Well, let's see now. On a typical day, we had a believers' meeting before the 6 AM run, another at breakfast, another at dinner, another at the end of work time, another at night twig, another at end-of-day house meeting.....
So,Yeeeaaah...Nope! I don't think there was any discernable lack of "fluency".
lo maka seetay, y'all.
Holy shonta!! That's a lot of meetings!
So, work wasn't done after dinner? Six meetings per day? Is that one more than the Muslim calls to prayer? Isn't that five times?
We did our work assignments after dinner but before night twig. So, from 6PM to 10PM, give or take, unless it was FellowLaborer group meeting night. (Usually on Wednesdays)
We did our work assignments after dinner but before night twig. So, from 6PM to 10PM, give or take, unless it was FellowLaborer group meeting night. (Usually on Wednesdays)
This is all so devilish, spawned by devil seed. And so tragically funny. Just so absurd! Yet, so sad. Exploiting the naïveté of the youth is, well, just evil.
The evidence of victor's urge to defecate in the mouth of God is literally EVERYWHERE.
Boy, oh, boy! I'd hate to be victor on that day. Mmmmmph. MMMMMPH!
….All Christians seem to agree in ascribing authority to the Bible - but I think what’s considered authoritative differs within some groups.
My 2-bit reiteration thus far is that in current mainstream Christianity the Bible’s authority is intertwined with a lot of the traditions and doctrinal-based decisions of the early church.
In a certain sense the NT docs are the earliest record of the most mission-critical topics vital to the proper functioning of the church. In that regard - it seems apparent that has become “regulative” in that most Christian groups strive to conform with that.
In my opinion, most groups seem to treat the influence of tradition as a subset of the authority of Scripture and not as something totally separate from that - so, in terms of relevancy modern day Christians may extrapolate from the NT docs how to handle a similar issue today.
It is sometimes said that the line of demarcation between the New Testament books and other Christian writings was not always clear, that scarcely any distinction was made between the two. But early Christians were not as uncritical or naïve about these matters as they are often made out to be. Jesus and his apostles warned about false prophets, and at least some congregations were commended for holding their ground (Rev. 2:2; I John 4:4).
The church was instructed not to believe every spirit (cf. I John 4:1) certainly had some capacity for discerning divine authority. But with the rapid growth of Christianity, it was inevitable that in some quarters of the church various Christian writings would be received differently…
…As for other Christian writings, a number of them were circulating among Christians. Especially important among these were the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas…Yet neither of these books were above suspicion, nor were they generally received on a par with the acknowledged apostolic writings. In the case of the Shephard of Hermas, for example, the above-mentioned Muratorian Fragment states that it could be read in public worship but that it was not to be counted among the prophets or apostolic writings.
The restriction concerning the Shephard of Hermas serves to illustrate the significant principle that some books could be read for edification in public worship which were not at the time regarded as possessing divine authority…
…In the final analysis, canon is not something that once and for all can be proved. The study of canon is a study of history, and each generation must give itself to that study. This is but another reason why we should try to learn more about the Bible and how it has come down to us…
…In conclusion, it is important to emphasize that no church council made the canon of Scripture. No church by its decrees gave to or pronounced on the books of the Bible their infallibility. The Bible owes its authority to no individual or group. The church does not control the canon, but the canon controls the church. Although divine authority was attributed to the New Testament books by the later church, this authority was not derived from the church but was inherent in the books themselves. As a child identifies its mother, the later church identified the books which it regarded as having unique authority.
…In conclusion, it is important to emphasize that no church council made the canon of Scripture. No church by its decrees gave to or pronounced on the books of the Bible their infallibility. The Bible owes its authority to no individual or group. The church does not control the canon, but the canon controls the church. Although divine authority was attributed to the New Testament books by the later church, this authority was not derived from the church but was inherent in the books themselves. As a child identifies its mother, the later church identified the books which it regarded as having unique authority
Lightfoot wrote: the later churchidentified the books which it regarded as having unique authority.
What a succinct treatment!
Sounds kinda like what Mike is saying, except not really. What does Lightfoot mean by the church? The later church? Is he referring to a research church? What about Paul's cloak?
For the record, I don't believe the development or identification of the canon is shrouded in mysterious conspiracy. I recognize that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, as is the 1942 promise.
