He stole that idea from Bullinger as well. Bullinger breaks down the purpose of each gospel in his appendices in the Companion Bible. From there, at some point, the research department put together A Harmony of the Gospels based on Bullinger as well. You likely know this already, but saying it for those who perhaps don't. I enjoyed A Harmony of the Gospels because the syllabus layed out the Gosls in chronological order and you could read it from start to finish and see the chronology and details added from other gospels on the same account. That's about the most value I can ascribe to it. All the other spiritualization that went into it is likely bullshonta based on Bullinger's speculations. Not that Bullinger wasn't brilliant at times. But with Bullinger I feel his approach was throw enough #$%^ against a wall something will stick (old salesman cliche). I look at Bullinger as corrupted by leaven. His hardcore dispensationalism distorts most of what he says, though some of what he says is brilliant at times.
What was the chronology of the gospels according to Bullinger?
So, it looks like he believes Matthew was written first? I think that was the consensus private opinion of his day. That’s what I’m asking.
jakarta kiwi
YW! To be fair, not all of Bullinger's appendices are trash. He was a briliant individual (as were his understudies Charles Welsch for example) who produced a lot of scholarly type work that add insight to scripture and he also produced some bullshonta. Wierwille stole from Bullinger and Welsch copiously.
Whew! All that tracking and tabulation. Gosh! Sure, it’s neato, but one might risk paralysis by analysis. And after all that effort for granularity, the Gospels aren’t even written TO him, according to him.
Whew! All that tracking and tabulation. Gosh! Sure, it’s neato, but one might risk paralysis by analysis. And after all that effort for granularity, the Gospels aren’t even written TO him, according to him.
Thank for the link!
Yeah, he really is a mixed bag. I cant even call him credible.
Yeah, he really is a mixed bag. I cant even call him credible.
He probably has some good insights. He clearly has the patience and diligence for minute details, but he is not the only theologian to have ever walked the Earth. (For him, walking on Earth is only possible because it's flat.)
It's stupid stuff like flat Earth and four crucified and hyper dispensationalism that cause me not to waste my time. Though, for a minute, I was intrigued by his treatment of the genitive case in one appendix, only to be let down by his omission of objective/subjective. (Maybe he handles that elsewhere.)
If everything is determined, that is all outcomes already decided, and we have no free will, the why SIT or pray? If we go according to determinism, it's not like we're going to change anything.
If everything is determined, that is all outcomes already decided, and we have no free will, the why SIT or prsy? If we go according to determinism, it's not like we're going to change anything.
If everything is determined, that is all outcomes already decided, and we have no free will, the why SIT or prsy? If we go according to determinism, it's not like we're going to change anything.
Some call that fatalism in the context of this debate.
It's one of the reasons this is such a hot debate.
Determinism and the old, classically defined free will are opposites and you can't have both of them, if you want to avoid fatalism.
For many years I thought the only way out was to have determinism modified, but it is too tough, and too heavily backed by science. So, 9 years ago I changed my approach, and modified the definition of free will a little.
Some call that fatalism in the context of this debate.
It's one of the reasons this is such a hot debate.
Determinism and the old, classically defined free will are opposites and you can't have both of them, if you want to avoid fatalism.
For many years I thought the only way out was to have determinism modified, but it is too tough, and too heavily backed by science. So, 9 years ago I changed my approach, and modified the definition of free will a little.
In other words, you have no answer, other than to cheat and change the definition.
Further, if all outcomes are decided, how do we have miracles? Lazarus' fate was decided. But then there was a full reversal.
Some call that fatalism in the context of this debate.
It's one of the reasons this is such a hot debate.
Determinism and the old, classically defined free will are opposites and you can't have both of them, if you want to avoid fatalism.
For many years I thought the only way out was to have determinism modified, but it is too tough, and too heavily backed by science. So, 9 years ago I changed my approach, and modified the definition of free will a little.
In Christian philosophy this is the question about whether or not foreknowledge precedes predestination.
If it doesn’t it’s fatalism. The Christian argument is you have full free will but God knows the choices you will make in the future because He is omnipresent with respect to time.
This is the standard argument that is a lot different than the little acrobatics going on in your mind.
In Christian philosophy this is the question about whether or not foreknowledge precedes predestination.
If it doesn’t it’s fatalism. The Christian argument is you have full free will but God knows the choices you will make in the future because He is omnipresent with respect to time.
This is the standard argument that is a lot different than the little acrobatics going on in your mind.
Yes! God's foreknowledge seriously complicates this already tough nut to crack.
Fortunately, Neuroscience and Medicine will not be able to incorporate this foreknowledge complication.
