But...but...(lo shonta)...if Jesus is the Word made flesh and PFLAP is God breathed wouldn't Jesus carrying the new version of PFLAP be kinda like the Word carrying the Word?
Oh Dear!
Jesus is not the word made flesh. How could that be possible if the Word is TheBible+YourWalk+YourBeleeving+ChristInYou? It just doesn't fit. And if it doesn't fit, it's not true to fact.*
*Except OJ's gloves. They APPEARED not to fit, but he was, true to fact, the murderer.
Jesus is not the word made flesh. How could that be possible if the Word is TheBible+YourWalk+YourBeleeving+ChristInYou? It just doesn't fit. And if it doesn't fit, it's not true to fact.*
*Except OJ's gloves. They APPEARED not to fit, but he was, true to fact, the murderer.
Yes...with all things wierwilian it makes a GIANT contradiction. John 1:14 is pretty clear, except, they redefine "the Word" to mean whatever is convenient at the time...written word, spoken word, word in the stars, word to your moms, word from the directors being the most important words of way life...etc...lo shonta...Thus people that believe this craziness, and I used to be one, are stuck trying to make it all fit with actual reality. So they tie the word spiritual onto it. Anywho.
Yes...with all things wierwilian it makes a GIANT contradiction. John 1:14 is pretty clear, except, they redefine "the Word" to mean whatever is convenient at the time...written word, spoken word, word in the stars, word to your moms, word from the directors being the most important words of way life...etc...lo shonta...Thus people that believe this craziness, and I used to be one, are stuck trying to make it all fit with actual reality. So they tie the word spiritual onto it. Anywho.
Has anyone else thought of the similarities of wierwille’s claim of hearing God’s voice and the “canon” of PFAL and Joseph Smith’s claim of an angel appearing to him and the “canon” of The Book of Mormon?
It seems to me wierwille/PFALand Smith/Book of Mormon both used their quick and dirty methods as a shortcut to thumb their noses at the development of the New Testament canon .
By far the BIGGEST SIMILIARITYI see - and certainly cause for alarm - withwierwille/PFALand Smith/Book of Mormon is the fact that followers of either one of these cults regard their central religious texts (either PFAL or the Book of Mormon) as divinely inspired and equate them as being on par with the same authority as how mainstream Christianity view The Bible . .
A minor differencecan be noted in that wierwille claimed he heard the voice of God saying He would teach wierwille the Word like it had not been known since the 1st century.
Whereas Smith claimed an angel named Maroni appeared to him and said that a collection of ancient writings was buried in a nearby hill in present-day Wayne County, New York, engraved on golden plates by ancient prophets.
Perhaps another minor differencecan be observed in wierwille’s thinly disguised plagiarized material compared to the more creative and some of the unusual historical narratives of the Book of Mormon.
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 great scholar Mike.
This is the cover to the book that many of us may have purchased. Can I invite you to look at the name of the translator at the bottom of the photo. How is the name spelled?
Yep, that's right. LAMSA. Not "Llamsa" (like a llama, perhaps, but not as cute).
I always had suspicions about VPW because he paid no attention to the obvious. He made basic and idiotic mistakes, about English, about grammar, about many things. He did this not once or twice, but consistently. And what that causes me to think is: If this person makes such a big mistake about what's very, very obvious - what sort of mistakes is that same person making with less obvious matters?
Luke 16:10 (NIV) “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.
You could read "sloppy" or "careless" (etc) instead of "dishonest." You get the point. Overlook the obvious => overlook the less obvious, the hidden, the harder to understand parts.
Spelling and grammar errors (for example) are easily picked up on and corrected (heard of spell-checker, anyone? Hint: it's not just for Halloween).
Once or twice: forgivable.
Consistently: shows ignorance (lack of education) and no desire to be better educated; or lack of regard for the subject matter, and for their audience.
And relating that back to this thread, where I see someone overlooking the very, very obvious when posting, I find myself again wondering what sort of mistakes is that same person making with less obvious matters?
Jeepers! 22 pages and growing! I think I got to about page 6 or 7. Is there anything worth reading on the following pages?
Not really...mostly Mike trolling everyone who would respond...same ole same ole really...it's worth sifting through...if nothing else for comedic value. There is some really good information throughout though....it's just kinda few and far between.
And relating that back to this thread, where I see someone overlooking the very, very obvious when posting, I find myself again wondering what sort of mistakes is that same person making with less obvious matters?
I blame my spell checker for getting the wrong "add" to its data base.
But thanks for the tip; that's what beta testing is all about.
When the book and then the movie are getting ready for release, I'll make sure you get credit for spell checking.
