I was thinking of the kind of condescension God does on the Condiscencio figure of speech. THAT is a good condescension, and I was trying to imitate that, minus the boss part.
Have any suggestions how I can demonstrate non-bossiness, yet still maintain that this package is from God in a way that is 2,000 years unique?
One of the best ways to do that would be to stop insisting that postulate is true because you say so. As it's already been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt- and all of that in plain sight- and you and all the posters and readers know that- your bald claims lack a lot. i noticed you had a chance to actually address how completely it's been disproven- which, frankly, is probably the biggest obstacle you actually face (as opposed to any obstacles you imagine), but you've steered clear. You're certainly free to do so, but it sends a clear message to people who see you can spend long stretches of time on any topic that interests you, but you have no words for a complete refutation of all your claims (and never have, always leaving such threads alone.) To anyone who hasn't already drunk your koolaid, it's a sign you've been refuted so thoroughly you're ducking each discussion and hoping they'll go away.
Frankly, your insistence on avoiding any related discussion is quite telling. When asked to clearly explain yourself- which many people have done for decades- you've avoided any clear statements of position, and HIDE individual comments, burying them here and there. To show you actually have something- that is, if you actually DID have something- you'd start a new thread with a rather specific focus, to clearly outline what you believe, and, more importantly, WHY, and why any sensible person should do the same.
I found my thick paper folder of canon fodder from the 1970s.
Over half of it was typed out, so I was able to do a good OCR scan.
I'm remembering the story better, how events transpired.
The original idea was a hand-written letter I sent to Walter, out of the blue.
Chris Gee had given me the idea of searching within the Bible for canon insights, which is a revolutionary idea, and doubtful that academic Western Christianity has pursued it much.
Walter wrote me back and said he liked it, so I felt inspired to type it up in better form than the original letter. That second typed paper I wrote circa 1973 I found and digitized. I'm now proofreading and editing after the OCR stage. Soon to post.
WordWolf: One of the best ways to do that would be to stop insisting that postulate is true because you say so.
Mike: It is true in my logical system, since it is a Postulate, a fundamental assumption.
Now, just because it is true in my logical system, that doesn’t make that my system is True.I think it is, so I am sticking with it.
As it's already been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt- and all of that in plain sight- and you and all the posters and readers know that - your bald claims lack a lot.
.It has only been proved in your system with your set of Postulates.
I have tried out your system, several times, and in several capacities, but all ending in 1998 when I locked into my PFAL system.
But you have not tried my system.You think you did, but it was incomplete and you forgot some.This is my message, that you need to come back to PFAL to see what you missed. Come back to it means tinkering with your Postulates to see what happens.
So in observing this, I want to make the best effort to offer my system to you all to try and see what happens. If you are not willing to do that (yet) at least you can know why I am persistent in the face of being “PROVED WRONG.”
You haven’t had a chance to hear my system properly, yet.All your attention to me has been to contradict me, and not hear and consider what I say.I can see you don’t get it, what I am offering.
Hence I persist.
i noticed you had a chance to actually address how completely it's been disproven- which, frankly, is probably the biggest obstacle you actually face (as opposed to any obstacles you imagine), but you've steered clear.
.Fully addressing your mis-understanding me and then proving wrong many things you have no idea what I am talking about is WAY TO HARD A TASK for me. I simply persist to offer what is not yet understood.
You all are totally focused on proving the evil in a man, and totally unaware of the good message God had him (with many others) put together the package I made my system.
You're certainly free to do so, but it sends a clear message to people who see you can spend long stretches of time on any topic that interests you, but you have no words for a complete refutation of all your claims (and never have, always leaving such threads alone.) To anyone who hasn't already drunk your koolaid, it's a sign you've been refuted so thoroughly you're ducking each discussion and hoping they'll go away.
Frankly, your insistence on avoiding any related discussion is quite telling.
.I must, must, must pick and choose the ideas to respond in detail to, because the volume is too large to cover them all.
The criteria I must use has to do with how do I best address your being unawares of what I have been posting with any accuracy.
The criteria I must use has little priority assigned to answer all that is thrown at me.You folks think you are accurately hearing me, but your are misunderstanding things constantly, due to the sin focus.I often try at times to accommodate some posters, just for their sakes, when I think I can do it briefly, and then move on to my message.
When asked to clearly explain yourself- which many people have done for decades- you've avoided any clear statements of position, and HIDE individual comments, burying them here and there. To show you actually have something- that is, if you actually DID have something- you'd start a new thread with a rather specific focus, to clearly outline what you believe, and, more importantly, WHY, and why any sensible person should do the same.
This Canon thread offers me a chance to try a WHOLE NEW APPROACH.
WordWolf: "One of the best ways to do that would be to stop insisting that postulate is true because you say so. "
Mike:"It is true in my logical system, since it is a Postulate, a fundamental assumption.
Now, just because it is true in my logical system, that doesn’t make that my system is True.I think it is, so I am sticking with it."
WordWolf: You just demonstrated your problem again. You're declaring you're right with no proof other than your say-so. And you've done so for over 20 years of this business. On different threads, more evidence rather than I-say-so has been provided, disproving your postulate, your fundamental assumption. Since your fundamental assumption has been disproven, so has your "logic system." Your thinking otherwise doesn't change that. Honestly, when one side says "Here's the evidence proving the other side is in error" and the other side says "No I'm not and I refuse to prove I'm right but I am anyway", anyone can see what's what." But you asked how to avoid looking as condescending as you've shown- well, declaring things correct by fiat isn't helping that any, as I answered...
