Ever consider that twi pushed this "only read the Epistles" thing, and left out a LOT? The Gospels were not "written aforetime". THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN AFTER PENTECOST. ACTS WAS WRITTEN AFTER PENTECOST.
Still, they are referenced to Israel. Whereas (aside from Hebrews) Paul's are different. And even though it wasn't always spoken of or presented well, it is Paul's gospel (which he received directly from the ascended Lord Jesus Christ) that lays the foundation. You might disagree, but had vpw (and twi) done exactly that - and stayed out of everything else - I suspect that they would have had far fewer issues and problems. Problem is, he didn't.
Ever consider that twi pushed this "only read the Epistles" thing, and left out a LOT? The Gospels were not "written aforetime". THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN AFTER PENTECOST. ACTS WAS WRITTEN AFTER PENTECOST.
By reversing the chronology, it puts more weight on the words of Paul than the words of Jesus, which was probably the intent of those establishing the sequencing of the canon.
By reversing the chronology, it puts more weight on the words of Paul than the words of Jesus, which was probably the intent of those establishing the sequencing of the canon.
I would have thought it was to have the life of Jesus presented before the life of Paul, since that was the actual sequence.
By reversing the chronology, it puts more weight on the words of Paul than the words of Jesus,
By what or who's authority are you making that incredulous claim?
2 hours ago, waysider said:
which was probably the intent of those establishing the sequencing of the canon.
Seriously ? Sounds like pretty wild speculation to me. Where do you come up with such stuff?
1 hour ago, waysider said:
I suppose I should have said the chronology of the writings. As WordWolf noted earlier in the thread, the epistles were written before the gospels.
You do know that's quite debatable, don't you? The church father Eusebius places the date of Matthew's gospel in A.D. 41. (which would undoubtedly predate any of Paul's epistles...)
I suppose I should have said the chronology of the writings. As WordWolf noted earlier in the thread, the epistles were written before the gospels.
Just my opinion: I think noting the chronology of when New Testament documents were written is important in that it helps to verify historical authenticity; but personally, I think the order of the canon makes for a very compelling and somewhat linear narrative; though the order of the canon may not indicate the actual sequence of when each document was written – it's possible one of the intentions of canonical order "committees"was to suggest the doctrinal importance of each writer’s spiritual journey - - in that it begins with Jesus Christ’s life, words and works in the Gospels.
Most modern scholars believe the first gospel written was Mark and that it was written in about 70 CE. Paul's death is placed at 64 CE. Obviously, he would have written the epistles before the date of his death.
Still, they are referenced to Israel. Whereas (aside from Hebrews) Paul's are different. And even though it wasn't always spoken of or presented well, it is Paul's gospel (which he received directly from the ascended Lord Jesus Christ) that lays the foundation. You might disagree, but had vpw (and twi) done exactly that - and stayed out of everything else - I suspect that they would have had far fewer issues and problems. Problem is, he didn't.
Although the exact wording of most of the Gospels doesn't say "This was written primarily to (x)" as us modern readers would prefer, both Luke and Acts were addressed.
Luke 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Acts 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Depending on who you ask, both are either addressed to a specific Christian who was instructed, or in general to the "beloved of God". In either case, Luke and Acts are addressed to one or more Christians.
Most modern scholars believe the first gospel written was Mark and that it was written in about 70 CE. Paul's death is placed at 64 CE. Obviously, he would have written the epistles before the date of his death.
I'm not about to argue or debate the issue, as I don't place the importance of this as high as some others here evidently do. Plainly any dating of it (or when any of the gospels) were written is somewhat speculative by even the best of scholars, and it's relatively easy to challenge the veracity of your "most modern scholars believe" statement inferring that Mark was written c.70 CE.
Regardless of when it was actually written, I don't see that as altering it's value or importance, or why it was included where it is in the Bible. The gospel of Mark (be it written by John Mark, or another Mark) is clearly written from or for a particular perspective on the life of Jesus Christ and his fulfilment of certain promises that were given to Israel, as are the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John. Acts, as I see it, is simply written as a very accurate historical accounting of what actually took place. While it (Acts) obviously doesn't (and can't) detail everything, it does record the things and events that God evidently wanted written - regardless of whether or not everything that happened, or that was said and/or done in Acts perfectly aligned with what we might think of as the will (or directing) of God.
