The class syllabus from the 1970s lists Wierwille as the author. I'm surprised a devotee of all things Wierwille would be this disinterested in scrutinizing its contents.
I'm surprised, that I still have to correct posters on my position.
I am not "a devotee of all things Wierwille."
I do dare to distance myself from, and even disagree with some of his words,
both spoken and written.
I am a devotee of his final written editions of the collaterals, and mag articles.
I adopted this position in 1998.
Before 1998 I experimented and tinkered with what I was a devotee of, and what I distanced myself from. I started out conflicted in the 1970s, sometimes distancing myself from items in VPW;s teaching, and sometimes accepting them whole heartedly. It went issue by issue in those days. Once I got the Trinity cleared up and finished, I was able to deal with more issues and faster. By around 1982 I was a big enough devotee of "most things Wierwille" to drop everything and go WoW. I was still 15 years away from totally accepting the collaterals in 1982. I went through a few discouraged years after the meltdown in 1986. It has been a roller coaster fride for this devotee of some things Wierwille.
Nathan asks a lot of questions; not sure if we are talking about the same one.
He asked a couple of times about how "ababababab" contributes to understanding the canon, and I said I had answered that in the detailed text I posted of my old paper on 2 Timothy details. Of course that text was in 2 installments, both buried now, and the 3rd and 4th installments have not been edited from their raw OCR processing yet.
Did you see those two installments of text on Timothy?
Here they are on page 8:
1stinstallment – page 8 @ 30% mark, 23 hours ago,
Sat 10-15-22 ~ 9:00 am Pacific Time
2nd installment – page 8 @ 55% mark, 22 hours ago,
Sat 10-15-22 ~ 10 am Pacific Time
*/*/*/*/*
Those installments explain what theababababababa thing was all about.
The explanation is in the two long lists of verses in 2 Timothy.
It would be easier for readers if I could post all 4 installments in one post.
I wonder how big a post the software can handle?
| wonder how bit a post the management can handle?
Yes, I saw the posts, I even read the posts.
It seems to me, rather than getting to the point, you're taking us around the block to look at trees.
What did Saint Vic do in his class? He laid out his postulates, then he went about the process of proving them. What are you doing? Starting somewhere so far from the point it might as well be on another planet.
Every good writer themselves three questions:
1. What is my message?
2. Who is my audience?
3. Why should they care?
Why should we care about this yabba-dabba-do schtick when we don't see how it connect to the thread topic?
It seems to me, rather than getting to the point, you're taking us around the block to look at trees.
What did Saint Vic do in his class? He laid out his postulates, then he went about the process of proving them. What are you doing? Starting somewhere so far from the point it might as well be on another planet.
Every good writer themselves three questions:
1. What is my message?
2. Who is my audience?
3. Why should they care?
Why should we care about this yabba-dabba-do schtick when we don't see how it connect to the thread topic?
You have a good point. I am writing all this now as a beta class or book. It is all a shambles. If I had zero interruptions it could be a linear, well thought through presentation. But then it wouldnt be any fun. Plus, in this beta mode, I am discovering what communicates my ideas well and what does not.
I will try to answer as many questions as possible, and I thank you for reading my attempts.
Are you beginning to see the story that 2 Timothy alludes to? They were wrapping up Paul's whole ministry just before his execution so his writings would survive his death. That means 2 Timoth is a canon story, involving the inside players, at a VERY early date.
I am plodding along 19 hours behind all the latest posting. Thanks for the links again.
I skim read the links, just for old time's sake, and came up with this opening paragraph [w my bold fonts] to fully read. It's from the last link, The Formation of the New Testament Canon.
"The term 'canon' used with reference to the Bible means the collection of books which are received as divinely inspired and therefore authoritative for faith and life. The recognition of the canon of the New Testament is one of the most important developments in the thought and practice of the early church; yet history is silent as to how, when, and by whom it was brought about. It is possible, however, to reconstruct some of the influences that must have contributed to the emergence of the New Testament canon."
I find that when this route it taken, in very short order, the divine inspiration part gets thrown under the bus, and it starts looking like lots of other inspirations mar the original attitude of meekness to the Author. It’s like watch sausage being made at the factory, and very uninspiring of trust in the scriptures.
History is silent on the canon formation. This I found out very fast in 1972.No one took notes while it was happening. There was persecution, and with every passing year, believers were mixing their believing in Paul’s writings with other influences. The church was reprobate, and being persecuted, so the history of the Apostles’ Canon (according to my theory) went unrecorded. But it survived.
The Top-Down approach, as I call it, looks for evidence of the forming canon.They find some evidence, but most is lost… efficiently destroyed by the devil. This approach is scientific and relies on what evidence is still findable, spared by the devil. It is at best a partial understanding of how and when the canon formed.It relies on logic, postulates, and lucky evidence finds.
