Oops! Pardon me. I think I must have made a wrong turn back there.
I thought I was on the "New Testament Canon" thread.
HONEST!
I didn't mean to interrupt.
I've asked you polite, legitimate, honest questions from a place of genuine curiosity. You choose to ignore my questions, as usual, and get caught up in a fight with T-Bone.
I'm glad I got your attention. Actually, God got it, because irony is from God. When you have time, you can engage this discussion, or not.
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?
No. Those were minor considerations.
The canon was the mystery I was chasing, and in the process of doing that unbelieving mud was being slung in my face.
What bothered me most is how obvious some of the writers were that were unbelievers. They were writing about the Bible like is was a cunningly devised fable, but with disguised language so as to not offend believing, but unintelligent readers.
They were trying to entertain two audiences, to reel the innocent one in and rob them of their believing that the Word of God is the Will of God. Once the integrity of the Word is undermined in a reader, what's the point of studying the Bible more? Nefarious at best, IMO.
I've asked you polite, legitimate, honest questions from a place of genuine curiosity. You choose to ignore my questions, as usual, and get caught up in a fight with T-Bone.
I'm glad I got your attention. Actually, God got it, because irony is from God. When you have time, you can engage this discussion, or not.
You were posting too fasty for me.
Please slow down a little.
The canon was the mystery I was chasing, and in the process of doing that unbelieving mud was being slung in my face.
What bothered me most is how obvious some of the writers were that were unbelievers. They were writing about the Bible like is was a cunningly devised fable, but with disguised language so as to not offend believing, but unintelligent readers.
They were trying to entertain two audiences, to reel the innocent one in and rob them of their believing that the Word of God is the Will of God. Once the integrity of the Word is undermined in a reader, what's the point of studying the Bible more? Nefarious at best, IMO.
No. The modern academic writers of articles and books on the Bible.
The ones that included the canon I would sample in libraries and bookstores, or hear about them from sources outside TWI, like ministers that I talked to in other churches.
These:" What bothered me most is how obvious some of the writers were that were unbelievers. They were writing about the Bible like is was a cunningly devised fable,..."
They were writing about the Bible in modern English, from the late 1800s to the present.
Luckily, I only spent a couple months max on reading these writers and what they had to say about the NT canon.
... as usual, and get caught up in a fight with T-Bone. ...
Please check out those posts with T-Bone, because in them I outlined where I want to go on this thread. It will save me the typing.
I'd like to only contribute some of the Bible verses that helped me in those years when I was hot on this topic of the NT canon. Added to that is what I wrote up then.
Did you have a chance to read 2 Timothy and 2 Peter ?
If so, did you see the abababababa structure I found in 2 Tim?
And the aba structure in 2 Peter?
Please check out those posts with T-Bone, because in them I outlined where I want to go on this thread. It will save me the typing.
I'd like to only contribute some of the Bible verses that helped me in those years when I was hot on this topic of the NT canon. Added to that is what I wrote up then.
Did you have a chance to read 2 Timothy and 2 Peter ?
If so, did you see the abababababa structure I found in 2 Tim?
And the aba structure in 2 Peter?
Those books were chosen to be included in the canon. The books themselves didn't do the choosing. Have you clicked on any of those links T-Bone provided? Did you watch that excellent video Waysider provided?
Those are arguably the churchiest, proto-catholic books of the entire NT. They were obviously written well after the 1st century.
My 2 cents on the real issue thus far in this discussion - there’s a difference of opinion as to what’s God-breathed. The Bible says of itself it is co-authored - God inspired humans to relate His message. I think textual criticism and honest hermeneutics acknowledges this coauthored nature and like archeology seeks to uncover the original message.
I think it’s silly and disrespectful for someone to get all up in arms over textual criticism or criteria for determining a canon because that’s what unbelievers do.
Your distraction with VPW bashing, is too distracting for me to devote serious time to.
You give us little choice because you won't go beyond what he has taught you. Meaning, and personally, I would love to just get into scripture and chop it up so we both learn and understand more than when we started. It's difficult to do that with you because you almost immediately run to what wierwille says, instead of what scripture plainly says at times. My 2 cents anyway.
My 2 cents on the real issue thus far in this discussion - there’s a difference of opinion as to what’s God-breathed. The Bible says of itself it is co-authored - God inspired humans to relate His message. I think textual criticism and honest hermeneutics acknowledges this coauthored nature and like archeology seeks to uncover the original message.
I think it’s silly and disrespectful for someone to get all up in arms over textual criticism or criteria for determining a canon because that’s what unbelievers do.