Although the exact wording of most of the Gospels doesn't say "This was written primarily to (x)" as us modern readers would prefer, both Luke and Acts were addressed.
Luke 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Acts 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Depending on who you ask, both are either addressed to a specific Christian who was instructed, or in general to the "beloved of God". In either case, Luke and Acts are addressed to one or more Christians.
So, what exactly is the point of this post, WW, and how do you think it affects or would change anything that was posted here previously? More important than who anyone thinks the gospel of Luke might be addressed to (and yes, it remains very unclear to me why you're putting such emphasis on it or are caring to make an issue of it), is understanding the perspective it communicates on the life of Jesus Christ and his relationship to Israel in the fulfilment of certain promises that were made to the fathers. Miss that, and a whole lot of things that are written in it won't make nearly as much sense.
So, what exactly is the point of this post, WW, and how do you think it affects or would change anything that was posted here previously? More important than who anyone thinks the gospel of Luke might be addressed to (and yes, it remains very unclear to me why you're putting such emphasis on it or are caring to make an issue of it), is understanding the perspective it communicates on the life of Jesus Christ and his relationship to Israel in the fulfilment of certain promises that were made to the fathers. Miss that, and a whole lot of things that are written in it won't make nearly as much sense.
I have to justify my posts now? Ok, I'll play along, and enable the "help files."
First of all, take a deep breath and a brisk walk around the block. Your posts look tense lately. If you're posting tense, you're not at your best. We agree it's better to post at your best than otherwise, I'd expect.
As to your question, I'm going back a few posts. This was in reponse to previous posts. One problem as an ex-twi survivor is to be used to, familiar with, or locked into (depending on the poster) the twi explanation for anything. I saw signs of that earlier, and commented on the specific point where one of those came up. (Bullinger's contradictory explanations for "other", which vpw retaught without rethinking.) Then we got to some discussion of "born again" that skipped over that the KJV said "born again" but the literal Greek for "anothen" is not "again", but "from above", (The KJV reliance is another potential problem for twi survivors.) So, I addressed that. Then we discussed something where examples appeared in the Gospels and Epistles. "It only appears once, in an Epistle." I posted where it appeared previously, in a Gospel. The response made it sound like Gospel verses are of little importance, especially compared to the Epistles. That's ANOTHER issue that comes up. If it's because vpw said that verses "aforetime" were "for our learning", then that's a factual error because the Scriptures written "aforetime" were the Torah/Old Testament. (BTW, the "for our learning" thing is ANOTHER KJV error, the "learning" here is the same word rendered "doctrine" as in "profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction..." So, the Scriptures written "aforetime" were "for our doctrine.") So, the thinking is often as vpw taught- the Gospels are unimportant because they are "written aforetime" and thus "for our learning." This is wrong because (1) For our learning is "for our DOCTRINE" and not just a side- note as vpw portrayed it (2) the Gospels weren't "written aforetime" and heither was "Acts". Think about life in the 1st century church. No printing presses- books were hand-copied when they were found, Christians were breaking societal codes and laws by meeting and by being Christians. The New Testament books, for the first century AD, were not WIDELY circulated. They could neither be run off a printing-press nor sought openly. They were contraband-and hard-to-find contraband of limited supply. Finally, with at least one Gospel and the Book of Acts specifically stated to be written TO Christians-which is what makes the Epistles such a big deal- then the most reluctant reader is forced to at least accept that THAT Gospel and Acts are of equal weight. (Mind you, the Gospels, to any serious read, are not written specifically as conversion tools, they read more as material for the Christian than the non-Christian.
I referred to this when I posted that twi was wrong in pushing this "only read the Epistles" thing. This discussion takes some interesting directions at times- mainly because a background in twi predisposes posters to make certain specific mistakes, sometimes in harmony. (Of course, I could, and would, say the same if the posters were all Roman Catholics or something.) I bring things up because if I don't bring them up when I see them, they may end up the linchpin in someone's doctrine- an error that could have been easily fixed long ago. It could have prevented boondoggles like Geer's "God doesn't know all things" and maybe something else that this thread's about in the first place.
BTW, don't think I can't change my position now or ever. I've done it plenty of times as the preponderance of the evidence weighed in on one side, whether or not I LIKED that side.
In other news, carry on everyone, and keep posting friendly!
