Oakspear

That's your choice, of course, but it plainly involves accepting the premise that said consensus is more authoritative that the actual words of the writer himself.

There's a number of books of the bible that are pseudonymous, there's many reasons, among them the style of writing differing from I Peter, the date it was written etc that lead most scholars to conclude that II Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter. Tacking the name of a famous person onto an epistle was pretty commonplace.

Sincerely

Peter the Apostle

Does that mean that you think 2Pet.3:16 implicitly categorizes Paul's epistles as scripture?

If not, why the exclusion, given they were already written by the time Peter wrote this?

Without delving too deeply into it, it seems that the author of II Peter is including Paul's epistles as "scripture".

even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures,

I'm not seeing a whole lot that I agree with from TLC, but he's entitled to his voice here just like everyone else. The TWI experience was anything but one-size-fits-all

Why not, instead, adopt the premise that fits the facts?

C'mon, that's just crazy talk

And....I am one who tends to believe that Rosalie [and Donna] instigated them.

There are some GS-posters, namely catcup, who have given us ample examples of

craig's ineptness.....especially during those "fog years." Even afterwards,

he got all "his research" and ideas from others.

You would know much more than I about what happened in those years of rosie's reign......I had exited

three years before craig was ousted and slithered into Toledo in the dead of night.

Based on what some posters who worked closely with Rivenbark have said, I would agree that her micromanaging style absolutely influenced Martindale. I got out about a year after Martindale was ousted, so I don't have much direct experience with the post-Martindale TWI, but it sounds like, at least on the local level, the extreme controlling was dialed back. Not much info from inside HQ these days, but I'd imagine there the micromanaging continues

There is a certain amount of dogma and assumptions associated with atheism.

I disagree.

Just the opposite, I'd say...a lack of assumptions and dogma. I think that some atheists' vocal opposition to religion may come across as dogmatic, but there is no central authority - no atheist pope, no atheist's bible no standard (other than non-belief in gods) that all atheists adhere to. Even with that, there's a spectrum of the level of assurance that atheists have in that idea

From Steve L's thread on Speaking in Tongues (and not appropriate for the Questioning SIT thread), Steve wrote:

You reject evidence of the supernatural, Raf, not because there isn't any, but because one of your presuppositions is that the supernatural does not exist. You automatically invalidate any evidence that goes against your presupposition.

This is not true. I want to be abundantly clear. THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE.

"You reject evidence of the supernatural, Raf, not because there isn't any..."

Actually, yes, I reject evidence of the supernatural because there isn't any. Claims are not evidence. There are many claims. There is no evidence. If you'd like to produce evidence, or point me to where someone else has done so, I'd be more than happy to check it out. In fact, the JREF will pay $1 million for it. Not a joke. There isn't any.

"...but because one of your presuppositions is that the supernatural does not exist."

Actually, this is not a presupposition. It is a post-supposition, otherwise known as a conclusion (tentative, in this case, open to receiving more evidence). Dismissing someone's conclusion as a presupposition is a clever way of accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty without actually calling him a liar. I prefer the direct approach. If you think I'm being intellectually dishonest, just say so. I won't hit the report button. I pinky swear. MY presupposition, for 40 years, was that the supernatural DOES exist. You don't get to erase that because I changed my mind AFTER considering where the evidence leads. See, when you change your mind AFTER considering the evidence, that's not a "presupposition," by definition.

"You automatically invalidate any evidence that goes against your presupposition."

Let's test that theory. Show me evidence that is not merely a claim, and we'll see whether I invalidate it "automatically," as opposed to giving it due consideration, weighing the validity, checking out what can be checked out, and reaching a (tentative) conclusion.

The problem with what most people think is evidence is that it's usually just an interpretation of events based on presupposition. For example:

John Doe is driving along an interstate in blinding snow on treacherous ice. He thinks he sees something ahead, hits the brakes, spins around a couple of times and ends up in the right-hand lane, facing the right way, with no damage other than spilled coffee.

For some, this would be "evidence" of divine intervention. Although I know a guy who would credit his amazing injury-free experience to space aliens.

