy line in RC tradition that he became the Bishop of Ephesus, with no verification.
The OT had no such problems. The people had been "bred" for this, to produce the Messiah and that seems to include preserving the scriptures for young Jesus to grow up with, and a cousin with a healthy dose of the spirit, and relatives who could get spirit upon enough to prophesy.
I wonder whereyou learned all that.It seems to echo the same misconception that wierwille pushed on TWI-followers. So, we would need wierwille’s great “research skills” and of course God’s assistant to help him filter out the error in plagiarized material.
In my opinion, one of the many subliminal messages buried deep in wierwille’s ideology is that The Word takes the place of the absent Christand a variant of that might be The Word takes the place of the Spirit of God. Every PFAL grad understands that The Wordis code for wierwille’s interpretation of the Bible. It is pathetic how many different ways wierwille has supposedly figured out how to limit God. I’ll share a post from another thread in a bit that shoots holes in the false assumption that John the Baptist or Jesus “had a perfect set of scriptures to learn from”.
In PFAL wierwille makes such a big deal in Luke 4 about Jesus finding the place where it was written in Isaiah – oh how He must have studied “The Word” . I think wierwille was so gung-ho self-promoting with his class that teaches “The Word” that the Spirit of God is given little attention. Backing up to Luke 3we readJesus was baptized… And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
Note the continuity – our attention is again drawn to the Holy Spirit right off the bat inLuke 4- in just a few excerpts:
Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where for forty days he was tempted by the devil…
Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him. He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor”
Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” excerpts fromLuke 4
Jesus didn’t need “a perfect set of scriptures to learn from” – He had the Holy Spirit !
And news flash – a perfect set of scriptures – wasn’t even available back then!
Now moving on to my post from another thread that’s relevant here
~ ~ ~ ~
I’ve shared this on the 2nd wave thread –--here- I’ll share just some excerpts and include the hyperlinks that relate to this thread because it all has to do with “The Bible” Jesus had access to:
In the AUTHORIZED book on TWI, titled “The Way Living in Love” (by Elena S. Whiteside, co 1972, American Christian Press, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-89132), on page 178 Whiteside quotes wierwille as he talked about his long search for definitive answers…wierwille stated “I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on. And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others. Well, I nearly flew off my chair. I couldn't believe that God would talk to me.”
Expanding on what I said in my previous post: “Think about the early days of the 1st century church. They didn’t have little New Testaments to pass out for witnessing or to follow along with while in church. They didn’t have a complicated theological system and didn’t need to teach converts the keys to the interpretation of The Word - they EXPERIENCED and SHARED about the Living Word - Jesus Christ. Mark 16:20 says they simply went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord WORKING WITH them.” I add the following...
Contrary to wierwille’s IMAGINATION of how HE THOUGHT “The Word” was made known in the first century – there is scriptural evidence to indicate Jesus as well as famous preachers like Paul had to rely on whatever scrolls were available in local synagogues… Acts 17:1-4 ESV mentions a typical means used by Paul: ‘Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.”
The only “Bible” in Jesus’ and Paul’s day were copies of scrolls of what we’ve come to know as the Old Testament see Bible Hub - The Bible in the Days of Jesus Christ - and it’s not like every synagogue or other repository for religious / sacred writings had the ENTIRE Old Testament. An interesting side study is the formation of the Old Testament…”It was during the reign of Hezekiah of Judah in the 8th century B.C. that historians believe what would become the Old Testament began to take form, the result of royal scribes recording royal history and heroic legends. During the reign of Josiah in the 6th century B.C., the books of Deuteronomy and Judges were compiled and added. The final form of the Hebrew Bible developed over the next 200 years when Judah was swallowed up by the expanding Persian Empire.” ( from History website - how the Bible was formed ).
According to one answer offered on the internet:
“…Your average synagogue in Jesus’ day would likely have no scrolls at all, and not even a building.
Please remember that Jesus lived during the Second Temple Era. Rabbinical Judaism centered around synagogues did not develop until after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple some four decades after Jesus’ death. During Jesus’ lifetime, the typical synagogue was just a group of villagers who met to decide local matters according to what they knew of the law, much of which would have been transmitted orally in the rural area of Galilee where Jesus lived, where there weren’t even any Roman roads.
In the larger towns/cities the synagogue would have met indoors, and would likely have had scrolls containing the Law. But the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh (which Christians call the “Old Testament”) containing the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings had not yet been established as a canon. Various groups used various collections of scrolls, not all of which agreed with the official scrolls held at the Temple in Jerusalem. And at the time of Jesus, when the legitimate Zadokite priests had been replaced by Rome with Idumean priests, who had no scriptural authority to hold their positions in the first place, many groups considered the current Temple leadership to be illegitimate. The followers of Jesus, for example, were into the Enoch traditions, which were relatively recent and generally not considered authoritative.