"The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments."
NASB II Timothy 4:13
"When you come, bring the overcoat which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments."
What about Paul's cloak?
Elliott's Commentary for English Readers:
"The cloke that I leftat Troas.--The apparently trivial nature of this request in an Epistle containing such weighty matter, and also the fact of such a wish on the part of one expecting death being made at all, is at first a little puzzling. To explain this seemingly strange request, some have wished to understand by "the cloke" some garment St. Paul was in the habit of wearing when performing certain sacred functions: in other words, as a vestment; but such a supposition would be in the highest degree precarious, for nowhere in the New Testament is the slightest hint given us that any such vestment was ever used in the primitive Christian Church. It is much better to understand the words as simply requesting Timothy, on his way, to bring with him a thick cloak, or mantle, which St. Paul had left with a certain Carpus at Troas. Probably, when he left it, it was summer, and he was disinclined to burden himself in his hurried journey with any superfluous things. Winter was now coming on, and the poor aged prisoner in the cold damp prison, with few friends and scant resources, remembered and wished for his cloak. It is just such a request which the master would make of his disciple, who, knowing well the old man's frail, shattered health, would never be surprised at such a request even in an Epistle so solemn. Then too St. Paul, by his very wish here expressed, to see Timothy, as above discussed, hopes against hope that still a little while for work in the coming winter months was still before him, though he felt death was for him very near; no forger of the Epistle had dreamed of putting down such a request."
==================
Was it a cloak/overcoat, or some bookcase?
cloak φαιλόνην(phailonēn) Noun - Accusative Masculine Singular Strong's 5341: A mantle, cloak. By transposition for a derivative probably of phaino; a mantle.
Nearly every version seems to have it-correctly- as a cloak/overcoat (for the modern reader who isn't sure what a "cloak" is).
Expositor's Greek New Testament.
"τὸν φελόνην: The φελόνης, or φαιλόνης, by metathesis for φαινόλης, was the same as the Latin paenula, from which it is derived, a circular cape which fell down below the knees, with an opening for the head in the centre. (So Chrys. on Php 2:30; Tert. De orat. xii.). The Syriac here renders it a case for writings, a portfolio, an explanation noted by Chrys., τὸ γλωσσόκομον ἔνθα τὰ βιβλία ἔκειτο. But this is merely a guess suggested by its being coupled with βιβλία and μεμβράνας."
Cambridge Bible For Schools and Colleges:
"13. The cloke] Vulg. ‘penulam.’ The oldest use of the word is traced back beyond the Latins nearly to the time of Alexander the Great, in a fragment of a Doric poet, Rhinthon (Julius Pollux Onomast. vii. 60). Hence the Latin must have adopted it from the Greek, not vice versa. The Roman paenula was a travelling cloak, long, and thick, and sleeveless, made generally of wool, sometimes of leather. Cf. Mart. xiv. 145 paenula gausapina, xiv. 13 paenula scortea."
So,
those who know the word translate it a cloak, and there's some SPECULATION by those that do NOT know the word that it's some sort of book-case or other container for a book.
The last thing about the cloak was something from the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.
"Now, shivering in some gloomy cell under the Palace, or it may be on the rocky floor of the Tullianum, with the wintry nights coming on, he bethinks him of the old cloke and asks Timothy to bring it with him.’ He quotes also the letter of Tyndale, the translator of the English Bible, from his prison in the damp cells of the Vilvoorde: ‘I entreat your Lordship, and that by the Lord Jesus, that, if I must remain here for the winter, you would beg the Commissary to be so kind as to send me, from the things of mine which he has, a warmer cap … I feel the cold painfully in my head.… Also a warmer cloke, for the one I have is very thin.… He has a woollen shirt of mine, if he will send it. But most of all … my Hebrew Bible, Grammar and Vocabulary, that I may spend my time in that pursuit. William Tyndale.’"
In comparable situations, relatively modern men have requested a warm cloak/overcoat. If Paul was a man, a living, breathing, real man, surely he had use for a warm overcoat as well. With Tyndale, it's easy to see, but somehow, all the rules are off when it comes to people in the Bible- they aren't believed to react how a normal person would in the exact same circumstance. OVER-complicating, OVER-thinking, is a side-effect of always seeking some OCCULTED meaning, some SECRET meaning, when a normal read renders everything plain.
those who know the word translate it a cloak, and there's some SPECULATION by those that do NOT know the word that it's some sort of book-case or other container for a book.