The significance of this experience might be interpreted as "evidence" of whatever John Doe already believes, whether it is angels, aliens, or magic(k)

Prayer is another example of something that is presented as "evidence" - John Doe prays that something comes to pass, it comes to pass - voila! Prayer "works"; forget the numerous times John prayed and didn't see what he prayed for come to pass

The claim that atheism is a religion is usually an attempt to counter the allegation that a given religion is irrational and has no evidence to support it. Often found in company with assertions that evolution is "just a theory" (theory being defined by implication as a hare-brained idea not backed up by evidence)

I think some of the non-pejorative uses of "cult" pre-date the "cult" scare of the seventies. Movies that are "cult classics", the "cult of Mary" in Catholicism, "cargo cults" in WWII...

When I first became involved with TWI I viewed "Word Over the World" as merely a slogan, a process, more than a plan. Besides, it was not very clearly defined. I have a vague memory that it was supposed to be a TWI fellowship in every community in the world, but that might have been after-twig talk rather than anything promulgated centrally. Even within the U.S., even at its peak, TWI was a long way from being as ubiquitous as, say, the Catholic Church, which had a presence virtually everywhere (evenly the more heavily Protestant areas seemed to have a Catholic Church close by)

The most concentrated that I recall was the late seventies, early eighties. Long Island had two branches in each of the four counties (three at one time in Queens) plus a Spanish language branch. There was a fellowship within short driving distance for anyone on the island, but it was still far from being "over" Long Island, in the sense that every person who lived there knew about it. If you happened to live in a community where a twig was located, you might have gotten witnessed to...maybe. Nebraska, where I moved to as a WOW had branches in the two largest cities and twigs anchored by WOWs and Wowvets in some of the small to medium sized towns. But everything in between was pretty much TWI-free. And usually there was nothing established after the WOWs or WOWvets left

This is the best that TWI had done at that point in its home country. It was natural to see "Word Over the World" as something that would take generations to achieve, if at all.

Toward the end of Martindale's reign, he announced, seemingly out of the blue, one Sunday that "the Word was over the world". Despite the fact that 4/5 of membership and leadership had left several years earlier and, if anything, TWI was shrinking, rather than expanding (the ironically named "Rise and Expansion of the Christian Church" came out around this time). He explained away the inconvenient fact that many coutries, especially in Asia, lacked any TWI presence by saying that one little fellowship in Taiwan (or maybe it was Hoing Kong) indicated how "the Word" was available to all of Asia; a couple of fellowships in France & Blegium, populated entirely by African immigrants, was the Word Over Europe...etc.

Delusional, at minimum. Listening to the leadership try to back up this crazy statement at the local level was entertaining

It's no longer there. I edited it out.

The Way International page and the Wierwille page were both Wikipedia pages that I spend a lot of time on several years ago. I got tired of fighting with the Way apologists on one hand and the people who thought "a cult" was any group that wasn't Trinitarian -

I don't think it was an aim to reduce vocabulary, but rather to control it, and force people's thinking along certain lines.

"Household" was another over-used word, albeit later, not so much pre-Martindale. How about "Blessed" and "Bless you"? (Hah! I remember a woman telling me once that she was going to perform a certain sex act "to bless me".) :dance:/>

What else? "Lifted" instead of "prayed for"; "renew your mind"; the use of blue-form initials, like always calling abundant sharing "ABS"

Other posters have made good cases on when the change may have taken place; I don't think that it's addressed in any of his early writings (monographs, booklets, etc)

Some interesting comments about people "not believing that Jesus was God" pre-TWI; not surprising - most people that I have encountered know little and understand less about what their denomination teaches about anything, let alone something as complex as the doctrine of the Trinity.

I was just getting ready to go to bed when I saw your previous post...I should have time to look it over tomorrow

And if anyone here does not believe that Luke wrote this gospel, then I really don't care.

So much for reasoned discourse

There is plenty of evidence that the Bible is full of contradictions and errors. There is also evidence that many of the contradictions are purposeful.

Could you expand upon that statement? Are you suggesting that the contradictions were a design feature of the Bible? I know one way we dealt with Biblical contradictions in TWI was to call them apparent contradictions and contort ourselves to harmonize the conflicting sections or verses. This does not seem like waht you are saying. (Other groups do the contorting as well, it wasn't unique to TWI)

Protestant Christianity started with an exaltation of the Bible over church tradition. Never mind that we don't even HAVE a Bible if not for tradition. The early Protestant churches distinguished themselves from the Catholic Church by placing their doctrinal emphasis on scripture over tradition, and they distinguished themselves from each other by claiming to adhere more closely to scripture than the other guys.