Mike: "I have tried out your system, several times, and in several capacities, but all ending in 1998 when I locked into my PFAL system."
WordWolf: Since you didn't even start posting here until after 1998, the idea that you "tried out my system" without even encountering it is an interesting one. It's obviously error on that basis, but it's interesting.
Mike: "But you have not tried my system.You think you did, but it was incomplete and you forgot some.This is my message, that you need to come back to PFAL to see what you missed. Come back to it means tinkering with your Postulates to see what happens.
So in observing this, I want to make the best effort to offer my system to you all to try and see what happens. If you are not willing to do that (yet) at least you can know why I am persistent in the face of being “PROVED WRONG.”
You haven’t had a chance to hear my system properly, yet.All your attention to me has been to contradict me, and not hear and consider what I say.I can see you don’t get it, what I am offering.
Hence I persist. "
WordWolf: We find ourselves back covering the same ground we did when you first arrived, about 20 years ago, correcting the same mistake from 20 years ago. You've said the only way to understand your side of things is to automatically declare your side and your postulates correct, and look at everything like that for several months, and completely ignore any time the evidence disproves you.
Before trying such a ridiculous thing- it's especially ridiculous to anyone who's survived a cult once and is hoping to avoid a return trip= any sensible person would want some compelling evidence that such a belief system is worth giving such an incredible Carte Blanche. Your responses have always been to obfuscate and get esoteric, and to dodge,and deny any errors are errors. You've even said outright that you dodge and deny but never admit an error is an error.
The opposing point of view is clear and specific, and disproved/disproves your postulates. Rather than address that, you offer up every possible excuse.
Mike: ".Fully addressing your mis-understanding me and then proving wrong many things you have no idea what I am talking about is WAY TO HARD A TASK for me. I simply persist to offer what is not yet understood.
You all are totally focused on proving the evil in a man, and totally unaware of the good message God had him (with many others) put together the package I made my system."
WordWolf: Excuses again. "You're wrong about me but I'm not going to prove it." "But how can I sound less condescending?"
You keep pretending that everything disproving you is about "the evil in a man." But the wording of your postulate itself has been disproven, and a lot of that isn't about "the evil in a man." But pretending it's so is old news, as it's another excuse to avoid addressing visible, obvious flaws in your doctrine. You can pretend there's no flaws in your doctrine, but when one side says "here's the flaws in the other side", and the other side says "there's no flaws and I refuse to address any claims there are flaws", well... anybody knows what that means.
Furthermore, you're still going out of your way to skip doing what everyone knows would supposedly strengthen your case, if you had one. "When asked to clearly explain yourself- which many people have done for decades- you've avoided any clear statements of position, and HIDE individual comments, burying them here and there. To show you actually have something- that is, if you actually DID have something- you'd start a new thread with a rather specific focus, to clearly outline what you believe, and, more importantly, WHY, and why any sensible person should do the same."
Mike : "This Canon thread offers me a chance to try a WHOLE NEW APPROACH."
WordWolf:it may be a chance at a whole new approach, but it's going to be a wasted opportunity, because what you need to do to actually reach your audience is.... you know, if you actually got some of this, you might improve the impression you make around here. I think it's remarkable and sad that I pay more attention to your posts than it appears you pay to mine and even your own. I may not be trying to get people to make me their next teacher, but I suspect I've earned more respect just by doing what I do than you do by trying to get people to just blindly follow along in your path.
Here is the opening segment of my first paper
that I wrote circa 1972,73. after my hand written
letter to Walter got a good review. This, following,
was very similar to my letter, with a few additions.
The Bible is the most wonderful book to ever come into existence, because it was produced by God, Himself . His purpose is stated in II Timothy 3:17: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
God produced it for us so that we could receive and manifest lives that are more than abundant, and the primary key to our successful utilization of this book lies in developing a living realization of the integrity of God’s Word. The production of the Bib1e was entirely overseen by God, and we need to put that fact foremost in our thinking.
II Peter l:20,21:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture
is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not
in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
By searching exclusively within God’s Word, avoiding outside secular sources and historical writings, and by applying simple principles we learned in the PFAL c1ass, we can come to realize this powerful idea: that the collecting and compiling of the various books of the Bible was carried out by the SAME men to whom God entrusted the original revelations.
It is often heard that the Bible was a product of various ecclesiastical councils or canonization committees, or that the compiling of its contents is basically an historical accident. These tricks of the Adversary regarding the origin of the Bible should never be tolerated, for God knew what He was doing when He chose His word workers and delivered His Word to them.
One demonstration of the divine inspiration involved in the compiling of the Bible is simply noting that many passages of scripture refer to and vouch for the authenticity of other books of the Bible. Self-referential? Yes, but it’s a start.
Such scriptures as II Peter 3:15,16 and Romans 15:4 clearly indicate God’s willingness and ability to give revelation to His men concerning the contents of various other books of the Bible. Another example of this is where one scripture (like John 15:7-9 or Mark 12t24-26) will quote from other books of the Bible and explicitly state their divine inspiration, thus including them in the collection.