Meanwhile, I am taking the “Bottom Up” approach. If the scriptures in the canon we have now were divinely inspired, then God tracked with the, having a special interest in preserving them. In His foreknowledge, He would see ahead at our difficulties in re-constructing the originals from fragments and wondering which books belong in His divine canon.He could leave hints for us in the scriptures for us, to encourage us that He watched over and guided the whole process.He could encourage us that the LACK of a historical record need not deter our trust in the canon that survived to today.He could encourage us with scriptural deposits that we could cash in on to see a BIGGER picture of the canon formation and protection than what partial knowing the Top-Down scientific/historical can supply.
I am asking you to think outside the theological box that the Top-Down approach has become. The Bottom-Up approach, from within the scriptures, is a new way to look at this canon problem. I think you or someone said that Bible verses are a part of the traditional approaches to the canon.I would like to see them.Are any of the links you supplied above going to bring me to a trove of Bible verses?If not, do you have any links like that?
Did you read Bruce Metzger's entire article from which you quoted? You might find it edifying. He is very generous and reassuring to any Christian or Pauline apologist concerning the formation of the canon.
It's a short article. It's written in an easy, non-academic style. Any member of a church or a research ministry with a 7th grade education can understand it.
You also might find it comforting that he worked at the alma mater of your daddy in the word, T7TMOG. Bruce Metzger may be the most important scholar of textual criticism of the 20th century.
You have a good point. I am writing all this now as a beta class or book. It is all a shambles. If I had zero interruptions it could be a linear, well thought through presentation. But then it wouldnt be any fun. Plus, in this beta mode, I am discovering what communicates my ideas well and what does not.
I will try to answer as many questions as possible, and I thank you for reading my attempts.
Are you beginning to see the story that 2 Timothy alludes to? They were wrapping up Paul's whole ministry just before his execution so his writings would survive his death. That means 2 Timoth is a canon story, involving the inside players, at a VERY early date.
And I'm supposed to care about this why?
This is the problem when you don't provide context.
What are your postulates involving the subject of the thread?
Did you read Bruce Metzger's entire article from which you quoted? You might find it edifying. He is very generous and reassuring to any Christian or Pauline apologist concerning the formation of the canon.
It's a short article. It's written in an easy, non-academic style. Any member of a church or a research ministry with a 7th grade education can understand it.
You also might find it comforting that he worked at the alma mater of your daddy in the word, T7TMOG. Bruce Metzger may be the most important scholar of textual criticism of the 20th century.
I am reading it now, and liked seeing this:
"Presumably, as each Gospel was completed, it was approved (cf. John 21:24, “we know that his testimony is true”) and used for public reading, first in the place of its composition, then copied and circulated to other churches. The collecting of Paul’s letters must have begun early, in the apostle’s own lifetime. He himself prescribed (Col. 4:16) that two churches interchange two of his letters (making copies, naturally); from that it was the natural step to their collecting copies of his other letters as well."
It is this process that I am tracking from withing the scriptures. My 2Timothy paper from the 1970s is a highly detailed example of this.
I'll continue reading. I kinda like this article... so far. Usually things like this slowly plant seeds of doubt, and then hit the reader at the end with "...did God REALLY say...?" in one way or another, just like the adversary did with Eve.
I am plodding along 19 hours behind all the latest posting. Thanks for the links again.
I skim read the links, just for old time's sake, and came up with this opening paragraph [w my bold fonts] to fully read. It's from the last link, The Formation of the New Testament Canon.
"The term 'canon' used with reference to the Bible means the collection of books which are received as divinely inspired and therefore authoritative for faith and life. The recognition of the canon of the New Testament is one of the most important developments in the thought and practice of the early church; yet history is silent as to how, when, and by whom it was brought about. It is possible, however, to reconstruct some of the influences that must have contributed to the emergence of the New Testament canon."
I find that when this route it taken, in very short order, the divine inspiration part gets thrown under the bus, and it starts looking like lots of other inspirations mar the original attitude of meekness to the Author. It’s like watch sausage being made at the factory, and very uninspiring of trust in the scriptures.
History is silent on the canon formation. This I found out very fast in 1972.No one took notes while it was happening. There was persecution, and with every passing year, believers were mixing their believing in Paul’s writings with other influences. The church was reprobate, and being persecuted, so the history of the Apostles’ Canon (according to my theory) went unrecorded. But it survived.
The Top-Down approach, as I call it, looks for evidence of the forming canon.They find some evidence, but most is lost… efficiently destroyed by the devil. This approach is scientific and relies on what evidence is still findable, spared by the devil. It is at best a partial understanding of how and when the canon formed.It relies on logic, postulates, and lucky evidence finds.