I think this is one of those idiomatic expressions interpolated in the 1967 uncritical text of plagiarized manuscripts – I wish you could read it in the original “don’t throw out the Baptist with the baptismal”
In the Latin Vulgarity it's ixnay on tossing aptizerbay
I always had suspicions about VPW because he paid no attention to the obvious. He made basic and idiotic mistakes, about English, about grammar, about many things. He did this not once or twice, but consistently. And what that causes me to think is: If this person makes such a big mistake about what's very, very obvious - what sort of mistakes is that same person making with less obvious matters?
Luke 16:10 (NIV) “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.
You could read "sloppy" or "careless" (etc) instead of "dishonest." You get the point. Overlook the obvious => overlook the less obvious, the hidden, the harder to understand parts.
Spelling and grammar errors (for example) are easily picked up on and corrected (heard of spell-checker, anyone? Hint: it's not just for Halloween).
Once or twice: forgivable.
Consistently: shows ignorance (lack of education) and no desire to be better educated; or lack of regard for the subject matter, and for their audience.
And relating that back to this thread, where I see someone overlooking the very, very obvious when posting, I find myself again wondering what sort of mistakes is that same person making with less obvious matters?
This is one of the most important posts ever written in the entire forum.
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 great scholar Mike.
This is the cover to the book that many of us may have purchased. Can I invite you to look at the name of the translator at the bottom of the photo. How is the name spelled?
Yep, that's right. LAMSA. Not "Llamsa" (like a llama, perhaps, but not as cute).
I always had suspicions about VPW because he paid no attention to the obvious. He made basic and idiotic mistakes, about English, about grammar, about many things. He did this not once or twice, but consistently. And what that causes me to think is: If this person makes such a big mistake about what's very, very obvious - what sort of mistakes is that same person making with less obvious matters?
Luke 16:10 (NIV) “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.
You could read "sloppy" or "careless" (etc) instead of "dishonest." You get the point. Overlook the obvious => overlook the less obvious, the hidden, the harder to understand parts.
Spelling and grammar errors (for example) are easily picked up on and corrected (heard of spell-checker, anyone? Hint: it's not just for Halloween).
Once or twice: forgivable.
Consistently: shows ignorance (lack of education) and no desire to be better educated; or lack of regard for the subject matter, and for their audience.
And relating that back to this thread, where I see someone overlooking the very, very obvious when posting, I find myself again wondering what sort of mistakes is that same person making with less obvious matters?
Great post Twinky !
5 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:
This is one of the most important posts ever written in the entire forum.
...You changed your line from ASSEMBLY to ATTITUDES. That's fine and predictable. victor moved the goal post all the time, too.
Attitudes and activities. Fine. So what? This has nothing to do with how (H-O-W) or that (T-H-A-T) a canon was formed over the subsequent centuries. We have letters from early church fathers and council meeting minutes as evidence showing the gradual formation of the canon. I'm sure their attitude was the same as the evangelists or any group concerned with assembling an authoritative list of books - a canon.
“As I have stated several times now, I see the evangelists ATTITUDES and ACTIVITIES to be indicators that they knew of the need for a list, a future canon, and they they were active in assembling such a list.”
You responded with:
You changed your line from ASSEMBLY to ATTITUDES. That's fine and predictable. victor moved the goal post all the time, too. … Attitudes and activities. Fine. So what? This has nothing to do with how (H-O-W) or that (T-H-A-T) a canon was formed over the subsequent centuries. … We have letters from early church fathers and council meeting minutes as evidence showing the gradual formation of the canon. I'm sure their attitude was the same as the evangelists or any group concerned with assembling an authoritative list of books - a canon.
There was no changing of goal posts. I simply changed how I put things in a differing context. Go back and see what I was saying, please.
You are describing the Top-Down approach there.
I was describing the Bottom-Up approach.
The two approaches have A LOT to do with each other.They are both looking at the same formation of an authoritative list, but at different Century marks.
T-Bones posts are giving a good view of the view you favor: the Top-Down approach.My initial exposure to this approach in 1972 was not good. My resources were limited and low quality, and I was young in the Word.I am glad to have learned from T-Bone’s links and quotations.
For the BottomUp approach to the early canon list, the scriptures document how the writers were concerned and doing things about the list in the First Century.It doesn’t give the us their final list, but it alludes to one forming, and directly states that the writers were focused on making sure things went right.
those who know the word translate it a cloak, and there's some SPECULATION by those that do NOT know the word that it's some sort of book-case or other container for a book.
It was in the Aramaic, I was told, that the word is literally "book house."
For the BottomUp approach to the early canon list, the scriptures document how the writers were concerned and doing things about the list in the First Century.It doesn’t give the us their final list, but it alludes to one forming, and directly states that the writers were focused on making sure things went right.