TLC does not follow dictor Paul. He’s a hyperdispensationalist just like his idols, Bullinger, Welch, Schofield, et al. To rely on the KJV, which is to rely upon Stephens’ Critical Greek Text compiled in 1550, is completely misguided. Even dictor “taught” there are NO ORIGINALS. So, he simply systematized the errors of the genuine Biblical scholars he plagiarized.
Dictor NEVER possessed the intellectual, academic, and textual expertise of Bullinger or the others he repeatedly plagiarized. He was a DOPE! A DOPE! C- student at his best. He was completely INEPT at educated textual criticism let alone Koine Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. He faked it all. He used Walter Cummins and the “Research Dept” as his personal validation and verification “system”. Their charge was ALWAYS to “prove” dictor right. That was it. And I know that personally from scores of hours spent with Walter in-rez, along with the fact that he was my corpse research advisor. We taught together often at family camps and the various “root locales”. We “worked the word” together often, and I introduced Walter to a number of lexical and textual aids and in-depth commentaries. He often confessed to me that dictor often “stretched the truth” in his phony “research”, as did Bernita Jess. Everyone in the “Research Dept.” knew dic was a DOPE. Behind closed doors they laughed at much of his BS. “Find me proof Walter!” was the usual plea. “The Lord showed me this! Now, find me a text!”.
To use the KJV and Stephens as your baseline is to reject all the current knowledge of Biblical textual criticism and MSS evidence. 80% of all the textual discoveries and MSS evidence has occurred SINCE 1980! To rely upon 19th Century info is foolish and uneducated imho.
TLC is a Paulian not a Christian. He purposely elevates the writings of Paul above the words and life of Jesus Christ. He MUST in order to rationalize his hyperdispensationism. In order to accept hyperdiapensationalism one MUST rely on the “private interpretation” of scripture as laid out by Bullinger, Welch, Schofield, et al. A fatal flaw, which dictor was far too dumb to comprehend.
To say that the KJV or Stephens’ Critical Greek Text Of 1550 is the “ The Woid” is completely myopic and limited to 16th Century “Research” and transcription of the Bible, is to deny the 80% of current MS and textual evidence which has occurred since 1980. Hyperdispensationalism is a dead doctrine. It has been disproved and determined false by true Biblical scholars around the world, based upon the latest textual and MS evidence. If TLC desires to limit his understanding of the Bible to 16th century sources, then so be it. I reject that ancient misunderstanding based upon CURRENT textual and critical evidence. TLC does not.........peace.
So, not to any of my posts, merely the posts of others...
(you know, if you really wanted to help, it might have actually done so had you offered a bit more clarification on that earlier when replying to my post...)
4 hours ago, WordWolf said:
It could have prevented boondoggles like Geer's "God doesn't know all things"
Not sure why or where that came up, but that short little clipped statement most certainly appears to have left any important or otherwise pertinent context far behind (if not lost and removed entirely.) But whatever. It's not an issue that appears to have any relevance in this forum.
In sorting through this salvation topic (permanent/not) - it seems like one thing missing is a "glossary of terms" of sorts. I think the dictor in his "research" liberally misapplied the mathematical transitive property of equality to several things which are most likely quite different in reality and definitely nuanced in terminology in scripture.
Born again
Born from above
Saved
...
Defining all terms to the point where we all agree with everything is a tall order. However, defining these terms probably is going to be a barrier before we can proceed much further along this topic we are discussing IMO.
What other phrases belong in this glossary? Any start to definitions? What commentaries or materials cover this?
Still, they are referenced to Israel. Whereas (aside from Hebrews) Paul's are different. And even though it wasn't always spoken of or presented well, it is Paul's gospel (which he received directly from the ascended Lord Jesus Christ) that lays the foundation. You might disagree, but had vpw (and twi) done exactly that - and stayed out of everything else - I suspect that they would have had far fewer issues and problems. Problem is, he didn't.
The I Peter 1:23 verse kind of sandwiches in here for an extreme dispensationalist jigsaw puzzle. Israel, no body of Christ not bride, no bride again. How to resolve "to whom" jumps bride -> body -> bride post rapture - all really complicated from dispensation views.. Definitely neither Paul nor Jesus.
"In sorting through this salvation topic (permanent/not) - it seems like one thing missing is a "glossary of terms" of sorts. I think the dictor in his "research" liberally misapplied the mathematical transitive property of equality to several things which are most likely quite different in reality and definitely nuanced in terminology in scripture.