Meanwhile, I am taking the “Bottom Up” approach. If the scriptures in the canon we have now were divinely inspired, then God tracked with the, having a special interest in preserving them. In His foreknowledge, He would see ahead at our difficulties in re-constructing the originals from fragments and wondering which books belong in His divine canon.He could leave hints for us in the scriptures for us, to encourage us that He watched over and guided the whole process.He could encourage us that the LACK of a historical record need not deter our trust in the canon that survived to today.He could encourage us with scriptural deposits that we could cash in on to see a BIGGER picture of the canon formation and protection than what partial knowing the Top-Down scientific/historical can supply.
I am asking you to think outside the theological box that the Top-Down approach has become. The Bottom-Up approach, from within the scriptures, is a new way to look at this canon problem. I think you or someone said that Bible verses are a part of the traditional approaches to the canon.I would like to see them.Are any of the links you supplied above going to bring me to a trove of Bible verses?If not, do you have any links like that
Mike, let me stop you right there.
I think you still have wierwille’s faulty premise stuck in your head - intent on getting back to the original God-breathed word. Your top down/bottom up concept sounds like it’s based on that faulty premise.
I could be wrong but I feel you’re trying to lead me on into your argument that claims it’s available to do that!
You can stop the sales pitch.
The Bible is what it is. What’s ironic about wierwille’s stated goal of wanting to get back to the original God-breathed word is that he wasn’t a big fan of textual criticism and legitimate historical and Biblical Text research - when that is the goal of those disciplines.
It’s like “the law of believing “ that wierwille pushed. He had followers BELIEVING in something that doesn’t exist.
I asked you this ages ago on another thread or two - what major impact would your findings or wierwille’s findings have on Christianity? Seriously?!?!
Don’t give me the JCING reason. wierwille was not a deep thinking theologian and used that as a polarizing gimmick to distinguish himself from mainstream Christianity - and it fueled his wrath to bash Trinitarians….what I find hypocritical about it too is that I’ve met a lot more Trinitarians who exemplify the love and compassion of Jesus Christ than wierwille and his fan club who pronounce gloom and doom on Christians who think differently about God, Christ and the Holy Spirit than he did.
Complicated systematic theology aside - what basic tenets of Christianity do you anticipate your findings will challenge?
Did Jesus Christ stay dead in the tomb?
Are the two great commandments of love God and neighbor now null and void?
Do we toss NT docs and go back to ancient Hebrew religion of sacrifices and sin offerings?
Christianity is more than a book. More than having a great knowledge of the Bible. It’s about living the Christian lifestyle in the real world. I believe God is real and a whole lot bigger than what wierwille made Him out to be. God interacts with the world in so many ways. He’s done it before - that’s called history. Why would God frown upon historians and textual criticism? Does He have something to hide?
Development of the NT canon. Look into it.
Edited by T-Bone The editor took the top down - made a toast and said “bottoms up”
Mike does not claim to be "a devotee of all things wierwille."
Mike is, however, "all a devotee of things wierwille."
So, if it's in the pfal books as he sees them, he's a devotee. Otherwise, he picks and chooses, and if it's not vpw at all, he'll look it over but doesn't give it the same gravity as vpw, no matter the quality. (Bullinger is debatable, since that arguably is the same material when vpw ripped off Bullinger, thus endorsing Bullinger while ripping him off.)
I think you still have wierwille’s faulty premise stuck in your head - intent on getting back to the original God-breathed word. Your top down/bottom up concept sounds like it’s based on that faulty premise.
I am totally devoted to getting back to the original God-breathed word, and will not budge from that or any of the other great things VPW taught me.
It sounds like you still have a faulty understanding of my methods.
I have clear observations of your Top-Down historical artifacts approach, and I originally started my canon research that way. I abandoned it quickly, but still checked in periodically on it. Reading your links is an example of my latest checking in on that approach.
My approach, of working from the Bottom-Up seems to be far from your understanding or desires. I am looking within the Bible for clues. You are looking in archeology for clues. Both are incomplete. I think the internal Bible clues were entirely managed by God. The archeology clues are partially managed by the adversary.
Mike does not claim to be "a devotee of all things wierwille."
Mike is, however, "all a devotee of things wierwille."
So, if it's in the pfal books as he sees them, he's a devotee. Otherwise, he picks and chooses, and if it's not vpw at all, he'll look it over but doesn't give it the same gravity as vpw, no matter the quality. (Bullinger is debatable, since that arguably is the same material when vpw ripped off Bullinger, thus endorsing Bullinger while ripping him off.)
I think God and VPW and a bunch of others worked out the PFAL writings, the collaterals. THAT part I accept totally. It is my BIG Postulate.