We can also see from records such as Jeremiah 36 that when the Adversary tries in some way to obstruct the preservation of divine writings, God is right there with total awareness, willing and able to suppl the needed replacement.
Therefore, rest assured that we haven’t lost any of the books of the Bible intended for our use by God.
In addition to the mechanism of direct revelation for preserving the integrity of God’s Word, we can stretch our imagination a litt1e bit to see another mechanism whereby an attempt to insert a counterfeit writing into God’s authorized collection would fail .
If somehow some profane writing were to find its way into the assemblage, God (either in His foreknowledge or after the fact) could inspire one of His men to write in such a way as to point a big, red arrow at the insertion, and thus alert future compilers of their error.
Detecting changes and distortion from within the text of the Bible falls under the category of Biblical research, but even here God has His hand in the matter by blessing us again with men having gift ministries, so that we are not carried about with every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4: 11-14).
God wants us to know that His Word is protected and that we can rely on it.
This is why He says things like the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12), and “the word of the Lord endureth for ever (I Peter l:25). He wants us to trust His Word, so He shares with us enough information to assure us as to its divine inspiration, compilation and preservation.
There is even recorded in the Word an exciting drama concerning one of the final compilations of the books of the Bible. The finishing touches on this collection process took place late in the first century, and we can read an account of some of the men involved and circumstances surrounding their work. In II Timothy 4;13, we read a verse, which at first glance, can seem very unimportant:
"The cloak that I Paul left at Troas with Carpus,
when thou Timothy comest, bring with thee,
and the books, but especially the parchments."
Without looking too deeply a verse like this would suggest that Paul wanted some bedtime reading material, and his favorite overcoat he forgot at Carpus’ house. But let’s apply some of our PFAL keys to this verse and examine the context to see how it fits in.
Here is the next installment on my old paper on
the NT Canon, with a little overlap. This is the
"ababababa" structure I mentioned several times
before and tried a color graphics way to depict it.
I think this way with words shows it better.
*/*/*/*
There is even recorded in the Word an exciting drama concerning one of the final compilations of the books of the Bible. The finishing touches on this collection process took place late in the first century, and we can read an account of some of the men involved and circumstances surrounding their work. In II Timothy 4;13, we read a verse, which at first glance, can seem very unimportant:
The cloak that I Paul left at Troas with Carpus,
when thou Timothy comest, bring with thee,
and the books, but especially the parchments.
Without looking too deeply a verse like this would suggest that Paul wanted some bedtime reading material, and his favorite overcoat he forgot at Carpus’ house. But let’s apply some of our PFAL keys to this verse and examine the context to see how it fits in.
II Timothy was written at a time when the first century church was in a state of collapse, the ministry of the mystery given to the Apostle Paul being rejected. The greatest revelation of God’s Word given to the church was already forgotten by most of the people at the time this epistle was written.
The context of the entire epistle is twofold:
a) Timothy’s responsibility to preserve the integrity of the Word, and
b) Satan’s attacks on the Word, the Mystery and Paul.
Let’s look at this expanded out a little, and then get back to the word “cloak” later.
A) Timothy’s Battle to Preserve the Integrity of the Word And the Ministry of the Mystery Found in Paul’s Epistles
1:08Don’t be ashamed of the Word and the ministry.
1:13“Hold fast the form of sound words” (the mystery).
2:02 Pass the Word on to faithful men.
2:02 Endure hardness, be a soldier.
2:05 Strive for masteries.
2:14 “Strive not about words to no profit.”
2:15 Study and rightly divide the Word.
2:16 Avoid profane and vain babblings.
2:19Depart from (stand away from) iniquity.
2:23 Avoid foolish questions.
2:24 Teach.
2: 25Instruct.
3:14Continue in the scriptures.
3;16Purpose for the God-breathed scriptures .
4:02 “Preach the Word.”
4:05 “Do the work of an evangelist.”
4:11Gather together profitable ministers.
4:13Gather together books and parchments.
B) Satan’s Attacks on the Word, the Mystery and the Man of God
1:08Paul shamed, imprisoned and afflicted.
l:12 Paul suffering “these things.”
1:15 “all they which are in Asia be turned away from me.”
1:16 Paul chained.
2:03 “hardness” or pressures.
2:04 There was a spiritual war going on.
2:09 Paul treated “as an evil doer.”
2:14 Strife over words and subverting of hearers.
2:16Profane and vain babblings, increasing ungodliness.
2:18Hymenaeus and Philetus overthrowing believing of some.
2:26 Snare of the devil taking captives.
3:0l(through v.9) Perilous times coming, many 1ies, no truth.
3:11Persecutions and afflictions on Paul and believers.
4:03No sound doctrine, turned away from truth, turned to fa.b1es.
Without looking too deeply a verse like this would suggest that Paul wanted some bedtime reading material, and his favorite overcoat he forgot at Carpus’ house. But let’s apply some of our PFAL keys to this verse and examine the context to see how it fits in.
By applying the screwy “keys” and crowbars of PFAL – using either con artist finesse orbrute bully force-one can make any Bible verse “fit” into wierwille’s perverted and misguided theology !
By applying the screwy “keys” and crowbars of PFAL – using either con artist finesse orbrute bully force-one can make any Bible verse “fit” into wierwille’s perverted and misguided theology !