I agree 110% The way I see it, if we actually have the bona-fide Word of God then it will stand up to scrutiny, research, critiscism, etc. In fact, believers should be even more dilligent in our efforts to test what we call scripture. I know for me, my former fundamentalist ways blinded me to the real truth. The Bible is not what I thought it was. Without understanding the history of how we got the Bible, and without realizing it is a vast literary work from various and sundry authors from around a 1500 (dont hold me to that number) year time period, without understanding that it has stories, history, literary devices, literary elements, poetry, eastern symbolism, Hebraic figures of speech, etc then there's little hope of ever truly understanding what is written or how to "rightly divide it" - to quote King James here. We are told to study to show ourselves approved unto God - so obviously we know going in there's gonna be some wrangling - mental or otherwise. But to summarize - Believers should be extremely dilligent to prove what is written.
Im not opposed to the idea that the Bible is not the Word of God of it's own but contains the Word of God interspersed throughout various author's contributions. We are fellowworkers with God after all. Oh - and God Almighty actually credits the authors he chooses to receive his Word.
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.
I wanna float a concept here and get it into the docket of discussion:
Those books were chosen to be included in the canon. The books themselves didn't do the choosing. Have you clicked on any of those links T-Bone provided? Did you watch that excellent video Waysider provided?
Those are arguably the churchiest, proto-catholic books of the entire NT. They were obviously written well after the 1st century.
Obviously? !
That would depend on where you are looking from and with what perspective: what is obvious and what is not. Right?
Adopt one perspective and a scene is clear; adopt another perspective and the same scene has occlusions.
No, clicking on T-Bone's links is what I said I did NOT want to do.
For the reason why I operate in this limited, filtered way, see my arguments to T-Bone, especially where I mentioned logic, Godel, and Postulates.
Be prepared to hear from me, what may be for you, the first arguments advocating for the benefits of a closed mind. Sometimes an open mind is the best perspective; sometimes not.
Perspective, or viewing point, is a result of your Postulate set. Most people don't even know what their fundamental Postulates are. That means they never deliberately tinkered with them.
So, no thanks for the academic suggestion; been there done that.
But an un-turned stone for you (maybe) is to become aware of your hidden Postulates at the very least, and then someday tinker with them to see what happens.
I'm the kinda guy that likes to leave no stone un-turned. How about you?
It sounds like another un-turned stone for you is reading 2 Timothy and 2 Peter with my structure tips in mind.
I can wait.
I am completely uninterested in your impressions as to when various books of the Bible were written, according to academic standards. If the dates were important, they'd be included in the texts as part of the revelation.
What you and others here like to do is read around what good scriptures did survive via the gentle hand of God. I like to read the content of what survived, and start from there with hammering out accuracy.
So, you said you were interested in learning this canon stuff, based on what was to me, a trivial comment I made in that other thread on who originally did the canon we now have in the KJV.
But now that you started this thread it seems like instead of you learning some new things for your yourself, you are actually pushing to teach me something you are already comfortable with. I'm not interested. I went far enough down that rabbit hole in 1972.
Did you ever get to the point where you worked the KJV (and others) with the tools and keys that PFAL provides? Or did you go along with the social parade of the ministry, and just kiss up to leadership while the party lasted, and then turned bitter from where the parade ended?
What did you like about PFAL while ministry life was going well for you? Do you seek that kind of comradely again? Did you ever get someone into the Word with PFAL who was thankful then, and is still thankful now? That is another un-turned stone for some.
Anyway, I await you trying some new tricks for your pony show. Read those 2 late Epistles, and we have something to talk about. Do you need me to tell you again, or in a different manner, that I will not go the academic route?
You give us little choice because you won't go beyond what he has taught you. Meaning, and personally, I would love to just get into scripture and chop it up so we both learn and understand more than when we started. It's difficult to do that with you because you almost immediately run to what wierwille says, instead of what scripture plainly says at times. My 2 cents anyway.
I have told you the exact opposite story.
Didn't I tell you that at the 1972 Rock, I asked him about the canon and he said he never teaches on that? That was 4 months after I took the class. I asked Chris Geer and he told me a better plan for studying this topic is within the Bible. He didn't give me any tips on the canon either; just pointed me in the right direction. I had to do all the work myself. That I am willing to show you.
You sound like some salesman who has a canned rap that they get good at, but when I throw in something your canned rap cant handle, you just pause, and go back to the canned rap. That kind of strategy was documented just this week by someone who had met a Mormon in a bar.