In short, a synagogue at the time of Jesus was nothing at all like a modern synagogue. It was not involved in worship, which was centralized in Jerusalem officially but also still took place in various rural “high places” where there were altars and in homes. Rather, the synagogue was more like a local court which decided what to do about all the minutiae contained in the Law, such as divorces, how to compensate someone whose livestock had been allegedly harmed by someone else, what punishment to mete out to a thief, and so forth. Whether or not an actual Torah scroll was available depended on how large and wealthy the place was.”
Even a quick search on the internet of WHEN The Bible was written will give you a wide variety of answers – NONE of which will support wierwille’s FANTASY that God would teach him the Word as it had not been known SINCE the FIRST CENTURY…wierwille’s ABSURD, RIDICULOUSLYFANTASTIC CLAIM makes God look like an idiot who never paid attention at a college or seminary ( wierwille’s ABSURD, RIDICULOUSLY FANTASTIC CLAIM makes God look like an idiot who never paid attention at a college or seminary (whether accredited or not ) when curriculum got into the history on how we got the book known as The Bible.
The Masorah is the transmission of religious tradition or the religious tradition itself? From this the Masoretic Text is derived, right? The MT dates from the 7th to 11th century. AND the variants among the MT, the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls are not insignificant.
Would you please elaborate on this advanced technology?
Something is wrong. I may have had the wrong word or way wrong spelling. I just looked in Wikipedia and got the feeling I made a mistake. Maybe it is in Bullinger somewhere. They put numbers in the margin to verify that copies were accurate.
Well cool - but you seem to have made the same false assumptions he did
This topic of the canon bothered me a lot almost 50 years ago. I searched outside the Bible for answers and only found discouragement. Oddly, it was Chris Geer who steered me to inquire within the Bible, instead of academic history approaches. He was a good guy then at Rye NY, before he went Corps. The Corps ruined a lot, IMO.
I thought at first that it wasn't possible for the NT writers to know what happened in the centuries after they wrote. Boy! Was I wrong! But I was very new in the Word then, and that's why it didn't occur to me to look within the Bible for the canon issues. For the next ten years nearly every time I opened my Bible I saw another verse to add to my collection. Z
In a nutshell what I found all over, old and new testaments, was that it was decent and in order for the men to whom God gave His revelations to, also received the revelation as to how to have it preserved and passed on, canonical issues included. Second Timothy, and Second Peter were the epitome of this.
After the early 80s I put it aside happy with the canon, and then other, bigger issues came up like the meltdown.
This topic of the canon bothered me a lot almost 50 years ago. I searched outside the Bible for answers and only found discouragement. Oddly, it was Chris Geer who steered me to inquire within the Bible, instead of academic history approaches. He was a good guy then at Rye NY, before he went Corps. The Corps ruined a lot, IMO.
I thought at first that it wasn't possible for the NT writers to know what happened in the centuries after they wrote. Boy! Was I wrong! But I was very new in the Word then, and that's why it didn't occur to me to look within the Bible for the canon issues. For the next ten years nearly every time I opened my Bible I saw another verse to add to my collection. Z
In a nutshell what I found all over, old and new testaments, was that it was decent and in order for the men to whom God gave His revelations to, also received the revelation as to how to have it preserved and passed on, canonical issues included. Second Timothy, and Second Peter were the epitome of this.
After the early 80s I put it aside happy with the canon, and then other, bigger issues came up like the meltdown.
“Oddly, it was Chris Geer who steered me to inquire within the Bible, instead of academic history approaches.”That’s the same approach wierwille had. Screw what real academic scholars have to offer – let me show you what The Word says about itself.If it's wrong, I'll tell you.
Seems like you want to recycle the same baloney wierwille promoted…wait, wait – recycle that’s it – let me repost something I said on another thread – here
see how real scholars do analyze the ancient texts compared to wierwille’s playing telephone with translations and versions - - which are interpretations of the ancient texts - he didn't even look at the ancient texts himself - he read someone else's interpretation of the text - he didn't even know much about the Biblical languages...he lied about taking correspondence course from Moody...PFAL was a royal con job!...anyway here's an excerpt from my post:
I think we can shorten the discussion by just getting right to the heart of the matter; two notable scholars F.F. Bruce and Sir Frederic Kenyon – both with expertise in the historical reliability of the New Testament have stated that very little has been lost as to what was originally written in the New Testament docs, in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by FF Bruce... it says on pages 14 and 15:
“The study of the kind of attestation found in MSS and quotations in later writers is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism. This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two slips at least. When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists’ errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.
To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:
‘The Interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.’ “
== == == == ==
Bruce’s point is simple – with the increase of hand-copies comes the possibility of scribal errors – but that also means you have that many more “witnesses” as to what was originally said. And another thing to consider is what type of scribal errors occurred. Was a word misspelled, or repeated or transposed, etc. - - these would be easy to spot and corrected by comparing other copies...