Born again
Born from above
Saved
...
Defining all terms to the point where we all agree with everything is a tall order. However, defining these terms probably is going to be a barrier before we can proceed much further along this topic we are discussing IMO.
What other phrases belong in this glossary? Any start to definitions? What commentaries or materials cover this?
Thoughts?"
I'd add all the critical tetms we're all going to dance around. So, you started with
born again...........born from above.....saved....
I'd add "incorruptible....seed... eternal..life..." (4 terms) and reserve the right to call for more terms to be defined when they come up.
==============
In other news, it sure would be nice if everyone would post friendly. We ARE trying to have a nice discussion here.
"if you'll check your Greek, or, for that matter, your Concordance, you'll see that the "again" in "born again" is "anothen", which translates into "from above" sensibly and consistently. (Check your Concordance. Check your Interlinear. Check your Greek Lexicon. "Consistently.")
John 3:7 and John 3:8 sure look like they're saying that "born again/born from above" and "born of the Spirit" are the same thing, phrased differently."
==========================================
TLC:
"Yes, agreed, and I really have no problem seeing that they more or less speak of the same thing. The issue I have is that I don't see that any of them are applicable to what is (or ever can be) experienced prior to the passing (i.e., the end, or if alive at the last trump, changed) of life that is in the blood. Furthermore, it appears that Jesus Christ's answer to Nicodemus (look closely at verse 8) was evidenced in Christ after his resurrection. And, as mentioned previously, Acts 13:33 specifically pinpoints his resurrection as the day he was "begotten" of God.
So, when OldSkool spoke of "those born from above," the problem I have is with its broad application (right now) to anyone other than Jesus Christ, as I just don't see it used like that anywhere in scripture. Evidently this wasn't clear enough in my previous post, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. (Like I said, sometimes my perspective on certain issues is a real bear to communicate well.)"
===========================================
Difficult to tell for sure in the Gospel occurrence, since it wouldn't be present-tense or past-tense in those accounts. But it is a different thing when going back to the I Peter occurrence. That's after Pentecost. If it speaks of "born again/born from above" as present or past tense there, then it obviously isn't tied specifically to the reality AFTER a resurrection.
"I Peter 1:21-23 (KJV)
21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."
================================== Hampered by the archaic phrasing of the KJV, we don't know for sure either way. But other versions, written in the 20th/21st centuries, render it a lot clearer:
since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;
====================================
As of I Peter 1:23's writing, the "born again/born from above" thing was a PRESENT reality for the Christians, and they weren't yet resurrected or raised from the dead or otherwise brought back from death in any clinical manner.
As of I Peter 1:23's writing, the "born again/born from above" thing was a PRESENT reality for the Christians, and they weren't yet resurrected or raised from the dead or otherwise brought back from death in any clinical manner.
Yes to me this verse sits out all on its own. Unique. Different.
So do we attack it because its different? Or use it as a data point to redefine our small ideas?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
26
72
50
Popular Days
Jun 4
31
Jun 3
17
Jun 8
13
Jun 7
12
Top Posters In This Topic
TrustAndObey 32 posts
chockfull 26 posts
TLC 72 posts
Taxidev 50 posts
Popular Days
Jun 4 2018
31 posts
Jun 3 2018
17 posts
Jun 8 2018
13 posts
Jun 7 2018
12 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
yeah in PFAL – didn’t wierwille say something along the lines of if you could do that it meant you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you from going...well, he lived like the devil so he cert
waysider
Most modern scholars believe the first gospel written was Mark and that it was written in about 70 CE. Paul's death is placed at 64 CE. Obviously, he would have written the epistles before the date of
OldSkool
Ok. My initial point here is salvation cannot be lost. If a man sows to the flesh, the old man nature, that man will reap the consequences of his actions - both now and loss of reward at the gathering
TLC
Still, they are referenced to Israel. Whereas (aside from Hebrews) Paul's are different. And even though it wasn't always spoken of or presented well, it is Paul's gospel (which he received directly from the ascended Lord Jesus Christ) that lays the foundation. You might disagree, but had vpw (and twi) done exactly that - and stayed out of everything else - I suspect that they would have had far fewer issues and problems. Problem is, he didn't.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
And how is this related to Paul?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
By reversing the chronology, it puts more weight on the words of Paul than the words of Jesus, which was probably the intent of those establishing the sequencing of the canon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
I would have thought it was to have the life of Jesus presented before the life of Paul, since that was the actual sequence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I suppose I should have said the chronology of the writings. As WordWolf noted earlier in the thread, the epistles were written before the gospels.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
By what or who's authority are you making that incredulous claim?