You are just going to have to accept that your accusing me of being little minded (almost immediately run to what wierwille says) is very little minded of you.
Let's expand our minds a little and see what the Word says about the canon.
That's straight out of PFAL. (Session #5? I don't know. I'm an old grad who probably wasn't paying attention.)
"STAND!...something, something, something."
Well, I'd like to add to that by saying "Don't look down!" You might find you're standing in something that's, eh, how do I say this?, not the most desirable thing to stand in.
If that were the case then you would click through on T-Bones links.
Did you not see that I said had done that academic approach for 2 months in 1972. If he summarizes what those links taught him, and shortened his lengthy posts, then I might see it in skim reading his posts.
Could it be that you too are distracted by your grinding an axe for VPW?
Are you processing my posts much?
That's straight out of PFAL. (Session #5? I don't know. I'm an old grad who probably wasn't paying attention.)
"STAND!...something, something, something."
Well, I'd like to add to that by saying "Don't look down!" You might find you're standing in something that's, eh, how do I say this?, not the most desirable thing to stand in.
Busted!
You must be a big Columbo fan to have seen through my charade.
Yes, I admit it. I did learn a lot of good things from VPW in the class, and I like it, and I stand on it.
Do you think his sources were stinky also? Like Kenyon, Bullinger, Styles, Leonard?
I'm really enjoying some Bullinger stuff this week.
Oh yes, yes, yes, lots of things in the class I liked and still do. Make that all of the class.
I would have thought you already knew this.
But the canon details I did not learn from VPW, other than we had to memorize the books of the KJV right at the beginning of the class.
I hope this is the canon thread. I've been bouncing back and forth, visiting the absent Christ.
The Word doesn't say anything about the canon. If it did, you would have told us what it says a long time ago.
I did tell you folks. Did you not see me encouraging Nathan_Jr to read 2 Timothy and 2 Peter, and give him the structures?
I found LOTS of verses throughout the whole Bible on the canon, but those 2 Epistles had the mother load of verses. Both are devoted to the canon. The canon is the overriding topic for both Epistles in their entirety.
Again, I saw all this my little old self. Actually, I was young then, but now my little old self still sees it. Take some time to read those Epistles with the ababababab, and aba structures I tiped you folks off to a couple of times now.
I agree 110% The way I see it, if we actually have the bona-fide Word of God then it will stand up to scrutiny, research, critiscism, etc. In fact, believers should be even more dilligent in our efforts to test what we call scripture. I know for me, my former fundamentalist ways blinded me to the real truth. The Bible is not what I thought it was. Without understanding the history of how we got the Bible, and without realizing it is a vast literary work from various and sundry authors from around a 1500 (dont hold me to that number) year time period, without understanding that it has stories, history, literary devices, literary elements, poetry, eastern symbolism, Hebraic figures of speech, etc then there's little hope of ever truly understanding what is written or how to "rightly divide it" - to quote King James here. We are told to study to show ourselves approved unto God - so obviously we know going in there's gonna be some wrangling - mental or otherwise. But to summarize - Believers should be extremely dilligent to prove what is written.
Im not opposed to the idea that the Bible is not the Word of God of it's own but contains the Word of God interspersed throughout various author's contributions. We are fellowworkers with God after all. Oh - and God Almighty actually credits the authors he chooses to receive his Word.
The Bible is not what I thought it was. Without understanding the history of how we got the Bible, and without realizing it is a vast literary work from various and sundry authors from around a 1500 (dont hold me to that number) year time period, without understanding that it has stories, history, literary devices, literary elements, poetry, eastern symbolism, Hebraic figures of speech, etc then there's little hope of ever truly understanding what is written or how to "rightly divide it" - to quote King James here. We are told to study to show ourselves approved unto God - so obviously we know going in there's gonna be some wrangling - mental or otherwise. But to summarize - Believers should be extremely dilligent to prove what is written.
Sorry, I completely missed this post.
It looks to me that you re-traced the pre-1942 promise steps of VPW with this post, and the one after it and the response by Nathan_Jr.
Those posts all seem to say you discovered for yourselves the same reasons VPW was ready to quit in 1942. I have focused often on that stage in his life. It was pretty academic. Yucks!
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
I've asked you polite, legitimate, honest questions from a place of genuine curiosity. You choose to ignore my questions, as usual, and get caught up in a fight with T-Bone.
I'm glad I got your attention. Actually, God got it, because irony is from God. When you have time, you can engage this discussion, or not.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No. Those were minor considerations.
The canon was the mystery I was chasing, and in the process of doing that unbelieving mud was being slung in my face.