It appears wierwille is somewhat removed from analyzing the actual texts that are still in existence; in the PFAL book, page 128 in chapter 11, “The Translations of the Word of God”, wierwille states:
“Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D., how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all verses.”
== == == == ==
I see two issues with wierwille’s approach:
First: He’s off by about a century and a half on the oldest manuscripts in existence – Bruce notes on page 10 of his book that there are in existence over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part and that the best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350.
Second: wierwille is not comparing Greek manuscripts – instead he is comparing translations or versions of the Bible! That’s like playing the telephone game - the first person states a message and by the time it goes through a whole line of people the message might sound somewhat different from the original. wierwille is at the end of the line - comparing how one translator interprets a phrase in the Greek to how another translator handles the same phrase. Frankly I don’t have much faith in wierwille’s ability to see beyond his own doctrinal preferences to note differences or similarities in translations since he would come up with goofy phrases that blurred variations like “all without exception” and “all without distinction” – which is the same thing.
End of excerpt from my post on another thread
~ ~ ~ ~
Also, it seems like you’re working out from a confirmation bias. How do you determine what “was decent and in order for the men to whom God gave His revelations to, also received the revelation as to how to have it preserved and passed on, canonical issues included”? This sounds like circular reasoning.
“Oddly, it was Chris Geer who steered me to inquire within the Bible, instead of academic history approaches.”That’s the same approach wierwille had. Screw what real academic scholars have to offer – let me show you what The Word says about itself.
Seems like you want to recycle the same baloney wierwille promoted…wait, wait – recycle that’s it – let me repost something I said on another thread – here
see how real scholars do analyze the ancient texts compared to wierwille’s playing telephone with translations and versions - - which are interpretations of the ancient texts:
I think we can shorten the discussion by just getting right to the heart of the matter; two notable scholars F.F. Bruce and Sir Frederic Kenyon – both with expertise in the historical reliability of the New Testament have stated that very little has been lost as to what was originally written in the New Testament docs, in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by FF Bruce... it says on pages 14 and 15:
“The study of the kind of attestation found in MSS and quotations in later writers is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism. This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two slips at least. When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists’ errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.
To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:
‘The Interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.’ “
== == == == ==
Bruce’s point is simple – with the increase of hand-copies comes the possibility of scribal errors – but that also means you have that many more “witnesses” as to what was originally said. And another thing to consider is what type of scribal errors occurred. Was a word misspelled, or repeated or transposed, etc. - - these would be easy to spot and corrected by comparing other copies...
It appears wierwille is somewhat removed from analyzing the actual texts that are still in existence; in the PFAL book, page 128 in chapter 11, “The Translations of the Word of God”, wierwille states:
“Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D., how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all verses.”
== == == == ==
I see two issues with wierwille’s approach:
First: He’s off by about a century and a half on the oldest manuscripts in existence – Bruce notes on page 10 of his book that there are in existence over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part and that the best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350.
Second: wierwille is not comparing Greek manuscripts – instead he is comparing translations or versions of the Bible! That’s like playing the telephone game - the first person states a message and by the time it goes through a whole line of people the message might sound somewhat different from the original. wierwille is at the end of the line - comparing how one translator interprets a phrase in the Greek to how another translator handles the same phrase. Frankly I don’t have much faith in wierwille’s ability to see beyond his own doctrinal preferences to note differences or similarities in translations since he would come up with goofy phrases that blurred variations like “all without exception” and “all without distinction” – which is the same thing.
End of excerpt from my post on another thread
~ ~ ~ ~
Also, it seems like you’re working out from a confirmation bias. How do you determine what “was decent and in order for the men to whom God gave His revelations to, also received the revelation as to how to have it preserved and passed on, canonical issues included”? This sounds like circular reasoning.
Sorry, real scholars did not save my life and drag me out of the gutter.
In the 1990s I compared what I saw at top flight universities with what I saw in the 1970s.
Back then there was not total darkness on campus, in the 1990s it was total darkness.
VPW was not my only source for suspecting academia in the devil's hip pocket. It is the same as in the days of the Pharisees there. The more you post on academic hoidy toidyies, the less I am interested in what YOU say. I don't like the sources you admire; not at all. I do fine with God from what I learned in PFAL. No need here to change to the god of this world. Remember, it says that the adversary offered it all to Jesus, because it was given to him by Adam and he divvies it out to whomever he chooses, baring where God thwarts him. No thanks, the god of this world and the universities of this are not to be trusted. The counterfeit is close to the genuine. I took a class that enables me to separate truth from error, and the modern day sources of the most devilish error I am not interested in.
I got enough info to satisfy me about textual criticism from the introduction to our Inter-Linear Greek text.
....see how real scholars do analyze the ancient texts compared to wierwille’s
Sorry if I go t hot under the collar in my last response to you.
I'd rather discuss the scripture references that I found in my 10 year search for canon info.