Seriously ? Sounds like pretty wild speculation to me. Where do you come up with such stuff?
You do know that's quite debatable, don't you? The church father Eusebius places the date of Matthew's gospel in A.D. 41. (which would undoubtedly predate any of Paul's epistles...)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Just my opinion: I think noting the chronology of when New Testament documents were written is important in that it helps to verify historical authenticity; but personally, I think the order of the canon makes for a very compelling and somewhat linear narrative; though the order of the canon may not indicate the actual sequence of when each document was written – it's possible one of the intentions of canonical order "committees" was to suggest the doctrinal importance of each writer’s spiritual journey - - in that it begins with Jesus Christ’s life, words and works in the Gospels.
Edited by T-Boneclarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Most modern scholars believe the first gospel written was Mark and that it was written in about 70 CE. Paul's death is placed at 64 CE. Obviously, he would have written the epistles before the date of his death.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Although the exact wording of most of the Gospels doesn't say "This was written primarily to (x)" as us modern readers would prefer, both Luke and Acts were addressed.
Luke 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Acts 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Depending on who you ask, both are either addressed to a specific Christian who was instructed, or in general to the "beloved of God". In either case, Luke and Acts are addressed to one or more Christians.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
You do know that analogous ≠ "equating," don't you?
The irony in your comment is thick and viscous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I'm not about to argue or debate the issue, as I don't place the importance of this as high as some others here evidently do. Plainly any dating of it (or when any of the gospels) were written is somewhat speculative by even the best of scholars, and it's relatively easy to challenge the veracity of your "most modern scholars believe" statement inferring that Mark was written c.70 CE.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/mark.cfm
Regardless of when it was actually written, I don't see that as altering it's value or importance, or why it was included where it is in the Bible. The gospel of Mark (be it written by John Mark, or another Mark) is clearly written from or for a particular perspective on the life of Jesus Christ and his fulfilment of certain promises that were given to Israel, as are the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John. Acts, as I see it, is simply written as a very accurate historical accounting of what actually took place. While it (Acts) obviously doesn't (and can't) detail everything, it does record the things and events that God evidently wanted written - regardless of whether or not everything that happened, or that was said and/or done in Acts perfectly aligned with what we might think of as the will (or directing) of God.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
So, what exactly is the point of this post, WW, and how do you think it affects or would change anything that was posted here previously? More important than who anyone thinks the gospel of Luke might be addressed to (and yes, it remains very unclear to me why you're putting such emphasis on it or are caring to make an issue of it), is understanding the perspective it communicates on the life of Jesus Christ and his relationship to Israel in the fulfilment of certain promises that were made to the fathers. Miss that, and a whole lot of things that are written in it won't make nearly as much sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I have to justify my posts now? Ok, I'll play along, and enable the "help files."
First of all, take a deep breath and a brisk walk around the block. Your posts look tense lately. If you're posting tense, you're not at your best. We agree it's better to post at your best than otherwise, I'd expect.