I accept that this is what you beleeve. I accept that you beleeve the pastoral epistles and 2 Peter were written in the first century. Indeed, the Bible doesn't describe itself comprised of a final collection. It doesn't even describe itself comprised of a preliminary collection. I accept that you beleeve your beleefs, but I'm not convinced of your beleefs by your arguments. And that's fine. Thanks for making your case for all to see - that's why I started this topic.
Excuse my rudeness, but I have to take issue with characterizing anything Mike proclaims as "pure."
All seriousness aside, I totally relate to the entirety of your comment from which I extracted three words just because I had an overwhelming sense of cognitive dissonance over the first word.
You are describing the Top-Down approach there.I was describing the Bottom-Up approach.
The two approaches have A LOT to do with each other.They are both looking at the same formation of an authoritative list, but at different Century marks.
For the BottomUp approach to the early canon list, the scriptures document how the writers were concerned and doing things about the list in the First Century.It doesn’t give the us their final list, but it alludes to one forming, and directly states that the writers were focused on making sure things went right.
Complete speculation. History does not support you here, buddy. How would any of the first century apostolic authors know which books would be where when some of them hadn't been written by the time some of the apostles died? Did Paul know by revelation to tell Timothy to add Revelation to the end of the list when it was written well after Paul's death? Make it make sense. You have these postulates but instead of rejecting the theory when it's proven incorrect you try and bend everything else to match your theory. That is just like Wierwille - epiluo...letting the dogs run loose on the game...thoughts flying everywhere trying to make fantasy fit with reality.
I don't discount the Lord's hand on scripture, nor do I doubt he worked in people like Jerome, Erasmus, Wyclyffe, Tyndale, etc to compile the books that comprise our Bible. I completely reject your theories simply because they are just speculation and I can speculate that it happened some other way. History does not support your view.
Excuse my rudeness, but I have to take issue with characterizing anything Mike proclaims as "pure."
All seriousness aside, I totally relate to the entirety of your comment from which I extracted three words just because I had an overwhelming sense of cognitive dissonance over the first word.
I had the same exact experience only totally different....
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
Oh Dear!
Jesus is not the word made flesh. How could that be possible if the Word is TheBible+YourWalk+YourBeleeving+ChristInYou? It just doesn't fit. And if it doesn't fit, it's not true to fact.*
*Except OJ's gloves. They APPEARED not to fit, but he was, true to fact, the murderer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yes...with all things wierwilian it makes a GIANT contradiction. John 1:14 is pretty clear, except, they redefine "the Word" to mean whatever is convenient at the time...written word, spoken word, word in the stars, word to your moms, word from the directors being the most important words of way life...etc...lo shonta...Thus people that believe this craziness, and I used to be one, are stuck trying to make it all fit with actual reality. So they tie the word spiritual onto it. Anywho.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Lo maka seetay!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
By far the BIGGEST SIMILIARITY I see - and certainly cause for alarm - with wierwille/PFAL and Smith/Book of Mormon is the fact that followers of either one of these cults regard their central religious texts (either PFAL or the Book of Mormon) as divinely inspired and equate them as being on par with the same authority as how mainstream Christianity view The Bible . .
A minor difference can be noted in that wierwille claimed he heard the voice of God saying He would teach wierwille the Word like it had not been known since the 1st century.
Whereas Smith claimed an angel named Maroni appeared to him and said that a collection of ancient writings was buried in a nearby hill in present-day Wayne County, New York, engraved on golden plates by ancient prophets.
Perhaps another minor difference can be observed in wierwille’s thinly disguised plagiarized material compared to the more creative and some of the unusual historical narratives of the Book of Mormon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
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 great scholar Mike.
This is the cover to the book that many of us may have purchased. Can I invite you to look at the name of the translator at the bottom of the photo. How is the name spelled?
Yep, that's right. LAMSA. Not "Llamsa" (like a llama, perhaps, but not as cute).
I always had suspicions about VPW because he paid no attention to the obvious. He made basic and idiotic mistakes, about English, about grammar, about many things. He did this not once or twice, but consistently. And what that causes me to think is: If this person makes such a big mistake about what's very, very obvious - what sort of mistakes is that same person making with less obvious matters?
Luke 16:10 (NIV) “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.
You could read "sloppy" or "careless" (etc) instead of "dishonest." You get the point. Overlook the obvious => overlook the less obvious, the hidden, the harder to understand parts.
Spelling and grammar errors (for example) are easily picked up on and corrected (heard of spell-checker, anyone? Hint: it's not just for Halloween).
Once or twice: forgivable.