Yeah...makes sense....the man was in a cold dank prison cell and was cold. Isnt it normal to bring someone a book case when they are freezing half to death in a cold dank cell?
Yeah...makes sense....the man was in a cold dank prison cell and was cold. Isnt it normal to bring someone a book case when they are freezing half to death in a cold dank cell?
Gives new meaning to the old cop show phrase “book ‘em”
How did this discussion last more than three posts after "The devil ate all historical evidence of my thesis"?
Man..the devil gets hungry at times. I call it the lamb chop effect. This is the thread that doesn't end ... It goes on and on my friend ... Some people started posting not knowing for how long...and they'll keep right on posting forever just because this is...
Ok.sorry for the dirty sock reference...poor lamb chop.
The historic process was a gradual and continuous one, but it will help us understand it if we subdivide the nearly three and one-half centuries involved into shorter periods of time. Some speak of three major stages toward canonization. This implies, without justification, that there are readily discernible steps along the way. Others simply present a long list of the names of persons and documents involved. Such a list makes it difficult to sense any motion at all. A somewhat arbitrary breakdown into five periods will be made here, with the reminder that the spreading of the knowledge of sacred literature and the deepening consensus as to its authenticity as inspired Scripture continued uninterruptedly. The periods are:
1.First Century
2.First Half of Second Century
3.Second Half of Second Century
4.Third Century
5.Fourth Century
Again, without meaning to imply that these are clear-cut stages, it will be helpful to notice major trends observable in each of the periods just identified.
In the first period, of course, the various books are written, but they also began to be copied and disseminated among the church.
In the second, as they became more widely known and cherished for their contents, they began to be cited as authoritative.
By the end of the third period they held a recognized place alongside the Old Testament as “Scripture,” and they began to be both translated into regional languages and made the subject of commentaries.
During the third century A.D., our fourth period, the collecting of books into a whole “New Testament” was underway, together with a sifting process which was separating them from other Christian literature.
The final, or fifth period finds the church fathers of the fourth century stating that conclusions regarding the canon have been reached which indicate acceptance by the whole church. This, in the most strict and formal sense of the word, the canon had become fixed. It remains to list in greater detail the forces and individuals which produced the written sources witnessing to this remarkable process through which, by God’s providence, we have inherited our New Testament.
And, by the same token, you must realize there are some things WE will not budge on. ... As for me: ...Do I believe God would have entrusted what you claim was the most important revelation since the bible itself with a man who defined sin and refused to repent? Not God as I understand him in the bible.
Not God as I understood Him from the Bible, either. …initially
But as I studied the Bible over the decades my understanding of God has changed some.
When I first opened up the Bible in the early 1970s I was 22 years old.By that age I had absorbed churchy and cultural impressions as to what Bible teachers should be like. I envisioned Jesus-like characters could be the only ones God could entrust with big jobs.
That’s how we humans must do it, I figured, when we hire out jobs to people. We want to examine a candidate’s past record, and see that they have been good, and thus predict that in the future they will probably be good for the job.
So this early innocent impression of how things worked in the Bible was a deep expectation, as I started reading the Bible. But soon this expectation was challenged some, as I read in Genesis.I noticed right away that the story of Noah seemed to have some rather odd post-Flood scenes with Noah’s family that had to be censored out of the children’s Sunday School version… I guess. One clear thing is that Noah got drunk.
Reading along the challenges got greater as I read about young Abraham involved in some kind of crazy wife-swapping protection scheme, but was stopped by the pagan Pharoah, who knew better.
Later, Abraham had a child with Hagar, with Sarah’s approval?I also seem to remember him having concubines.The children’s Bible stories never had these parts in them, did they?
It doesn’t stop there. My whole notion of who God could entrust big jobs to was constantly challenged in Genesis. I think we can skip Abraham’s son Isaac, after reading somewhere he had no concubines. But the grandson, Jacob, was a doozy!His name, before God changed it, meant “con artist” and he stole his brother’s birthright…with God’s approval???He also had at least 4 wives, and maybe a concubine.I wonder how Sunday School teachers define “concubine” for the pre-pubescent children?