As to your question, I'm going back a few posts. This was in reponse to previous posts. One problem as an ex-twi survivor is to be used to, familiar with, or locked into (depending on the poster) the twi explanation for anything. I saw signs of that earlier, and commented on the specific point where one of those came up. (Bullinger's contradictory explanations for "other", which vpw retaught without rethinking.) Then we got to some discussion of "born again" that skipped over that the KJV said "born again" but the literal Greek for "anothen" is not "again", but "from above", (The KJV reliance is another potential problem for twi survivors.) So, I addressed that. Then we discussed something where examples appeared in the Gospels and Epistles. "It only appears once, in an Epistle." I posted where it appeared previously, in a Gospel. The response made it sound like Gospel verses are of little importance, especially compared to the Epistles. That's ANOTHER issue that comes up. If it's because vpw said that verses "aforetime" were "for our learning", then that's a factual error because the Scriptures written "aforetime" were the Torah/Old Testament. (BTW, the "for our learning" thing is ANOTHER KJV error, the "learning" here is the same word rendered "doctrine" as in "profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction..." So, the Scriptures written "aforetime" were "for our doctrine.") So, the thinking is often as vpw taught- the Gospels are unimportant because they are "written aforetime" and thus "for our learning." This is wrong because (1) For our learning is "for our DOCTRINE" and not just a side- note as vpw portrayed it (2) the Gospels weren't "written aforetime" and heither was "Acts". Think about life in the 1st century church. No printing presses- books were hand-copied when they were found, Christians were breaking societal codes and laws by meeting and by being Christians. The New Testament books, for the first century AD, were not WIDELY circulated. They could neither be run off a printing-press nor sought openly. They were contraband-and hard-to-find contraband of limited supply. Finally, with at least one Gospel and the Book of Acts specifically stated to be written TO Christians-which is what makes the Epistles such a big deal- then the most reluctant reader is forced to at least accept that THAT Gospel and Acts are of equal weight. (Mind you, the Gospels, to any serious read, are not written specifically as conversion tools, they read more as material for the Christian than the non-Christian.
I referred to this when I posted that twi was wrong in pushing this "only read the Epistles" thing. This discussion takes some interesting directions at times- mainly because a background in twi predisposes posters to make certain specific mistakes, sometimes in harmony. (Of course, I could, and would, say the same if the posters were all Roman Catholics or something.) I bring things up because if I don't bring them up when I see them, they may end up the linchpin in someone's doctrine- an error that could have been easily fixed long ago. It could have prevented boondoggles like Geer's "God doesn't know all things" and maybe something else that this thread's about in the first place.
BTW, don't think I can't change my position now or ever. I've done it plenty of times as the preponderance of the evidence weighed in on one side, whether or not I LIKED that side.
In other news, carry on everyone, and keep posting friendly!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
TLC does not follow dictor Paul. He’s a hyperdispensationalist just like his idols, Bullinger, Welch, Schofield, et al. To rely on the KJV, which is to rely upon Stephens’ Critical Greek Text compiled in 1550, is completely misguided. Even dictor “taught” there are NO ORIGINALS. So, he simply systematized the errors of the genuine Biblical scholars he plagiarized.
Dictor NEVER possessed the intellectual, academic, and textual expertise of Bullinger or the others he repeatedly plagiarized. He was a DOPE! A DOPE! C- student at his best. He was completely INEPT at educated textual criticism let alone Koine Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. He faked it all. He used Walter Cummins and the “Research Dept” as his personal validation and verification “system”. Their charge was ALWAYS to “prove” dictor right. That was it. And I know that personally from scores of hours spent with Walter in-rez, along with the fact that he was my corpse research advisor. We taught together often at family camps and the various “root locales”. We “worked the word” together often, and I introduced Walter to a number of lexical and textual aids and in-depth commentaries. He often confessed to me that dictor often “stretched the truth” in his phony “research”, as did Bernita Jess. Everyone in the “Research Dept.” knew dic was a DOPE. Behind closed doors they laughed at much of his BS. “Find me proof Walter!” was the usual plea. “The Lord showed me this! Now, find me a text!”.
To use the KJV and Stephens as your baseline is to reject all the current knowledge of Biblical textual criticism and MSS evidence. 80% of all the textual discoveries and MSS evidence has occurred SINCE 1980! To rely upon 19th Century info is foolish and uneducated imho.
TLC is a Paulian not a Christian. He purposely elevates the writings of Paul above the words and life of Jesus Christ. He MUST in order to rationalize his hyperdispensationism. In order to accept hyperdiapensationalism one MUST rely on the “private interpretation” of scripture as laid out by Bullinger, Welch, Schofield, et al. A fatal flaw, which dictor was far too dumb to comprehend.
To say that the KJV or Stephens’ Critical Greek Text Of 1550 is the “ The Woid” is completely myopic and limited to 16th Century “Research” and transcription of the Bible, is to deny the 80% of current MS and textual evidence which has occurred since 1980. Hyperdispensationalism is a dead doctrine. It has been disproved and determined false by true Biblical scholars around the world, based upon the latest textual and MS evidence. If TLC desires to limit his understanding of the Bible to 16th century sources, then so be it. I reject that ancient misunderstanding based upon CURRENT textual and critical evidence. TLC does not.........peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
What is MS?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
MS means manuscript. MSS is the plural.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
You're projecting. (Because I'm not.)