That's it. REJECT what i write before i write it.
You may be surprised at seeing the whole argument.
That's it. REJECT what i write before i write it. You may be surprised at seeing the whole argument.
I’m never surprised by your arguments because they’re usually predictably based on the lies, illogic, and depraved bias of wierwille’s PFAL. Been there…done that…a lot of it is variations/mutations of a theme…cue the music –
PFAL has something just for you
It teaches you keys to unlock those doors
And how to walk right through (that's someone who tried the key and it didn't work - now they're using their head to bash in the door...oh wait...that's not a door - that's a brick wall)
I’m never surprised by your arguments because they’re usually predictably based
We shall see.
Meanwhile, did you happen to notice another question from me to you you seem to be avoiding?
I almost forgot all about it myself:
The strange anomaly in the Llamsa Bible in the Eli, Eli verse.
I first noticed it with my critical thinking skills around 1975, and asked a few people about it. But no one ever knew, and it remained a mystery to me for decades. It was answered unexpectedly at an chance encounter at Starbucks. This person was an "expert." Their answer floored me. It will you too, when you integrate into the big picture..... with my Postulate set.
So, that's two "critical thinking skills" drills for you to cut your teeth on:
1- Who fathered Jesus?
2- What is "wrong" with the Llamsa verse?
By "wrong" I mean it does NOT FIT with my Postulates.
It does not fit with what we were taught in PFAL.
It violates PFAL, in a most subtle way.
Or at least that's what my critical thinking skills picked up in the mid 70s. I spotted it right away, but I had the advantage there. I was hearing the original film class numerous times per year, because I was the branch A.V. guy for several years.
I can give you hints on the Llamsa Anomaly, to overcome any handicap you may have due to PFAL film class transcript memories fading.
But I can't give you hints on who fathered Jesus. I already quoted 3 verses that answer it. It solves the Holy Spirit mystery pretty neatly in my book, with my Postulates.
I forgot to put in the "abababababa" listing in text form above
that "abababababa" was the figure of speech Approximitzio,
meaning it was approximately like "abababababa."
<cough>
Please remember this text was freshly scanned from writing I did in the 70s, early to mid 70s. Some of this is nearly 50 years old.
I think the LITERAL, exact, structure may be a little like this: ababbabababaaba
I can't remember if I got an exact "abababababa" if the verse text listings above are folded together. That's a little COLOR project I might do later.
Meanwhile, did you happen to notice another question from me to you you seem to be avoiding?
I almost forgot all about it myself:
The strange anomaly in the Llamsa Bible in the Eli, Eli verse.
I first noticed it with my critical thinking skills around 1975, and asked a few people about it. But no one ever knew, and it remained a mystery to me for decades. It was answered unexpectedly at an chance encounter at Starbucks. This person was an "expert." Their answer floored me. It will you too, when you integrate into the big picture..... with my Postulate set.
So, that's two "critical thinking skills" drills for you to cut your teeth on:
1- Who fathered Jesus?
2- What is "wrong" with the Llamsa verse?
2.Concerning your comment The strange anomaly in the Llamsa Bible in the Eli, Eli verse– is also extraneous to the this topic since it has have NOTHING to do with the criteria that was used to develop the NT canon – and it also contributesNOTHING of value to this thread.
3.Concerning your comments here : I first noticed it with my critical thinking skills around 1975, and asked a few people about it. But no one ever knew, and it remained a mystery to me for decades. It was answered unexpectedly at an chance encounter at Starbucks.This person was an "expert."Their answer floored me. It will you too, when you integrate into the big picture..... with my Postulate set.
So, that's two "critical thinking skills" drills for you to cut your teeth on:
1- Who fathered Jesus?
2- What is "wrong" with the Llamsa verse?
Your comments here are immaterial to this thread – and your typical pretentiousness of attempting to impress me or others by affecting greater importance because of talents, skills, Bible knowledge and scientific knowledge than you actually possess – have an effective rating of 0 …and with the condescending attitude you frequently display, your effectiveness goes to – 10…and recalling your comments on other threads where you denigrate critical things skills – your success rate of arguing your cases drops to – 50…and the fact that you can’t intelligently articulate your thinking process – or simply walk someone through how you came up with a theory or conclusion except by referring to something you heard wierwille teach demonstrates you really have NO critical skills to speak of – and it makes me think who are YOU to judge Mike ?
~ ~ ~ ~
I'll put some hyperlinks to help you get back on track with exploring what WAS the criteria for developing the NT canon:
I insist they DO have a lot to do with the NT Canon.
I'm not talking of how scholars have found EVIDENCE in history, and from the evidence concluded the most likely history of how the Bible was assembled.
I am NOT talking about the VIEW that can be developed using recognized academic approaches from history and artifacts.
What I am talking about is a DIFFERENT VIEW of the canon process that one can have from INSIDE the Bible.
Picture it instead of asking history how the canon formed,
and asking God by searching for clues He left in there for us.
Nowhere did VPW teach this, that I am aware of. I thought of it from the internal Bible EVIDENCE that I found with my own critical thinking skills. I wrote it up and Walter said he was onto the same main idea.
So your perception of irrelevance is due to your ignorance of my approach.
Hang in there, I will continue to post my evidence that I found almost 50 years ago.