Past the book of Genesis, the stories still are challenging to me.
I marvel at God’s forgiveness of our future sins.Why doesn’t anyone ever talk about this? Look at all those revelations and miracles He gave to young David, fully foreknowing that in mid-life crisis David would resort to murdering his best friend.
And how did God’s people receive the Psalms of David?Were the relatives of Uriah satisfied with David’s public repenting?Do you think that Bathsheba was David’s first “mistake,” or did he gradually work his way up to having sex with his best friend’s wife? Life experiences tell me it was the latter.
And I did not realize the extent of Solomon’s late-life corruption until recent decades.
What was the time-line of his life like? How deep into his concubines and their idols could he get, and still be able to pen God-breathed scriptures?I don’t know. It just blows my mind that God would give young Solomon all those revelations, but know in His foreknowledge that old Solomon would get totally corrupt… or nearly totally?
Then there is that beautiful prophesy that came to Balaam, who was crookeder than a dog’s hind legs. Why did God entrust such wonderful words to him?
John the Baptist was a real weirdo, yet the greatest prophet?
Peter was pretty impetuous and had a violent temper, and pretty forgetful at times.
Paul was a murdering de-programmer, and God entrusted a lot to him.
I guess God’scriteria for selecting His big job workers is a lot different than the criteria we must use in selecting our Sunday School teachers.
Why is this?Because we can only look at the past actions of a person, and we know nothing of their future actions, and we know nothing of their heart. But God does know a person’s future actions, and He does know their hearts.
I guess God is far more interested in getting His big jobs accomplished, and less interested in conforming to our limited ways of judging candidates for a job.
I guess God is far more interested in getting His big jobs accomplished, and less interested in conforming to our limited ways of judging candidates for a job.
I'm curious what you make of this:
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach...I Timothy 3:2
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
199
126
90
153
Popular Days
Oct 17
109
Oct 11
87
Oct 15
69
Oct 10
54
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 199 posts
T-Bone 126 posts
OldSkool 90 posts
Nathan_Jr 153 posts
Popular Days
Oct 17 2022
109 posts
Oct 11 2022
87 posts
Oct 15 2022
69 posts
Oct 10 2022
54 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
I haven't been following this thread but had a peek. This whole thread is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the canon of scripture. But I did note the following, originally posted by our
waysider
Ahhh, those were the days.
waysider
Bake 'em away, toys.
Posted Images
Nathan_Jr
Holy shonta!! That's a lot of meetings!
So, work wasn't done after dinner? Six meetings per day? Is that one more than the Muslim calls to prayer? Isn't that five times?
No wonder nothing was ever accomplished.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
We did our work assignments after dinner but before night twig. So, from 6PM to 10PM, give or take, unless it was FellowLaborer group meeting night. (Usually on Wednesdays)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
This is all so devilish, spawned by devil seed. And so tragically funny. Just so absurd! Yet, so sad. Exploiting the naïveté of the youth is, well, just evil.
The evidence of victor's urge to defecate in the mouth of God is literally EVERYWHERE.
Boy, oh, boy! I'd hate to be victor on that day. Mmmmmph. MMMMMPH!
Salam maka seetay!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Back to the topic…
….All Christians seem to agree in ascribing authority to the Bible - but I think what’s considered authoritative differs within some groups.
My 2-bit reiteration thus far is that in current mainstream Christianity the Bible’s authority is intertwined with a lot of the traditions and doctrinal-based decisions of the early church.
In a certain sense the NT docs are the earliest record of the most mission-critical topics vital to the proper functioning of the church. In that regard - it seems apparent that has become “regulative” in that most Christian groups strive to conform with that.
In my opinion, most groups seem to treat the influence of tradition as a subset of the authority of Scripture and not as something totally separate from that - so, in terms of relevancy modern day Christians may extrapolate from the NT docs how to handle a similar issue today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Just wanted to share a few excerpts from a book I had mentioned earlier on this thread – here - it’s from How We Got the Bible by Neil R. Lightfoot , from pages 159 - 162:
It is sometimes said that the line of demarcation between the New Testament books and other Christian writings was not always clear, that scarcely any distinction was made between the two. But early Christians were not as uncritical or naïve about these matters as they are often made out to be. Jesus and his apostles warned about false prophets, and at least some congregations were commended for holding their ground (Rev. 2:2; I John 4:4).