So, not to any of my posts, merely the posts of others...
(you know, if you really wanted to help, it might have actually done so had you offered a bit more clarification on that earlier when replying to my post...)
Not sure why or where that came up, but that short little clipped statement most certainly appears to have left any important or otherwise pertinent context far behind (if not lost and removed entirely.) But whatever. It's not an issue that appears to have any relevance in this forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
In sorting through this salvation topic (permanent/not) - it seems like one thing missing is a "glossary of terms" of sorts. I think the dictor in his "research" liberally misapplied the mathematical transitive property of equality to several things which are most likely quite different in reality and definitely nuanced in terminology in scripture.
Born again
Born from above
Saved
...
Defining all terms to the point where we all agree with everything is a tall order. However, defining these terms probably is going to be a barrier before we can proceed much further along this topic we are discussing IMO.
What other phrases belong in this glossary? Any start to definitions? What commentaries or materials cover this?
Thoughts?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
The I Peter 1:23 verse kind of sandwiches in here for an extreme dispensationalist jigsaw puzzle. Israel, no body of Christ not bride, no bride again. How to resolve "to whom" jumps bride -> body -> bride post rapture - all really complicated from dispensation views.. Definitely neither Paul nor Jesus.
How to resolve all of these together?
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
chockfull:
"In sorting through this salvation topic (permanent/not) - it seems like one thing missing is a "glossary of terms" of sorts. I think the dictor in his "research" liberally misapplied the mathematical transitive property of equality to several things which are most likely quite different in reality and definitely nuanced in terminology in scripture.
Born again
Born from above
Saved
...
Defining all terms to the point where we all agree with everything is a tall order. However, defining these terms probably is going to be a barrier before we can proceed much further along this topic we are discussing IMO.
What other phrases belong in this glossary? Any start to definitions? What commentaries or materials cover this?
Thoughts?"
I'd add all the critical tetms we're all going to dance around. So, you started with
born again...........born from above.....saved....
I'd add "incorruptible....seed... eternal..life..." (4 terms) and reserve the right to call for more terms to be defined when they come up.
==============
In other news, it sure would be nice if everyone would post friendly. We ARE trying to have a nice discussion here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Whatever phrase you use to describe it, I think the general idea here is "going to heaven" at some point after you die. Is that too simplistic?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
WordWolf:
"if you'll check your Greek, or, for that matter, your Concordance, you'll see that the "again" in "born again" is "anothen", which translates into "from above" sensibly and consistently. (Check your Concordance. Check your Interlinear. Check your Greek Lexicon. "Consistently.")
John 3:7 and John 3:8 sure look like they're saying that "born again/born from above" and "born of the Spirit" are the same thing, phrased differently."
==========================================
TLC:
"Yes, agreed, and I really have no problem seeing that they more or less speak of the same thing. The issue I have is that I don't see that any of them are applicable to what is (or ever can be) experienced prior to the passing (i.e., the end, or if alive at the last trump, changed) of life that is in the blood. Furthermore, it appears that Jesus Christ's answer to Nicodemus (look closely at verse 8) was evidenced in Christ after his resurrection. And, as mentioned previously, Acts 13:33 specifically pinpoints his resurrection as the day he was "begotten" of God.
So, when OldSkool spoke of "those born from above," the problem I have is with its broad application (right now) to anyone other than Jesus Christ, as I just don't see it used like that anywhere in scripture. Evidently this wasn't clear enough in my previous post, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. (Like I said, sometimes my perspective on certain issues is a real bear to communicate well.)"
===========================================
Difficult to tell for sure in the Gospel occurrence, since it wouldn't be present-tense or past-tense in those accounts. But it is a different thing when going back to the I Peter occurrence. That's after Pentecost. If it speaks of "born again/born from above" as present or past tense there, then it obviously isn't tied specifically to the reality AFTER a resurrection.
"I Peter 1:21-23 (KJV)
21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."
==================================
Hampered by the archaic phrasing of the KJV, we don't know for sure either way. But other versions, written in the 20th/21st centuries, render it a lot clearer:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yes to me this verse sits out all on its own. Unique. Different.
So do we attack it because its different? Or use it as a data point to redefine our small ideas?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Having an interesting discussion about this right now on Jalvis’ FB Page about this topic.
Edited by DontWorryBeHappyLink 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.