Do you have any verses you can post on this topic? THAT kind of a discussion we can have. But to hear you trash my beloved teachers and what Word I love today will severely limit our discussion. I really dislike academia more and more.
Let's talk verses on this topic. Have you noticed the ones I already brought up?
Sorry, real scholars did not save my life and drag me out of the gutter.
In the 1990s I compared what I saw at top flight universities with what I saw in the 1970s.
Back then there was not total darkness on campus, in the 1990s it was total darkness.
VPW was not my only source for suspecting academia in the devil's hip pocket. It is the same as in the days of the Pharisees there. The more you post on academic hoidy toidyies, the less I am interested in what YOU say. I don't like the sources you admire; not at all. I do fine with God from what I learned in PFAL. No need here to change to the god of this world. Remember, it says that the adversary offered it all to Jesus, because it was given to him by Adam and he divvies it out to whomever he chooses, baring where God thwarts him. No thanks, the god of this world and the universities of this are not to be trusted. The counterfeit is close to the genuine. I took a class that enables me to separate truth from error, and the modern day sources of the most devilish error I am not interested in.
That’s funny because I took a class that claimed it would enable me to separate truth from error. It was called PFAL. Gee what a rip off! “the teacher” victor paul wierwille said there were 4 crucified with Jesus…what baloney…looks like wierwille couldn’t separate truth from error in Bullinger’s work – which he plagiarized !…and that make him qualified to teach me how to separate truth from error…no thanks…your testimonial does not ring true…you should have gone dancing with the deadheads…now you’ve made a mess all over this dance floor.
Sorry if I go t hot under the collar in my last response to you.
I'd rather discuss the scripture references that I found in my 10 year search for canon info.
Do you have any verses you can post on this topic? THAT kind of a discussion we can have. But to hear you trash my beloved teachers and what Word I love today will severely limit our discussion. I really dislike academia more and more.
Let's talk verses on this topic. Have you noticed the ones I already brought up?
Sorry to inform you but the title of this thread is The New Testament Canon – you can check out the starter post – here
“I'd rather discuss the scripture references that I found in my 10 year search for canon info.”
You see Mike, the definition of canon has nothing to do with scripture references.
Canon = an accepted rule or guide about how people should behave or about how something should be done. A canon is also a religious rule put in place by someone of authority. In the Roman Catholic Church, for example, rules approved by the pope are considered canon. The body of all the religious laws is also called a canon. The word canon is also used in religious contexts to specify which pieces of writing a person or group has determined are officially part of the teachings and religion. "Canon" originally has religious connotations, where it basically means "official." So canon texts are the authoritative books that a person or group has decided upon that make up the Bible…in all the definitions of canon it revolves around a group…a person…who decides what is accepted…it has nothing to do with the Bible itself or what any book claims within its own pages - it has to do with the criteria a person or group uses to determine what's in the canon - what is accepted as OFFICIAL
As Wikipedia states - Various biblical canons have developed through debate and agreement on the part of the religious authorities of their respective faiths and denominations. from Wikipedia: Biblical canon
guess you didn’t check out the hyperlinks I gave on dating the Bible and canon of the Bible…oh well
to reiterate...this thread is NOT about verses on the topic The New Testament Canon
This topic of the canon bothered me a lot almost 50 years ago.
What about this topic bothered you? I wonder if it's what also bothered victor.
Was it all the arguing about which books would be included? Was it the sectarian conflicts leading to winners and losers in a politically-charged arena of churchianity?
Was it the burned, banned and buried scriptures that didn't make the cut because one group won out over another?
What verses do you think answer the canonical problem? How did Mark, Luke, John and Paul (not Matthew?) assemble the canon? Was Paul really concerned with a canon of scripture? After all, he thought he knew God's timeline - he thought the eschaton was coming in his own lifetime.
First: He’s off by about a century and a half on the oldest manuscripts in existence – Bruce notes on page 10 of his book that there are in existence over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part and that the best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350.
The earliest MSS fragment is a credit card size papyrus of John: P52. I think normal date ranges are within 50 years, but P52 is so old they can only estimate within 100 years - 125CE-225CE... (I think. Not looking it up right now. Head's about to explode. Need to renew my mind.)
Could be that the first complete MSS of a whole gospel of epistle dates to around 350.
Your point is well taken. I recently caught this same error and have been meaning to add it to the Actual Error in PFAL thread.
That’s funny because I took a class that claimed it would enable me to separate truth from error. It was called PFAL. Gee what a rip off! “the teacher” victor paul wierwille said there were 4 crucified with Jesus…what baloney…looks like wierwille couldn’t separate truth from error in Bullinger’s work – which he plagiarized !…and that make him qualified to teach me how to separate truth from error…no thanks…your testimonial does not ring true…you should have gone dancing with the deadheads…now you’ve made a mess all over this dance floor.
Well, I was too tired to go dancing.
Too much posting costs me energy at times.
Well, thanks for letting me know which Postulates you are starting from.