Good point that fits well into what we are talking about

One of the reasons that tradition became so important in the Catholic Church and its precursors (the proto-orthodox, as Ehrman calls them) was because there wasn't a BIBLE. There was an abundance of letters, gospels, "acts", and apocalypses, some of which made it into the Bible, and some are still available as the apocrypha. Some churches used this gospel and some the other, various epistles circulated, different areas had differing opinions regarding which writing were to be used in churches. Many of these writings carried the names of people who didn't write them - sometimes claimed explicitly in the writing itself, sometimes just attributed by tradition. Different groups were claiming different writings to bolster their claims of doctrinal legitimacy. The early Catholic Church had to bring some order to the divergent views and came up with the idea of Apostolic succession to determine what was "truth". With so many writings flying around and no clear written standard, it was reasoned that Jesus would have taught his apostles correctly, who would have taught their followers and successors correctly on down the line, therefore it was those who could claim an unbroken line of succession back to the apostles who had a lock on the "truth". This is one of the reasons why the Roman Church worked so hard to establish a link back to Peter. Eventually tradition trumped the written bible, because, after all, who is going to tell you what the bible means the successor of Peter or some barely literate ploughman? They had to decide what the Bible was. Naturally nuances and minutia of the written Bible wasn't foremost in their esteem.

The Protestants had the luxury of a fully-assembled "Word of God" that they could refer to

Thanks Steve for the perspective

I've read through this whole thread, but please excuse me if I bring up something that has already been addressed

Aside from any possible definition of θέοπνέυστος, is there anywhere else where the claim is made that the bible is the result of revelation or inspiration or direction from God?

I Cor 14:7 maybe? "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment."

What about the position that the Bible contains direction and revelation from God, but that not every word in it should be viewed as "The Word of God"?

Why do you want to bury a follower of Jesus Christ? Yes, he did die or was murdered.

It's a Beatles reference

And Oakspear, Paul CHANGED from one of the pharisees that opposed Jesus Christ to one of the followers of Jesus Christ. Do you remember that from the book of Acts?

I recall that's what it says in Acts, yes. Why would you think I might have forgotten?

Oakspear,

Steve and I are no longer assuming God-breathed = inerrant. I'm not sure about Mark: I think he's okay if Steve says it but not if I do.

Thanks for the clarification

Sincerely,

Paul

Anyone saying Paul was not the author of many of the writings of the New Testament shows NO sense whatsoever. I hope people at least try to show common sense here.

Your contention only makes sense if one assumes an inerrant (presumably one of the definitions of "god-breathed") bible, an assumption which is being discussed in this thread (hence the title). Just because someone says they're Paul, doesn't mean that they ARE Paul. Pseudonymous writings were not uncommon in the days that the bible was being put together.

That so called prof that you mention above Steve, sounds like the equivalent today of one of the scribes and pharisees of the 1st century church. Jesus used to devour dishonest people like this all the time in the first century in debates. These were the only people Jesus actually opposed after they first opposed Jesus Christ. And with my knowledge and very good biblical study software if a person like this was dishonest and bias biblically he would get devoured by me also today. As long as I had time from my busy as a bee worker schedule I might consider that recreation. :dance:/>

So-called? Sounds like a man who isn't unwilling to question his own assumptions. Sounds to me like an honest man who knows his stuff.

Would disputed authorship necessarily preclude something from being "God-breathed"?(if there is such a thing)

Keep in mind that much of what was included in the canon of scripture was largely based on who wrote it (or who they thought wrote it) so there was definitely a motive for signing someone else's name to an epistle or gospel. There was also no self-evident test to determine what was canonical and what was not (of course content was considered, but if it was self-evident, there'd be no debate!); there were two centuries of debate among churchmen and even in the time of Luther there was disagreement over what should be included.

If one believes something to be God-breathed, does it matter who wrote it? But the whole things seems circular: How do we know scripture is God-breathed? It says so in scripture; How do we know that's correct? Well, it's in scripture, so it must be God-breathed :evilshades:/>

I wonder if there's a short synonym for sesquipedalian.

Thought that you could slip sesquipedalian by us, huh WordWof?