The church was instructed not to believe every spirit (cf. I John 4:1) certainly had some capacity for discerning divine authority. But with the rapid growth of Christianity, it was inevitable that in some quarters of the church various Christian writings would be received differently…
…As for other Christian writings, a number of them were circulating among Christians. Especially important among these were the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas…Yet neither of these books were above suspicion, nor were they generally received on a par with the acknowledged apostolic writings. In the case of the Shephard of Hermas, for example, the above-mentioned Muratorian Fragment states that it could be read in public worship but that it was not to be counted among the prophets or apostolic writings.
The restriction concerning the Shephard of Hermas serves to illustrate the significant principle that some books could be read for edification in public worship which were not at the time regarded as possessing divine authority…
…In the final analysis, canon is not something that once and for all can be proved. The study of canon is a study of history, and each generation must give itself to that study. This is but another reason why we should try to learn more about the Bible and how it has come down to us…
…In conclusion, it is important to emphasize that no church council made the canon of Scripture. No church by its decrees gave to or pronounced on the books of the Bible their infallibility. The Bible owes its authority to no individual or group. The church does not control the canon, but the canon controls the church. Although divine authority was attributed to the New Testament books by the later church, this authority was not derived from the church but was inherent in the books themselves. As a child identifies its mother, the later church identified the books which it regarded as having unique authority.
~ ~ ~ ~
end of excerpts
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fredgrant
Amen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
What a succinct treatment!
Sounds kinda like what Mike is saying, except not really. What does Lightfoot mean by the church? The later church? Is he referring to a research church? What about Paul's cloak?
For the record, I don't believe the development or identification of the canon is shrouded in mysterious conspiracy. I recognize that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, as is the 1942 promise.
Snow and gloves. Always in that order.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"What about Paul's cloak?"
KJV II Timothy 4:13
"The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments."
NASB II Timothy 4:13
"When you come, bring the overcoat which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments."
What about Paul's cloak?
Elliott's Commentary for English Readers:
"The cloke that I left at Troas.--The apparently trivial nature of this request in an Epistle containing such weighty matter, and also the fact of such a wish on the part of one expecting death being made at all, is at first a little puzzling. To explain this seemingly strange request, some have wished to understand by "the cloke" some garment St. Paul was in the habit of wearing when performing certain sacred functions: in other words, as a vestment; but such a supposition would be in the highest degree precarious, for nowhere in the New Testament is the slightest hint given us that any such vestment was ever used in the primitive Christian Church. It is much better to understand the words as simply requesting Timothy, on his way, to bring with him a thick cloak, or mantle, which St. Paul had left with a certain Carpus at Troas. Probably, when he left it, it was summer, and he was disinclined to burden himself in his hurried journey with any superfluous things. Winter was now coming on, and the poor aged prisoner in the cold damp prison, with few friends and scant resources, remembered and wished for his cloak. It is just such a request which the master would make of his disciple, who, knowing well the old man's frail, shattered health, would never be surprised at such a request even in an Epistle so solemn. Then too St. Paul, by his very wish here expressed, to see Timothy, as above discussed, hopes against hope that still a little while for work in the coming winter months was still before him, though he felt death was for him very near; no forger of the Epistle had dreamed of putting down such a request."
==================
Was it a cloak/overcoat, or some bookcase?
cloak
φαιλόνην (phailonēn)
Noun - Accusative Masculine Singular
Strong's 5341: A mantle, cloak. By transposition for a derivative probably of phaino; a mantle.
Nearly every version seems to have it-correctly- as a cloak/overcoat (for the modern reader who isn't sure what a "cloak" is).
Expositor's Greek New Testament.
"τὸν φελόνην: The φελόνης, or φαιλόνης, by metathesis for φαινόλης, was the same as the Latin paenula, from which it is derived, a circular cape which fell down below the knees, with an opening for the head in the centre. (So Chrys. on Php 2:30; Tert. De orat. xii.). The Syriac here renders it a case for writings, a portfolio, an explanation noted by Chrys., τὸ γλωσσόκομον ἔνθα τὰ βιβλία ἔκειτο. But this is merely a guess suggested by its being coupled with βιβλία and μεμβράνας."