Nowhere did VPW teach this, that I am aware of. I thought of it from the internal Bible EVIDENCE that I found with my own critical thinking skills. I wrote it up and Walter said he
you so funny Mike !
Goodness - you must have slept through that session of PFAL - can’t say that I blame you …been there done that myself. zzzzZzzz zzzZz
Seeing how you have a big credibility issue - I don’t see any reason to believe you actually looked into all that 50 years ago - I’ll be generous and relate to you that in PFAL wierwille (and Bullinger in the shadows. ) openly state we ought to consider the internal evidence of the Bible - what “The Word says of itself”. So you’re not saying anything different than what he said - so don’t make like you figured that out all by your lonesome.
And news flash - if you would have read those hyperlink articles I gave you you would find out that examining the internal evidence of each NT doc was one of the criteria in establishing the canon.
I recommend you look before you leap to a conclusion on those articles .
The following definitions of Canon are to be carefully considered and understood before posting on this topic. Canon has other definitions, but these are applicable in this context. These are relevant definitions for here and now.
CanonNew Oxford American Dictionary
noun
A collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine
the works of a particular author or artist that are recognized as genuine.
the list of works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality
CanonCambridge Dictionary
noun
The writings or other works that are generally agreed to be good, important, and worth studying.
CanonMerriam-Webster Dictionary
noun
a: an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture
b: the authentic works of a writer
c: a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works
A literary or scriptural work is not written with canonical member status in mind. A literary or scriptural work may not refer nor validate itself for inclusion in the canon.
Didn't Wierwille spend a large amount of time stressing how everything had to follow a precise sequence? How does this concept differ from abadabadoo, etc., etc. etc.?
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
WordWolf
One of the best ways to do that would be to stop insisting that postulate is true because you say so. As it's already been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt- and all of that in plain sight- and you and all the posters and readers know that- your bald claims lack a lot. i noticed you had a chance to actually address how completely it's been disproven- which, frankly, is probably the biggest obstacle you actually face (as opposed to any obstacles you imagine), but you've steered clear. You're certainly free to do so, but it sends a clear message to people who see you can spend long stretches of time on any topic that interests you, but you have no words for a complete refutation of all your claims (and never have, always leaving such threads alone.) To anyone who hasn't already drunk your koolaid, it's a sign you've been refuted so thoroughly you're ducking each discussion and hoping they'll go away.
Frankly, your insistence on avoiding any related discussion is quite telling. When asked to clearly explain yourself- which many people have done for decades- you've avoided any clear statements of position, and HIDE individual comments, burying them here and there. To show you actually have something- that is, if you actually DID have something- you'd start a new thread with a rather specific focus, to clearly outline what you believe, and, more importantly, WHY, and why any sensible person should do the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I found my thick paper folder of canon fodder from the 1970s.
Over half of it was typed out, so I was able to do a good OCR scan.
I'm remembering the story better, how events transpired.
The original idea was a hand-written letter I sent to Walter, out of the blue.
Chris Gee had given me the idea of searching within the Bible for canon insights, which is a revolutionary idea, and doubtful that academic Western Christianity has pursued it much.
Walter wrote me back and said he liked it, so I felt inspired to type it up in better form than the original letter. That second typed paper I wrote circa 1973 I found and digitized. I'm now proofreading and editing after the OCR stage. Soon to post.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
WordWolf: "One of the best ways to do that would be to stop insisting that postulate is true because you say so. "
Mike:"It is true in my logical system, since it is a Postulate, a fundamental assumption.
Now, just because it is true in my logical system, that doesn’t make that my system is True. I think it is, so I am sticking with it."
WordWolf: You just demonstrated your problem again. You're declaring you're right with no proof other than your say-so. And you've done so for over 20 years of this business. On different threads, more evidence rather than I-say-so has been provided, disproving your postulate, your fundamental assumption. Since your fundamental assumption has been disproven, so has your "logic system." Your thinking otherwise doesn't change that. Honestly, when one side says "Here's the evidence proving the other side is in error" and the other side says "No I'm not and I refuse to prove I'm right but I am anyway", anyone can see what's what." But you asked how to avoid looking as condescending as you've shown- well, declaring things correct by fiat isn't helping that any, as I answered...
Mike: "I have tried out your system, several times, and in several capacities, but all ending in 1998 when I locked into my PFAL system."
WordWolf: Since you didn't even start posting here until after 1998, the idea that you "tried out my system" without even encountering it is an interesting one. It's obviously error on that basis, but it's interesting.
Mike: "But you have not tried my system. You think you did, but it was incomplete and you forgot some. This is my message, that you need to come back to PFAL to see what you missed. Come back to it means tinkering with your Postulates to see what happens.
So in observing this, I want to make the best effort to offer my system to you all to try and see what happens. If you are not willing to do that (yet) at least you can know why I am persistent in the face of being “PROVED WRONG.”
You haven’t had a chance to hear my system properly, yet. All your attention to me has been to contradict me, and not hear and consider what I say. I can see you don’t get it, what I am offering.
Hence I persist. "
WordWolf: We find ourselves back covering the same ground we did when you first arrived, about 20 years ago, correcting the same mistake from 20 years ago. You've said the only way to understand your side of things is to automatically declare your side and your postulates correct, and look at everything like that for several months, and completely ignore any time the evidence disproves you.