What bothered me most is how obvious some of the writers were that were unbelievers. They were writing about the Bible like is was a cunningly devised fable, but with disguised language so as to not offend believing, but unintelligent readers.
They were trying to entertain two audiences, to reel the innocent one in and rob them of their believing that the Word of God is the Will of God. Once the integrity of the Word is undermined in a reader, what's the point of studying the Bible more? Nefarious at best, IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You were posting too fasty for me.
Please slow down a little.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Which writers? The early church fathers?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No. The modern academic writers of articles and books on the Bible.
Edited by MikeThe ones that included the canon I would sample in libraries and bookstores, or hear about them from sources outside TWI, like ministers that I talked to in other churches.
These:" What bothered me most is how obvious some of the writers were that were unbelievers. They were writing about the Bible like is was a cunningly devised fable,..."
They were writing about the Bible in modern English, from the late 1800s to the present.
Luckily, I only spent a couple months max on reading these writers and what they had to say about the NT canon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Please check out those posts with T-Bone, because in them I outlined where I want to go on this thread. It will save me the typing.
I'd like to only contribute some of the Bible verses that helped me in those years when I was hot on this topic of the NT canon. Added to that is what I wrote up then.
Did you have a chance to read 2 Timothy and 2 Peter ?
If so, did you see the abababababa structure I found in 2 Tim?
And the aba structure in 2 Peter?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Those books were chosen to be included in the canon. The books themselves didn't do the choosing. Have you clicked on any of those links T-Bone provided? Did you watch that excellent video Waysider provided?
Those are arguably the churchiest, proto-catholic books of the entire NT. They were obviously written well after the 1st century.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
My 2 cents on the real issue thus far in this discussion - there’s a difference of opinion as to what’s God-breathed. The Bible says of itself it is co-authored - God inspired humans to relate His message. I think textual criticism and honest hermeneutics acknowledges this coauthored nature and like archeology seeks to uncover the original message.
I think it’s silly and disrespectful for someone to get all up in arms over textual criticism or criteria for determining a canon because that’s what unbelievers do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
You give us little choice because you won't go beyond what he has taught you. Meaning, and personally, I would love to just get into scripture and chop it up so we both learn and understand more than when we started. It's difficult to do that with you because you almost immediately run to what wierwille says, instead of what scripture plainly says at times. My 2 cents anyway.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I agree 110% The way I see it, if we actually have the bona-fide Word of God then it will stand up to scrutiny, research, critiscism, etc. In fact, believers should be even more dilligent in our efforts to test what we call scripture. I know for me, my former fundamentalist ways blinded me to the real truth. The Bible is not what I thought it was. Without understanding the history of how we got the Bible, and without realizing it is a vast literary work from various and sundry authors from around a 1500 (dont hold me to that number) year time period, without understanding that it has stories, history, literary devices, literary elements, poetry, eastern symbolism, Hebraic figures of speech, etc then there's little hope of ever truly understanding what is written or how to "rightly divide it" - to quote King James here. We are told to study to show ourselves approved unto God - so obviously we know going in there's gonna be some wrangling - mental or otherwise. But to summarize - Believers should be extremely dilligent to prove what is written.
Im not opposed to the idea that the Bible is not the Word of God of it's own but contains the Word of God interspersed throughout various author's contributions. We are fellowworkers with God after all. Oh - and God Almighty actually credits the authors he chooses to receive his Word.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I wanna float a concept here and get it into the docket of discussion:
The oldest manuscripts are not the most reliable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Obviously? !
That would depend on where you are looking from and with what perspective: what is obvious and what is not. Right?
Adopt one perspective and a scene is clear; adopt another perspective and the same scene has occlusions.
No, clicking on T-Bone's links is what I said I did NOT want to do.
For the reason why I operate in this limited, filtered way, see my arguments to T-Bone, especially where I mentioned logic, Godel, and Postulates.
Be prepared to hear from me, what may be for you, the first arguments advocating for the benefits of a closed mind. Sometimes an open mind is the best perspective; sometimes not.
Perspective, or viewing point, is a result of your Postulate set. Most people don't even know what their fundamental Postulates are. That means they never deliberately tinkered with them.
So, no thanks for the academic suggestion; been there done that.
But an un-turned stone for you (maybe) is to become aware of your hidden Postulates at the very least, and then someday tinker with them to see what happens.
I'm the kinda guy that likes to leave no stone un-turned. How about you?
It sounds like another un-turned stone for you is reading 2 Timothy and 2 Peter with my structure tips in mind.