Cambridge Bible For Schools and Colleges:
"13. The cloke] Vulg. ‘penulam.’ The oldest use of the word is traced back beyond the Latins nearly to the time of Alexander the Great, in a fragment of a Doric poet, Rhinthon (Julius Pollux Onomast. vii. 60). Hence the Latin must have adopted it from the Greek, not vice versa. The Roman paenula was a travelling cloak, long, and thick, and sleeveless, made generally of wool, sometimes of leather. Cf. Mart. xiv. 145 paenula gausapina, xiv. 13 paenula scortea."
So,
those who know the word translate it a cloak, and there's some SPECULATION by those that do NOT know the word that it's some sort of book-case or other container for a book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The last thing about the cloak was something from the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.
"Now, shivering in some gloomy cell under the Palace, or it may be on the rocky floor of the Tullianum, with the wintry nights coming on, he bethinks him of the old cloke and asks Timothy to bring it with him.’ He quotes also the letter of Tyndale, the translator of the English Bible, from his prison in the damp cells of the Vilvoorde: ‘I entreat your Lordship, and that by the Lord Jesus, that, if I must remain here for the winter, you would beg the Commissary to be so kind as to send me, from the things of mine which he has, a warmer cap … I feel the cold painfully in my head.… Also a warmer cloke, for the one I have is very thin.… He has a woollen shirt of mine, if he will send it. But most of all … my Hebrew Bible, Grammar and Vocabulary, that I may spend my time in that pursuit. William Tyndale.’"
In comparable situations, relatively modern men have requested a warm cloak/overcoat. If Paul was a man, a living, breathing, real man, surely he had use for a warm overcoat as well. With Tyndale, it's easy to see, but somehow, all the rules are off when it comes to people in the Bible- they aren't believed to react how a normal person would in the exact same circumstance. OVER-complicating, OVER-thinking, is a side-effect of always seeking some OCCULTED meaning, some SECRET meaning, when a normal read renders everything plain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yeah...makes sense....the man was in a cold dank prison cell and was cold. Isnt it normal to bring someone a book case when they are freezing half to death in a cold dank cell?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Gives new meaning to the old cop show phrase “book ‘em”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Bake 'em away, toys.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Paul should have just "believed" for it to be warm. And lmao@book_em
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
How did this discussion last more than three posts after "The devil ate all historical evidence of my thesis"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I chalk it up to the raw power of believing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Didn’t wierwille teach in the Advanced Class about the spirit of leviathan that had something to do with alcoholism?
Did he forget to mention the spirit of silverfish that eats paper?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Man..the devil gets hungry at times. I call it the lamb chop effect. This is the thread that doesn't end ... It goes on and on my friend ... Some people started posting not knowing for how long...and they'll keep right on posting forever just because this is...
Ok.sorry for the dirty sock reference...poor lamb chop.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Sherry Lewis must be rolling over in her grave.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Likely... Lol I'm a grandfather these days and a lot of my points of references tie back to kids shows.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hopefully the devil is busy chowing down at some Golden Corral… so let me just whip this out
Some excerpts from The Origin of the Bible, editor Philip Comfort page 68 & 69, chapter title The Canon of the New Testament by Milton Fisher:
The historic process was a gradual and continuous one, but it will help us understand it if we subdivide the nearly three and one-half centuries involved into shorter periods of time. Some speak of three major stages toward canonization. This implies, without justification, that there are readily discernible steps along the way. Others simply present a long list of the names of persons and documents involved. Such a list makes it difficult to sense any motion at all. A somewhat arbitrary breakdown into five periods will be made here, with the reminder that the spreading of the knowledge of sacred literature and the deepening consensus as to its authenticity as inspired Scripture continued uninterruptedly. The periods are:
1. First Century
2. First Half of Second Century
3. Second Half of Second Century
4. Third Century
5. Fourth Century
Again, without meaning to imply that these are clear-cut stages, it will be helpful to notice major trends observable in each of the periods just identified.