Before trying such a ridiculous thing- it's especially ridiculous to anyone who's survived a cult once and is hoping to avoid a return trip= any sensible person would want some compelling evidence that such a belief system is worth giving such an incredible Carte Blanche. Your responses have always been to obfuscate and get esoteric, and to dodge,and deny any errors are errors. You've even said outright that you dodge and deny but never admit an error is an error.
The opposing point of view is clear and specific, and disproved/disproves your postulates. Rather than address that, you offer up every possible excuse.
Mike: ".Fully addressing your mis-understanding me and then proving wrong many things you have no idea what I am talking about is WAY TO HARD A TASK for me. I simply persist to offer what is not yet understood.
You all are totally focused on proving the evil in a man, and totally unaware of the good message God had him (with many others) put together the package I made my system."
WordWolf: Excuses again. "You're wrong about me but I'm not going to prove it." "But how can I sound less condescending?"
You keep pretending that everything disproving you is about "the evil in a man." But the wording of your postulate itself has been disproven, and a lot of that isn't about "the evil in a man." But pretending it's so is old news, as it's another excuse to avoid addressing visible, obvious flaws in your doctrine. You can pretend there's no flaws in your doctrine, but when one side says "here's the flaws in the other side", and the other side says "there's no flaws and I refuse to address any claims there are flaws", well... anybody knows what that means.
Furthermore, you're still going out of your way to skip doing what everyone knows would supposedly strengthen your case, if you had one. "When asked to clearly explain yourself- which many people have done for decades- you've avoided any clear statements of position, and HIDE individual comments, burying them here and there. To show you actually have something- that is, if you actually DID have something- you'd start a new thread with a rather specific focus, to clearly outline what you believe, and, more importantly, WHY, and why any sensible person should do the same."
Mike : "This Canon thread offers me a chance to try a WHOLE NEW APPROACH."
WordWolf:it may be a chance at a whole new approach, but it's going to be a wasted opportunity, because what you need to do to actually reach your audience is.... you know, if you actually got some of this, you might improve the impression you make around here. I think it's remarkable and sad that I pay more attention to your posts than it appears you pay to mine and even your own. I may not be trying to get people to make me their next teacher, but I suspect I've earned more respect just by doing what I do than you do by trying to get people to just blindly follow along in your path.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Here is the opening segment of my first paper
that I wrote circa 1972,73. after my hand written
letter to Walter got a good review. This, following,
was very similar to my letter, with a few additions.
The Bible is the most wonderful book to ever come into existence, because it was produced by God, Himself . His purpose is stated in II Timothy 3:17: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
God produced it for us so that we could receive and manifest lives that are more than abundant, and the primary key to our successful utilization of this book lies in developing a living realization of the integrity of God’s Word. The production of the Bib1e was entirely overseen by God, and we need to put that fact foremost in our thinking.
II Peter l:20,21:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture
is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not
in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
By searching exclusively within God’s Word, avoiding outside secular sources and historical writings, and by applying simple principles we learned in the PFAL c1ass, we can come to realize this powerful idea: that the collecting and compiling of the various books of the Bible was carried out by the SAME men to whom God entrusted the original revelations.
It is often heard that the Bible was a product of various ecclesiastical councils or canonization committees, or that the compiling of its contents is basically an historical accident. These tricks of the Adversary regarding the origin of the Bible should never be tolerated, for God knew what He was doing when He chose His word workers and delivered His Word to them.
One demonstration of the divine inspiration involved in the compiling of the Bible is simply noting that many passages of scripture refer to and vouch for the authenticity of other books of the Bible. Self-referential? Yes, but it’s a start.
Such scriptures as II Peter 3:15,16 and Romans 15:4 clearly indicate God’s willingness and ability to give revelation to His men concerning the contents of various other books of the Bible. Another example of this is where one scripture (like John 15:7-9 or Mark 12t24-26) will quote from other books of the Bible and explicitly state their divine inspiration, thus including them in the collection.
We can also see from records such as Jeremiah 36 that when the Adversary tries in some way to obstruct the preservation of divine writings, God is right there with total awareness, willing and able to suppl the needed replacement.
Therefore, rest assured that we haven’t lost any of the books of the Bible intended for our use by God.
In addition to the mechanism of direct revelation for preserving the integrity of God’s Word, we can stretch our imagination a litt1e bit to see another mechanism whereby an attempt to insert a counterfeit writing into God’s authorized collection would fail .
If somehow some profane writing were to find its way into the assemblage, God (either in His foreknowledge or after the fact) could inspire one of His men to write in such a way as to point a big, red arrow at the insertion, and thus alert future compilers of their error.
Detecting changes and distortion from within the text of the Bible falls under the category of Biblical research, but even here God has His hand in the matter by blessing us again with men having gift ministries, so that we are not carried about with every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4: 11-14).
God wants us to know that His Word is protected and that we can rely on it.
This is why He says things like the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12), and “the word of the Lord endureth for ever (I Peter l:25). He wants us to trust His Word, so He shares with us enough information to assure us as to its divine inspiration, compilation and preservation.
There is even recorded in the Word an exciting drama concerning one of the final compilations of the books of the Bible. The finishing touches on this collection process took place late in the first century, and we can read an account of some of the men involved and circumstances surrounding their work. In II Timothy 4;13, we read a verse, which at first glance, can seem very unimportant:
"The cloak that I Paul left at Troas with Carpus,
when thou Timothy comest, bring with thee,
and the books, but especially the parchments."