I explained what I mean by Postulates to WordWolf.
You may find it by searching "Godel"
Knowing that makes it MUCH easier for me to skim read your posts.
I will engage more with those who want to talk content.
I have had MANY teachers to choose and sample and focus on. Your distraction with VPW bashing, is too distracting for me to devote serious time to.
Sometimes I can get into good discussions here with less distracted/distracting posters.
You'll have to read our posts together, and how I discuss things in depth with them.
Sorry, real scholars did not save my life and drag me out of the gutter.
In the 1990s I compared what I saw at top flight universities with what I saw in the 1970s.
Back then there was not total darkness on campus, in the 1990s it was total darkness.
VPW was not my only source for suspecting academia in the devil's hip pocket. It is the same as in the days of the Pharisees there. The more you post on academic hoidy toidyies, the less I am interested in what YOU say. I don't like the sources you admire; not at all. I do fine with God from what I learned in PFAL. No need here to change to the god of this world. Remember, it says that the adversary offered it all to Jesus, because it was given to him by Adam and he divvies it out to whomever he chooses, baring where God thwarts him. No thanks, the god of this world and the universities of this are not to be trusted. The counterfeit is close to the genuine. I took a class that enables me to separate truth from error, and the modern day sources of the most devilish error I am not interested in.
I got enough info to satisfy me about textual criticism from the introduction to our Inter-Linear Greek text.
What kind of Dr. was victor? Was he a medical doctor? A dentist? A veterinarian?
No. He mail-ordered a doctorate of theology and was issued the certificate as soon as his check cleared. This is an academic, scholastic credential. Theology is in the same school as philosophy. victor coveted this credential of academia. It was a source of great anxiety and insecurity that turned into great pride and pretentious puffery. A Doctor. A Bible scholar. A credentialed "teacher."
to reiterate...this thread is NOT about verses on the topic The New Testament Canon
You may have been skimming my posts, because I don't think I said that.
I said.... I think.... I was tired then.... and tired now.
I think I said that all I have to offer on this thread is the Bible verses I collected for 10 years,
and a few writings I did 30-40 years ago about what I saw in that large collection.
Did you find my Postulates Policy text to WW?
I am not interested in tinlkring with my Postulates any more.
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
Nathan_Jr
Thanks for the clarification. I look forward to you sharing some notes from your limited collaboration with him. Or just your own notes. Walter doesn't matter to me. This can be the last time we ever have to mention his name, if it's all the same to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Before I do that, I'll collect my comments on the other thread and re-write a little to post here. I'm headed out to go dancing with the Deadheads soon, so not today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The Masorah is the transmission of religious tradition or the religious tradition itself? From this the Masoretic Text is derived, right? The MT dates from the 7th to 11th century. AND the variants among the MT, the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls are not insignificant.
Would you please elaborate on this advanced technology?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Cat on a tin roof, dogs in a pile. Nothing left to do but....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
HERE is an interesting youtube from the "Who Wrote The Bible?" series that deals with the origin and chronology of the gospels. The episodes that precede it deal with the old testament, while the episodes that follow it deal with the epistles, as well as Daniel and Revelation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No. I said about all I can remember from many years ago. I am not up to speed on this topic. I simply answered a question with what I finally settled upon in the early 80s. There is plenty written on it out there. This was my favorite topic from about 1972 to '82. I have not touched it then. Today was my first review of it since then, I think. I may have posted a little on it long ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Smile, smile, smile
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I wonder where you learned all that.
It seems to echo the same misconception that wierwille pushed on TWI-followers. So, we would need wierwille’s great “research skills” and of course God’s assistant to help him filter out the error in plagiarized material.
In my opinion, one of the many subliminal messages buried deep in wierwille’s ideology is that The Word takes the place of the absent Christ and a variant of that might be The Word takes the place of the Spirit of God. Every PFAL grad understands that The Word is code for wierwille’s interpretation of the Bible. It is pathetic how many different ways wierwille has supposedly figured out how to limit God. I’ll share a post from another thread in a bit that shoots holes in the false assumption that John the Baptist or Jesus “had a perfect set of scriptures to learn from”.
In PFAL wierwille makes such a big deal in Luke 4 about Jesus finding the place where it was written in Isaiah – oh how He must have studied “The Word” . I think wierwille was so gung-ho self-promoting with his class that teaches “The Word” that the Spirit of God is given little attention. Backing up to Luke 3 we read Jesus was baptized… And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
Note the continuity – our attention is again drawn to the Holy Spirit right off the bat in Luke 4 - in just a few excerpts:
Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where for forty days he was tempted by the devil…
Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him. He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor”
Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” excerpts from Luke 4
Jesus didn’t need “a perfect set of scriptures to learn from” – He had the Holy Spirit !
And news flash – a perfect set of scriptures – wasn’t even available back then!