I can wait.
I am completely uninterested in your impressions as to when various books of the Bible were written, according to academic standards. If the dates were important, they'd be included in the texts as part of the revelation.
What you and others here like to do is read around what good scriptures did survive via the gentle hand of God. I like to read the content of what survived, and start from there with hammering out accuracy.
So, you said you were interested in learning this canon stuff, based on what was to me, a trivial comment I made in that other thread on who originally did the canon we now have in the KJV.
But now that you started this thread it seems like instead of you learning some new things for your yourself, you are actually pushing to teach me something you are already comfortable with. I'm not interested. I went far enough down that rabbit hole in 1972.
Did you ever get to the point where you worked the KJV (and others) with the tools and keys that PFAL provides? Or did you go along with the social parade of the ministry, and just kiss up to leadership while the party lasted, and then turned bitter from where the parade ended?
What did you like about PFAL while ministry life was going well for you? Do you seek that kind of comradely again? Did you ever get someone into the Word with PFAL who was thankful then, and is still thankful now? That is another un-turned stone for some.
Anyway, I await you trying some new tricks for your pony show. Read those 2 late Epistles, and we have something to talk about. Do you need me to tell you again, or in a different manner, that I will not go the academic route?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
If that were the case then you would click through on T-Bones links.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I have told you the exact opposite story.
Didn't I tell you that at the 1972 Rock, I asked him about the canon and he said he never teaches on that? That was 4 months after I took the class. I asked Chris Geer and he told me a better plan for studying this topic is within the Bible. He didn't give me any tips on the canon either; just pointed me in the right direction. I had to do all the work myself. That I am willing to show you.
You sound like some salesman who has a canned rap that they get good at, but when I throw in something your canned rap cant handle, you just pause, and go back to the canned rap. That kind of strategy was documented just this week by someone who had met a Mormon in a bar.
You are just going to have to accept that your accusing me of being little minded (almost immediately run to what wierwille says) is very little minded of you.
Let's expand our minds a little and see what the Word says about the canon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Mike
That's straight out of PFAL. (Session #5? I don't know. I'm an old grad who probably wasn't paying attention.)
"STAND!...something, something, something."
Well, I'd like to add to that by saying "Don't look down!" You might find you're standing in something that's, eh, how do I say this?, not the most desirable thing to stand in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Did you not see that I said had done that academic approach for 2 months in 1972. If he summarizes what those links taught him, and shortened his lengthy posts, then I might see it in skim reading his posts.
Could it be that you too are distracted by your grinding an axe for VPW?
Are you processing my posts much?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The Word doesn't say anything about the canon. If it did, you would have told us what it says a long time ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Busted!
You must be a big Columbo fan to have seen through my charade.
Yes, I admit it. I did learn a lot of good things from VPW in the class, and I like it, and I stand on it.
Do you think his sources were stinky also? Like Kenyon, Bullinger, Styles, Leonard?
I'm really enjoying some Bullinger stuff this week.
Oh yes, yes, yes, lots of things in the class I liked and still do. Make that all of the class.
I would have thought you already knew this.
But the canon details I did not learn from VPW, other than we had to memorize the books of the KJV right at the beginning of the class.
I hope this is the canon thread. I've been bouncing back and forth, visiting the absent Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Quit bringing up vpws bs and I won't have to sharpen my axe.
Processing just fine...your posts are mostly remedial because u quote vpw who was extra remedial. Personally, I feel you are quite intelligent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I did tell you folks. Did you not see me encouraging Nathan_Jr to read 2 Timothy and 2 Peter, and give him the structures?
I found LOTS of verses throughout the whole Bible on the canon, but those 2 Epistles had the mother load of verses. Both are devoted to the canon. The canon is the overriding topic for both Epistles in their entirety.
Again, I saw all this my little old self. Actually, I was young then, but now my little old self still sees it. Take some time to read those Epistles with the ababababab, and aba structures I tiped you folks off to a couple of times now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I keep on saying that it is NOT the wonderfully good material that VPW taught me that I am bringing up in this canon discussion. I found it on my own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think it's you guys who keep bringing up VPW.
I keep saying I got zero from him on the canon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Back on topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sorry, I completely missed this post.
Edited by MikeIt looks to me that you re-traced the pre-1942 promise steps of VPW with this post, and the one after it and the response by Nathan_Jr.
Those posts all seem to say you discovered for yourselves the same reasons VPW was ready to quit in 1942. I have focused often on that stage in his life. It was pretty academic. Yucks!
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.