Without looking too deeply a verse like this would suggest that Paul wanted some bedtime reading material, and his favorite overcoat he forgot at Carpus’ house. But let’s apply some of our PFAL keys to this verse and examine the context to see how it fits in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Here is the next installment on my old paper on
the NT Canon, with a little overlap. This is the
"ababababa" structure I mentioned several times
before and tried a color graphics way to depict it.
I think this way with words shows it better.
*/*/*/*
There is even recorded in the Word an exciting drama concerning one of the final compilations of the books of the Bible. The finishing touches on this collection process took place late in the first century, and we can read an account of some of the men involved and circumstances surrounding their work. In II Timothy 4;13, we read a verse, which at first glance, can seem very unimportant:
The cloak that I Paul left at Troas with Carpus,
when thou Timothy comest, bring with thee,
and the books, but especially the parchments.
Without looking too deeply a verse like this would suggest that Paul wanted some bedtime reading material, and his favorite overcoat he forgot at Carpus’ house. But let’s apply some of our PFAL keys to this verse and examine the context to see how it fits in.
II Timothy was written at a time when the first century church was in a state of collapse, the ministry of the mystery given to the Apostle Paul being rejected. The greatest revelation of God’s Word given to the church was already forgotten by most of the people at the time this epistle was written.
The context of the entire epistle is twofold:
a) Timothy’s responsibility to preserve the integrity of the Word, and
b) Satan’s attacks on the Word, the Mystery and Paul.
Let’s look at this expanded out a little, and then get back to the word “cloak” later.
A) Timothy’s Battle to Preserve the Integrity of the Word
And the Ministry of the Mystery Found in Paul’s Epistles
1:08 Don’t be ashamed of the Word and the ministry.
1:13 “Hold fast the form of sound words” (the mystery).
2:02 Pass the Word on to faithful men.
2:02 Endure hardness, be a soldier.
2:05 Strive for masteries.
2:14 “Strive not about words to no profit.”
2:15 Study and rightly divide the Word.
2:16 Avoid profane and vain babblings.
2:19 Depart from (stand away from) iniquity.
2:23 Avoid foolish questions.
2:24 Teach.
2: 25 Instruct.
3:14 Continue in the scriptures.
3;16 Purpose for the God-breathed scriptures .
4:02 “Preach the Word.”
4:05 “Do the work of an evangelist.”
4:11 Gather together profitable ministers.
4:13 Gather together books and parchments.
B) Satan’s Attacks on the Word, the Mystery and the Man of God
1:08 Paul shamed, imprisoned and afflicted.
l:12 Paul suffering “these things.”
1:15 “all they which are in Asia be turned away from me.”
1:16 Paul chained.
2:03 “hardness” or pressures.
2:04 There was a spiritual war going on.
2:09 Paul treated “as an evil doer.”
2:14 Strife over words and subverting of hearers.
2:16 Profane and vain babblings, increasing ungodliness.
2:18 Hymenaeus and Philetus overthrowing believing of some.
2:26 Snare of the devil taking captives.
3:0l (through v.9) Perilous times coming, many 1ies, no truth.
3:11 Persecutions and afflictions on Paul and believers.
4:03 No sound doctrine, turned away from truth, turned to fa.b1es.
4:06 Paul about to die .
4:10 Demas, Crescens, and Titus forsaken Paul .
4:14 Alexander doing Paul much evi1.
4:16 All forsaken Paul.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
By applying the screwy “keys” and crowbars of PFAL – using either con artist finesse or brute bully force - one can make any Bible verse “fit” into wierwille’s perverted and misguided theology !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That's it. REJECT what i write before i write it.
You may be surprised at seeing the whole argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’m never surprised by your arguments because they’re usually predictably based on the lies, illogic, and depraved bias of wierwille’s PFAL. Been there…done that…a lot of it is variations/mutations of a theme…cue the music –
PFAL has something just for you
It teaches you keys to unlock those doors
And how to walk right through
(that's someone who tried the key and it didn't work - now they're using their head to bash in the door...oh wait...that's not a door - that's a brick wall)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
We shall see.
Meanwhile, did you happen to notice another question from me to you you seem to be avoiding?
I almost forgot all about it myself:
The strange anomaly in the Llamsa Bible in the Eli, Eli verse.
I first noticed it with my critical thinking skills around 1975, and asked a few people about it. But no one ever knew, and it remained a mystery to me for decades. It was answered unexpectedly at an chance encounter at Starbucks. This person was an "expert." Their answer floored me. It will you too, when you integrate into the big picture..... with my Postulate set.
So, that's two "critical thinking skills" drills for you to cut your teeth on:
1- Who fathered Jesus?
2- What is "wrong" with the Llamsa verse?
By "wrong" I mean it does NOT FIT with my Postulates.
It does not fit with what we were taught in PFAL.
It violates PFAL, in a most subtle way.
Or at least that's what my critical thinking skills picked up in the mid 70s. I spotted it right away, but I had the advantage there. I was hearing the original film class numerous times per year, because I was the branch A.V. guy for several years.