There is nothing in science that can handle the idea of foreknowledge. Even the devil, the former steward of the Laws of Physics, has no handle on foreknowledge.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
330
267
271
186
Popular Days
Nov 12
118
Nov 13
107
Nov 20
105
Nov 9
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 330 posts
T-Bone 267 posts
OldSkool 271 posts
Nathan_Jr 186 posts
Popular Days
Nov 12 2022
118 posts
Nov 13 2022
107 posts
Nov 20 2022
105 posts
Nov 9 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I do want to address this Mike. You constantly come at me like I have forgotten, or have been talked out of the truth of wierwille, or that I just don't understand where you are coming from. Personall
waysider
This right here. If you're unable to define and regulate your control factors and variables, your research is worthless. The best you could hope for would be an observational analysis of your collecte
Charity
I agree with So_Crates when he said "Here's a wild idea: why don't YOU become meek and I'll tell you about all the fruit in my life since I stopped making PLAF the center of my life." There have
Posted Images
Nathan_Jr
What was the chronology of the gospels according to Bullinger?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
http://www.posterite-d-abraham.org/BULLINGER/append97.html
and all of the appendices:
http://www.posterite-d-abraham.org/BULLINGER/index_companion.html
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Confabulous! Thanks, OS.
So, it looks like he believes Matthew was written first? I think that was the consensus private opinion of his day. That’s what I’m asking.
jakarta kiwi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
YW! To be fair, not all of Bullinger's appendices are trash. He was a briliant individual (as were his understudies Charles Welsch for example) who produced a lot of scholarly type work that add insight to scripture and he also produced some bullshonta. Wierwille stole from Bullinger and Welsch copiously.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
This is the appendices that A Harmony of the Gospels was sourced from.
http://www.posterite-d-abraham.org/BULLINGER/append119.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Whew! All that tracking and tabulation. Gosh! Sure, it’s neato, but one might risk paralysis by analysis. And after all that effort for granularity, the Gospels aren’t even written TO him, according to him.
Thank for the link!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yeah, he really is a mixed bag. I cant even call him credible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
He probably has some good insights. He clearly has the patience and diligence for minute details, but he is not the only theologian to have ever walked the Earth. (For him, walking on Earth is only possible because it's flat.)
It's stupid stuff like flat Earth and four crucified and hyper dispensationalism that cause me not to waste my time. Though, for a minute, I was intrigued by his treatment of the genitive case in one appendix, only to be let down by his omission of objective/subjective. (Maybe he handles that elsewhere.)
Edited by Nathan_JrGloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
If everything is determined, that is all outcomes already decided, and we have no free will, the why SIT or pray? If we go according to determinism, it's not like we're going to change anything.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Ditto on "the law of believing".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Some call that fatalism in the context of this debate.
It's one of the reasons this is such a hot debate.
Determinism and the old, classically defined free will are opposites and you can't have both of them, if you want to avoid fatalism.
For many years I thought the only way out was to have determinism modified, but it is too tough, and too heavily backed by science. So, 9 years ago I changed my approach, and modified the definition of free will a little.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
In other words, you have no answer, other than to cheat and change the definition.
Further, if all outcomes are decided, how do we have miracles? Lazarus' fate was decided. But then there was a full reversal.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Right. The game is busted, so we dump it. We change the rules. That happens every now and then when a tough nut like fatalism refuses to crack.
Edited by MikeDo you have a better solution?
If you do it will win you much fame and fortune, because this fatalism has plagued the debate for centuries.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Determinism is tied to the Laws of Physics.
These Laws actually DETERMINE what happens in the physical world.
When the spiritual world interacts with the physical world a WHOLE NEW SET of laws, spiritual laws, come into play.
This is analogous to how the law of aerodynamics (Bernoulli) can overpower the law of gravity, so airplanes can fly.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
How about realizing you're on the wrong track and finding another track.
Here's an idea: rather than approaching the problem from a deterministic point of view, how about approaching it from a free will point of view?
Or how about realizing your describing two co-current processes?
Or how about realizing it's all just a way of talking? That rather than either or both exist?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You first error, airplanes do not overcome the law of gravity. Gravity still effects them. They utilize aerodynamics and gravity to fly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Roger Penrose tries the approach you suggested, and I did too for many years. It just did not go anywhere. I gave up on that approach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
In Christian philosophy this is the question about whether or not foreknowledge precedes predestination.
If it doesn’t it’s fatalism. The Christian argument is you have full free will but God knows the choices you will make in the future because He is omnipresent with respect to time.
This is the standard argument that is a lot different than the little acrobatics going on in your mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Can you list these spiritual laws?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You are correct.
I said it was only analogous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes! God's foreknowledge seriously complicates this already tough nut to crack.
Edited by MikeFortunately, Neuroscience and Medicine will not be able to incorporate this foreknowledge complication.
There is nothing in science that can handle the idea of foreknowledge. Even the devil, the former steward of the Laws of Physics, has no handle on foreknowledge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No. The Bible gives us some hints, but they are beyond any scientific investigation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And how many years have we been trying to figure out how to go faster than the speed of light? Oddly enough, we continue trying.
You can't figure out the rules so you quit. That's not scientific method.
Well, it was a bad anology.
We don't overcome the laws of physics, we utilize them to our purpose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Unless of course Saint Vic has somehow figured them out. Re: the law of believing.
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.