In the first period, of course, the various books are written, but they also began to be copied and disseminated among the church.
In the second, as they became more widely known and cherished for their contents, they began to be cited as authoritative.
By the end of the third period they held a recognized place alongside the Old Testament as “Scripture,” and they began to be both translated into regional languages and made the subject of commentaries.
During the third century A.D., our fourth period, the collecting of books into a whole “New Testament” was underway, together with a sifting process which was separating them from other Christian literature.
The final, or fifth period finds the church fathers of the fourth century stating that conclusions regarding the canon have been reached which indicate acceptance by the whole church. This, in the most strict and formal sense of the word, the canon had become fixed. It remains to list in greater detail the forces and individuals which produced the written sources witnessing to this remarkable process through which, by God’s providence, we have inherited our New Testament.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
End of excerpts
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Promise not to tell anyone? It's a secret weapon.
The logic behind that claim is the same logic behind the confidence to carry on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Not God as I understood Him from the Bible, either. …initially
But as I studied the Bible over the decades my understanding of God has changed some.
When I first opened up the Bible in the early 1970s I was 22 years old. By that age I had absorbed churchy and cultural impressions as to what Bible teachers should be like. I envisioned Jesus-like characters could be the only ones God could entrust with big jobs.
That’s how we humans must do it, I figured, when we hire out jobs to people. We want to examine a candidate’s past record, and see that they have been good, and thus predict that in the future they will probably be good for the job.
So this early innocent impression of how things worked in the Bible was a deep expectation, as I started reading the Bible. But soon this expectation was challenged some, as I read in Genesis. I noticed right away that the story of Noah seemed to have some rather odd post-Flood scenes with Noah’s family that had to be censored out of the children’s Sunday School version… I guess. One clear thing is that Noah got drunk.
Reading along the challenges got greater as I read about young Abraham involved in some kind of crazy wife-swapping protection scheme, but was stopped by the pagan Pharoah, who knew better.
Later, Abraham had a child with Hagar, with Sarah’s approval? I also seem to remember him having concubines. The children’s Bible stories never had these parts in them, did they?
It doesn’t stop there. My whole notion of who God could entrust big jobs to was constantly challenged in Genesis. I think we can skip Abraham’s son Isaac, after reading somewhere he had no concubines. But the grandson, Jacob, was a doozy! His name, before God changed it, meant “con artist” and he stole his brother’s birthright… with God’s approval??? He also had at least 4 wives, and maybe a concubine. I wonder how Sunday School teachers define “concubine” for the pre-pubescent children?
Past the book of Genesis, the stories still are challenging to me.
I marvel at God’s forgiveness of our future sins. Why doesn’t anyone ever talk about this? Look at all those revelations and miracles He gave to young David, fully foreknowing that in mid-life crisis David would resort to murdering his best friend.
And how did God’s people receive the Psalms of David? Were the relatives of Uriah satisfied with David’s public repenting? Do you think that Bathsheba was David’s first “mistake,” or did he gradually work his way up to having sex with his best friend’s wife? Life experiences tell me it was the latter.
And I did not realize the extent of Solomon’s late-life corruption until recent decades.
What was the time-line of his life like? How deep into his concubines and their idols could he get, and still be able to pen God-breathed scriptures? I don’t know. It just blows my mind that God would give young Solomon all those revelations, but know in His foreknowledge that old Solomon would get totally corrupt… or nearly totally?
Then there is that beautiful prophesy that came to Balaam, who was crookeder than a dog’s hind legs. Why did God entrust such wonderful words to him?
John the Baptist was a real weirdo, yet the greatest prophet?
Peter was pretty impetuous and had a violent temper, and pretty forgetful at times.
Paul was a murdering de-programmer, and God entrusted a lot to him.
I guess God’s criteria for selecting His big job workers is a lot different than the criteria we must use in selecting our Sunday School teachers.
Why is this? Because we can only look at the past actions of a person, and we know nothing of their future actions, and we know nothing of their heart. But God does know a person’s future actions, and He does know their hearts.
I guess God is far more interested in getting His big jobs accomplished, and less interested in conforming to our limited ways of judging candidates for a job.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
What kind of weirdo was John the Baptizer?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm curious what you make of this:
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach...I Timothy 3:2
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.