Now moving on to my post from another thread that’s relevant here
~ ~ ~ ~
I’ve shared this on the 2nd wave thread –
- 
- here - I’ll share just some excerpts and include the hyperlinks that relate to this thread because it all has to do with “The Bible” Jesus had access to:
In the AUTHORIZED book on TWI, titled “The Way Living in Love” (by Elena S. Whiteside, co 1972, American Christian Press, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-89132), on page 178 Whiteside quotes wierwille as he talked about his long search for definitive answers…wierwille stated “I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on. And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others. Well, I nearly flew off my chair. I couldn't believe that God would talk to me.”
Expanding on what I said in my previous post: “Think about the early days of the 1st century church. They didn’t have little New Testaments to pass out for witnessing or to follow along with while in church. They didn’t have a complicated theological system and didn’t need to teach converts the keys to the interpretation of The Word - they EXPERIENCED and SHARED about the Living Word - Jesus Christ. Mark 16:20 says they simply went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord WORKING WITH them.” I add the following...
Contrary to wierwille’s IMAGINATION of how HE THOUGHT “The Word” was made known in the first century – there is scriptural evidence to indicate Jesus as well as famous preachers like Paul had to rely on whatever scrolls were available in local synagogues… Acts 17:1-4 ESV mentions a typical means used by Paul:
‘Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.”
The only “Bible” in Jesus’ and Paul’s day were copies of scrolls of what we’ve come to know as the Old Testament see Bible Hub - The Bible in the Days of Jesus Christ - and it’s not like every synagogue or other repository for religious / sacred writings had the ENTIRE Old Testament. An interesting side study is the formation of the Old Testament…”It was during the reign of Hezekiah of Judah in the 8th century B.C. that historians believe what would become the Old Testament began to take form, the result of royal scribes recording royal history and heroic legends. During the reign of Josiah in the 6th century B.C., the books of Deuteronomy and Judges were compiled and added. The final form of the Hebrew Bible developed over the next 200 years when Judah was swallowed up by the expanding Persian Empire.” ( from History website - how the Bible was formed ).
According to one answer offered on the internet:
“…Your average synagogue in Jesus’ day would likely have no scrolls at all, and not even a building.
Please remember that Jesus lived during the Second Temple Era. Rabbinical Judaism centered around synagogues did not develop until after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple some four decades after Jesus’ death. During Jesus’ lifetime, the typical synagogue was just a group of villagers who met to decide local matters according to what they knew of the law, much of which would have been transmitted orally in the rural area of Galilee where Jesus lived, where there weren’t even any Roman roads.
In the larger towns/cities the synagogue would have met indoors, and would likely have had scrolls containing the Law. But the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh (which Christians call the “Old Testament”) containing the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings had not yet been established as a canon. Various groups used various collections of scrolls, not all of which agreed with the official scrolls held at the Temple in Jerusalem. And at the time of Jesus, when the legitimate Zadokite priests had been replaced by Rome with Idumean priests, who had no scriptural authority to hold their positions in the first place, many groups considered the current Temple leadership to be illegitimate. The followers of Jesus, for example, were into the Enoch traditions, which were relatively recent and generally not considered authoritative.
In short, a synagogue at the time of Jesus was nothing at all like a modern synagogue. It was not involved in worship, which was centralized in Jerusalem officially but also still took place in various rural “high places” where there were altars and in homes. Rather, the synagogue was more like a local court which decided what to do about all the minutiae contained in the Law, such as divorces, how to compensate someone whose livestock had been allegedly harmed by someone else, what punishment to mete out to a thief, and so forth. Whether or not an actual Torah scroll was available depended on how large and wealthy the place was.”
From Quora - During Jesus' time, would the average synagogue have had all the Old Testament scrolls?
Even a quick search on the internet of WHEN The Bible was written will give you a wide variety of answers – NONE of which will support wierwille’s FANTASY that God would teach him the Word as it had not been known SINCE the FIRST CENTURY…wierwille’s ABSURD, RIDICULOUSLY FANTASTIC CLAIM makes God look like an idiot who never paid attention at a college or seminary ( wierwille’s ABSURD, RIDICULOUSLY FANTASTIC CLAIM makes God look like an idiot who never paid attention at a college or seminary (whether accredited or not
) when curriculum got into the history on how we got the book known as The Bible.
Wikipedia – Dating the Bible
Wikipedia – The New Testament
Bible Gateway Blog - When Was Each Book of the Bible Written?
Grace To You.org - When were the Bible books written?
Biblical Archaeology.org – When was the Bible written?
United Church of God.org - When were the books of the Bible written?
CARM.org - When was the Bible written and who wrote it? By Matt Slick
The International Bible Society - When was the Bible written?