Consistently: shows ignorance (lack of education) and no desire to be better educated; or lack of regard for the subject matter, and for their audience.
And relating that back to this thread, where I see someone overlooking the very, very obvious when posting, I find myself again wondering what sort of mistakes is that same person making with less obvious matters?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Jeepers! 22 pages and growing! I think I got to about page 6 or 7. Is there anything worth reading on the following pages?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Not really...mostly Mike trolling everyone who would respond...same ole same ole really...it's worth sifting through...if nothing else for comedic value. There is some really good information throughout though....it's just kinda few and far between.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I blame my spell checker for getting the wrong "add" to its data base.
But thanks for the tip; that's what beta testing is all about.
When the book and then the movie are getting ready for release, I'll make sure you get credit for spell checking.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I been spelling Lamsa as Llamsa for years....been wrong all along.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
victor was a blame shifter, too, as are all NPDs.
Why/how was John the Baptizer a weirdo?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
The heck you testing now, a new spell checker?
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Why/how was John the Baptizer a weirdo?
Was this "handled" in the CF&S class?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think this is one of those idiomatic expressions interpolated in the 1967 uncritical text of plagiarized manuscripts – I wish you could read it in the original “don’t throw out the Baptist with the baptismal”
In the Latin Vulgarity it's ixnay on tossing aptizerbay
Edited by T-Bonehooray on ixnay typos aye
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
This is one of the most important posts ever written in the entire forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Great post Twinky !
I agree!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
On 10/20/2022 at 9:24 AM Pacific Time, I wrote:
“As I have stated several times now, I see the evangelists ATTITUDES and ACTIVITIES to be indicators that they knew of the need for a list, a future canon, and they they were active in assembling such a list.”
You responded with:
You changed your line from ASSEMBLY to ATTITUDES. That's fine and predictable. victor moved the goal post all the time, too. … Attitudes and activities. Fine. So what? This has nothing to do with how (H-O-W) or that (T-H-A-T) a canon was formed over the subsequent centuries. … We have letters from early church fathers and council meeting minutes as evidence showing the gradual formation of the canon. I'm sure their attitude was the same as the evangelists or any group concerned with assembling an authoritative list of books - a canon.
There was no changing of goal posts. I simply changed how I put things in a differing context. Go back and see what I was saying, please.
You are describing the Top-Down approach there.
I was describing the Bottom-Up approach.
The two approaches have A LOT to do with each other. They are both looking at the same formation of an authoritative list, but at different Century marks.
T-Bones posts are giving a good view of the view you favor: the Top-Down approach. My initial exposure to this approach in 1972 was not good. My resources were limited and low quality, and I was young in the Word. I am glad to have learned from T-Bone’s links and quotations.
For the BottomUp approach to the early canon list, the scriptures document how the writers were concerned and doing things about the list in the First Century. It doesn’t give the us their final list, but it alludes to one forming, and directly states that the writers were focused on making sure things went right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It was in the Aramaic, I was told, that the word is literally "book house."
Edited by MikeLamsa's Bible has it translated "book carrier."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I accept that this is what you beleeve. I accept that you beleeve the pastoral epistles and 2 Peter were written in the first century. Indeed, the Bible doesn't describe itself comprised of a final collection. It doesn't even describe itself comprised of a preliminary collection. I accept that you beleeve your beleefs, but I'm not convinced of your beleefs by your arguments. And that's fine. Thanks for making your case for all to see - that's why I started this topic.
Now, how and why was John the Baptizer a weirdo?
Edited by Nathan_JrSnow and gloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Would you feel comfortable if your sister was dating him?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I would be uncomfortable if my sister were dating any dead man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Excuse my rudeness, but I have to take issue with characterizing anything Mike proclaims as "pure."
All seriousness aside, I totally relate to the entirety of your comment from which I extracted three words just because I had an overwhelming sense of cognitive dissonance over the first word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Complete speculation. History does not support you here, buddy. How would any of the first century apostolic authors know which books would be where when some of them hadn't been written by the time some of the apostles died? Did Paul know by revelation to tell Timothy to add Revelation to the end of the list when it was written well after Paul's death? Make it make sense. You have these postulates but instead of rejecting the theory when it's proven incorrect you try and bend everything else to match your theory. That is just like Wierwille - epiluo...letting the dogs run loose on the game...thoughts flying everywhere trying to make fantasy fit with reality.
I don't discount the Lord's hand on scripture, nor do I doubt he worked in people like Jerome, Erasmus, Wyclyffe, Tyndale, etc to compile the books that comprise our Bible. I completely reject your theories simply because they are just speculation and I can speculate that it happened some other way. History does not support your view.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I had the same exact experience only totally different...
.
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.