I can give you hints on the Llamsa Anomaly, to overcome any handicap you may have due to PFAL film class transcript memories fading.
But I can't give you hints on who fathered Jesus. I already quoted 3 verses that answer it. It solves the Holy Spirit mystery pretty neatly in my book, with my Postulates.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I forgot to put in the "abababababa" listing in text form above
that "abababababa" was the figure of speech Approximitzio,
meaning it was approximately like "abababababa."
<cough>
Please remember this text was freshly scanned from writing I did in the 70s, early to mid 70s. Some of this is nearly 50 years old.
I think the LITERAL, exact, structure may be a little like this: ababbabababaaba
I can't remember if I got an exact "abababababa" if the verse text listings above are folded together. That's a little COLOR project I might do later.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
once again
Your comments are irrelevant for a few reasons:
1. Your posts on the literary structures have NOTHING to do with the criteria that was used to develop the NT canon – and contribute NOTHING of value to this thread.
2. Concerning your comment The strange anomaly in the Llamsa Bible in the Eli, Eli verse – is also extraneous to the this topic since it has have NOTHING to do with the criteria that was used to develop the NT canon – and it also contributes NOTHING of value to this thread.
3. Concerning your comments here : I first noticed it with my critical thinking skills around 1975, and asked a few people about it. But no one ever knew, and it remained a mystery to me for decades. It was answered unexpectedly at an chance encounter at Starbucks. This person was an "expert." Their answer floored me. It will you too, when you integrate into the big picture..... with my Postulate set.
So, that's two "critical thinking skills" drills for you to cut your teeth on:
1- Who fathered Jesus?
2- What is "wrong" with the Llamsa verse?
Your comments here are immaterial to this thread – and your typical pretentiousness of attempting to impress me or others by affecting greater importance because of talents, skills, Bible knowledge and scientific knowledge than you actually possess – have an effective rating of 0 …and with the condescending attitude you frequently display, your effectiveness goes to – 10 …and recalling your comments on other threads where you denigrate critical things skills – your success rate of arguing your cases drops to – 50 …and the fact that you can’t intelligently articulate your thinking process – or simply walk someone through how you came up with a theory or conclusion except by referring to something you heard wierwille teach demonstrates you really have NO critical skills to speak of – and it makes me think who are YOU to judge Mike ?
~ ~ ~ ~
I'll put some hyperlinks to help you get back on track with exploring what WAS the criteria for developing the NT canon:
Wikipedia: The New Testament
Lifeway: Establishing the New Testament Canon
What criteria were used to determine the canon of Scripture?
NT Greek org: The Criteria Used for Developing NT canon in the First Four Centuries of the Christian Church
hope that helps
Edited by T-Bonecriteria for shooting typos out of a cannon
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I insist they DO have a lot to do with the NT Canon.
I'm not talking of how scholars have found EVIDENCE in history, and from the evidence concluded the most likely history of how the Bible was assembled.
I am NOT talking about the VIEW that can be developed using recognized academic approaches from history and artifacts.
What I am talking about is a DIFFERENT VIEW of the canon process that one can have from INSIDE the Bible.
Picture it instead of asking history how the canon formed,
and asking God by searching for clues He left in there for us.
Nowhere did VPW teach this, that I am aware of. I thought of it from the internal Bible EVIDENCE that I found with my own critical thinking skills. I wrote it up and Walter said he was onto the same main idea.
So your perception of irrelevance is due to your ignorance of my approach.
Hang in there, I will continue to post my evidence that I found almost 50 years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Is that Celsius or Fahrenheit?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
you so funny Mike !
Goodness - you must have slept through that session of PFAL - can’t say that I blame you …been there done that myself. zzzzZzzz
zzzZz
Seeing how you have a big credibility issue - I don’t see any reason to believe you actually looked into all that 50 years ago - I’ll be generous and relate to you that in PFAL wierwille (and Bullinger in the shadows.
) openly state we ought to consider the internal evidence of the Bible - what “The Word says of itself”. So you’re not saying anything different than what he said - so don’t make like you figured that out all by your lonesome.
And news flash - if you would have read those hyperlink articles I gave you you would find out that examining the internal evidence of each NT doc was one of the criteria in establishing the canon.
I recommend you look before you leap to a conclusion on those articles .
That is all.
Edited by T-BoneSleep it off
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’m not sure - but does it really matter - either way he’s skating on thin ice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yeah I read your approach - it sounds just like wierwille’s & Bullinger’s approach.
read a much earlier post of mine from Bullinger’s appendix on the NT canon- he should have hand that appendix removed
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The following definitions of Canon are to be carefully considered and understood before posting on this topic. Canon has other definitions, but these are applicable in this context. These are relevant definitions for here and now.
Canon New Oxford American Dictionary
noun
A collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine
Canon Cambridge Dictionary
noun
The writings or other works that are generally agreed to be good, important, and worth studying.
Canon Merriam-Webster Dictionary
noun
a: an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture
b: the authentic works of a writer
c: a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Ouch! That's cold.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
A literary or scriptural work is not written with canonical member status in mind. A literary or scriptural work may not refer nor validate itself for inclusion in the canon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Didn't Wierwille spend a large amount of time stressing how everything had to follow a precise sequence? How does this concept differ from abadabadoo, etc., etc. etc.?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I can hardly contain my excitement.
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.