End of excerpts from my post about “the Bible” in Jesus and Paul’s day on the 2nd wave thread
Edited by T-BoneNew Typos Cannon = a large caliber artillery capable of shooting mistakes over long distances
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
aaaaannnd....he's gone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Something is wrong. I may have had the wrong word or way wrong spelling. I just looked in Wikipedia and got the feeling I made a mistake. Maybe it is in Bullinger somewhere. They put numbers in the margin to verify that copies were accurate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I mentioned at least once that if VPW taught any of what I said, I did not get it from him; none of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Well cool - but you seem to have made the same false assumptions he did
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
This topic of the canon bothered me a lot almost 50 years ago. I searched outside the Bible for answers and only found discouragement. Oddly, it was Chris Geer who steered me to inquire within the Bible, instead of academic history approaches. He was a good guy then at Rye NY, before he went Corps. The Corps ruined a lot, IMO.
I thought at first that it wasn't possible for the NT writers to know what happened in the centuries after they wrote. Boy! Was I wrong! But I was very new in the Word then, and that's why it didn't occur to me to look within the Bible for the canon issues. For the next ten years nearly every time I opened my Bible I saw another verse to add to my collection. Z
In a nutshell what I found all over, old and new testaments, was that it was decent and in order for the men to whom God gave His revelations to, also received the revelation as to how to have it preserved and passed on, canonical issues included. Second Timothy, and Second Peter were the epitome of this.
After the early 80s I put it aside happy with the canon, and then other, bigger issues came up like the meltdown.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
“Oddly, it was Chris Geer who steered me to inquire within the Bible, instead of academic history approaches.” That’s the same approach wierwille had. Screw what real academic scholars have to offer – let me show you what The Word says about itself. If it's wrong, I'll tell you.
You might want to look into textual criticism .
Seems like you want to recycle the same baloney wierwille promoted…wait, wait – recycle that’s it – let me repost something I said on another thread – here
see how real scholars do analyze the ancient texts compared to wierwille’s playing telephone with translations and versions - - which are interpretations of the ancient texts - he didn't even look at the ancient texts himself - he read someone else's interpretation of the text
- he didn't even know much about the Biblical languages...he lied about taking correspondence course from Moody...PFAL was a royal con job!...anyway here's an excerpt from my post:
I think we can shorten the discussion by just getting right to the heart of the matter; two notable scholars F.F. Bruce and Sir Frederic Kenyon – both with expertise in the historical reliability of the New Testament have stated that very little has been lost as to what was originally written in the New Testament docs, in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by FF Bruce... it says on pages 14 and 15:
“The study of the kind of attestation found in MSS and quotations in later writers is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism. This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two slips at least. When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists’ errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.
To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient MSS was second to none:
‘The Interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.’ “
== == == == ==
Bruce’s point is simple – with the increase of hand-copies comes the possibility of scribal errors – but that also means you have that many more “witnesses” as to what was originally said. And another thing to consider is what type of scribal errors occurred. Was a word misspelled, or repeated or transposed, etc. - - these would be easy to spot and corrected by comparing other copies...
It appears wierwille is somewhat removed from analyzing the actual texts that are still in existence; in the PFAL book, page 128 in chapter 11, “The Translations of the Word of God”, wierwille states:
“Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D., how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all verses.”
== == == == ==
I see two issues with wierwille’s approach:
First: He’s off by about a century and a half on the oldest manuscripts in existence – Bruce notes on page 10 of his book that there are in existence over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part and that the best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350.
Second: wierwille is not comparing Greek manuscripts – instead he is comparing translations or versions of the Bible! That’s like playing the telephone game - the first person states a message and by the time it goes through a whole line of people the message might sound somewhat different from the original. wierwille is at the end of the line - comparing how one translator interprets a phrase in the Greek to how another translator handles the same phrase. Frankly I don’t have much faith in wierwille’s ability to see beyond his own doctrinal preferences to note differences or similarities in translations since he would come up with goofy phrases that blurred variations like “all without exception” and “all without distinction” – which is the same thing.
End of excerpt from my post on another thread
~ ~ ~ ~
Also, it seems like you’re working out from a confirmation bias. How do you determine what “was decent and in order for the men to whom God gave His revelations to, also received the revelation as to how to have it preserved and passed on, canonical issues included”? This sounds like circular reasoning.
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sorry, real scholars did not save my life and drag me out of the gutter.
In the 1990s I compared what I saw at top flight universities with what I saw in the 1970s.
Back then there was not total darkness on campus, in the 1990s it was total darkness.
VPW was not my only source for suspecting academia in the devil's hip pocket. It is the same as in the days of the Pharisees there. The more you post on academic hoidy toidyies, the less I am interested in what YOU say. I don't like the sources you admire; not at all. I do fine with God from what I learned in PFAL. No need here to change to the god of this world. Remember, it says that the adversary offered it all to Jesus, because it was given to him by Adam and he divvies it out to whomever he chooses, baring where God thwarts him. No thanks, the god of this world and the universities of this are not to be trusted. The counterfeit is close to the genuine. I took a class that enables me to separate truth from error, and the modern day sources of the most devilish error I am not interested in.
I got enough info to satisfy me about textual criticism from the introduction to our Inter-Linear Greek text.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sorry if I go t hot under the collar in my last response to you.
I'd rather discuss the scripture references that I found in my 10 year search for canon info.
Do you have any verses you can post on this topic? THAT kind of a discussion we can have. But to hear you trash my beloved teachers and what Word I love today will severely limit our discussion. I really dislike academia more and more.
Let's talk verses on this topic. Have you noticed the ones I already brought up?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That’s funny because I took a class that claimed it would enable me to separate truth from error. It was called PFAL. Gee what a rip off! “the teacher” victor paul wierwille said there were 4 crucified with Jesus…what baloney…looks like wierwille couldn’t separate truth from error in Bullinger’s work – which he plagiarized !…and that make him qualified to teach me how to separate truth from error…
no thanks…your testimonial does not ring true…you should have gone dancing with the deadheads…now you’ve made a mess all over this dance floor. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Sorry to inform you but the title of this thread is The New Testament Canon – you can check out the starter post – here
“I'd rather discuss the scripture references that I found in my 10 year search for canon info.”
You see Mike, the definition of canon has nothing to do with scripture references.
Canon = an accepted rule or guide about how people should behave or about how something should be done. A canon is also a religious rule put in place by someone of authority. In the Roman Catholic Church, for example, rules approved by the pope are considered canon. The body of all the religious laws is also called a canon. The word canon is also used in religious contexts to specify which pieces of writing a person or group has determined are officially part of the teachings and religion. "Canon" originally has religious connotations, where it basically means "official." So canon texts are the authoritative books that a person or group has decided upon that make up the Bible…in all the definitions of canon it revolves around a group…a person…who decides what is accepted…it has nothing to do with the Bible itself or what any book claims within its own pages - it has to do with the criteria a person or group uses to determine what's in the canon - what is accepted as OFFICIAL
As Wikipedia states - Various biblical canons have developed through debate and agreement on the part of the religious authorities of their respective faiths and denominations. from Wikipedia: Biblical canon
guess you didn’t check out the hyperlinks I gave on dating the Bible and canon of the Bible…oh well
to reiterate...this thread is NOT about verses on the topic The New Testament Canon
on a side note - I love exploring religious texts and not afraid to think outside the box of canon - you might want to explore this baby - The Encyclopedia of Lost and Rejected Scriptures: The Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha
Edited by T-Bonefor my next act I will fire my editor out of a cannon
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
What about this topic bothered you? I wonder if it's what also bothered victor.
Was it all the arguing about which books would be included? Was it the sectarian conflicts leading to winners and losers in a politically-charged arena of churchianity?
Was it the burned, banned and buried scriptures that didn't make the cut because one group won out over another?
What verses do you think answer the canonical problem? How did Mark, Luke, John and Paul (not Matthew?) assemble the canon? Was Paul really concerned with a canon of scripture? After all, he thought he knew God's timeline - he thought the eschaton was coming in his own lifetime.
And, again, what exactly is the problem?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
You pickin up what I'm putting down, cuz.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The earliest MSS fragment is a credit card size papyrus of John: P52. I think normal date ranges are within 50 years, but P52 is so old they can only estimate within 100 years - 125CE-225CE... (I think. Not looking it up right now. Head's about to explode. Need to renew my mind.)
Could be that the first complete MSS of a whole gospel of epistle dates to around 350.
Your point is well taken. I recently caught this same error and have been meaning to add it to the Actual Error in PFAL thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well, I was too tired to go dancing.
Too much posting costs me energy at times.
Well, thanks for letting me know which Postulates you are starting from.
I explained what I mean by Postulates to WordWolf.
You may find it by searching "Godel"
Knowing that makes it MUCH easier for me to skim read your posts.
I will engage more with those who want to talk content.
I have had MANY teachers to choose and sample and focus on.
Your distraction with VPW bashing, is too distracting for me to devote serious time to.
Sometimes I can get into good discussions here with less distracted/distracting posters.
You'll have to read our posts together, and how I discuss things in depth with them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
What kind of Dr. was victor? Was he a medical doctor? A dentist? A veterinarian?
No. He mail-ordered a doctorate of theology and was issued the certificate as soon as his check cleared. This is an academic, scholastic credential. Theology is in the same school as philosophy. victor coveted this credential of academia. It was a source of great anxiety and insecurity that turned into great pride and pretentious puffery. A Doctor. A Bible scholar. A credentialed "teacher."
Irony is from God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You may have been skimming my posts, because I don't think I said that.
I said.... I think.... I was tired then.... and tired now.
I think I said that all I have to offer on this thread is the Bible verses I collected for 10 years,
and a few writings I did 30-40 years ago about what I saw in that large collection.
Did you find my Postulates Policy text to WW?
I am not interested in tinlkring with my Postulates any more.
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.