The other writings and tapes of VPW are very good in my eyes, for the most part, but I don't try to remember they may have some error, or be early stages in his learning and incomplete.
There are plenty of others outside this circle that I can get good data from. I rate all teachings by how well they conform to what I know from my collateral study.
Yes, that is right. Those kids have the right idea of how to investigate, but unfortunately they will eventually find the answer they do not want, because Santa does not exist.
This sentence is not only deliciously ironic, it's instructive.
What does it mean to investigate? Is seeking confirmation bias investigation?
When one knows how (H-O-W) to investigate, to research, one follows the evidence wherever it leads. One must be able to look with a mind free to look. The answer, the conclusion, the truth, is accepted, whatever it is.
What one WANTS the truth to be can only ever get in the way of finding the truth. One must be open to one's beliefs and assumptions (postulates) being wrong if one is to endeavor honest investigation, honest research, if one ever wants to find the truth.
This sentence is not only deliciously ironic, it's instructive.
What does it mean to investigate? Is seeking confirmation bias investigation?
When one knows how (H-O-W) to investigate, to research, one follows the evidence wherever it leads. One must be able to look with a mind free to look. The answer, the conclusion, the truth, is accepted, whatever it is.
What one WANTS the truth to be can only ever get in the way of finding the truth. One must be open to one's beliefs and assumptions (postulates) being wrong if one is to endeavor honest investigation, honest research, if one ever wants to find the truth.
"Is seeking confirmation bias investigation?"
Yes, it is one legitimate form of investigation.
It can be overused, and that aint good.
It can be underused, and that aint good.
*/*/*/*/*
"When one knows how (H-O-W) to investigate, to research, one follows the evidence wherever it leads."
YES! ...and that includes internal Biblical evidence, which I am doing, and is being resisted.
There is a whole catalog of different kinds of evidence forms.
I looked at your format for investigation, intensely in 1972, and spotty since then
You should broaden your horizons and use other kinds of investigative methods. There is a whole catalog of them too.
"Is seeking confirmation bias investigation?"
Yes, it is one legitimate form of investigation.
It can be overused, and that aint good.
It can be underused, and that aint good.
*/*/*/*/*
"When one knows how (H-O-W) to investigate, to research, one follows the evidence wherever it leads."
YES! ...and that includes internal Biblical evidence, which I am doing, and is being resisted.
There is a whole catalog of different kinds of evidence forms.
I looked at your format for investigation, intensely in 1972, and spotty since then
You should broaden your horizons and use other kinds of investigative methods. There is a whole catalog of them too.
When honestly investigating or honestly researching, confirmation bias in any amount is always bad. Any use of confirmation bias ain't good in an HONEST investigation.
You looked at my FORMAT? MY format? I haven't detailed or outlined a format. I merely offered a simple definition. What is my format?
My definition doesn't limit types of evidence. In fact, it demands that ALL types of evidence be considered. What could be broader in scope than what I offered it means to investigate, to research? I'm open to a better definition.
You are making assumptions again. You are starting with conclusions. The implication of your assumptions is a false accusation.
You are ignoring the internal evidence of my writing. Look at the internal evidence of my posts in this entire internet forum. I don't preclude or dismiss ANY kind of evidence. Rather, I have always encouraged a closer examination of ALL evidence, not just the evidence that fits a conclusion.
And I always begin with I don't know. I start with questions, not answers.
I'm going to caution you this one last time, Mike. The assumptions and accusations and unjustified, unprovoked attacks have only one source: The Accuser, The Adversary.
Mike does not claim to be "a devotee of all things wierwille."
Mike is, however, "all a devotee of things wierwille."
So, if it's in the pfal books as he sees them, he's a devotee. Otherwise, he picks and chooses, and if it's not vpw at all, he'll look it over but doesn't give it the same gravity as vpw, no matter the quality. (Bullinger is debatable, since that arguably is the same material when vpw ripped off Bullinger, thus endorsing Bullinger while ripping him off.)
At this time I'm quite the opposite. What I'd like to know is the "original" and how it differs from VPW. For instance, how B.G. Leonard differs from VPW. Because we know VPW got that "stuff" from B.G., but there are differences and I find them interesting.
At this time I'm quite the opposite. What I'd like to know is the "original" and how it differs from VPW. For instance, how B.G. Leonard differs from VPW. Because we know VPW got that "stuff" from B.G., but there are differences and I find them interesting.
Lots of info and videos of sermons on his site. For free! You can find him teaching virtually his entire class on YouTube, as well. For free!
The differences are more than I am willing to parse, but I'm sure a few spotters can provide some details. From what I remember, the differences are subtle and semantic and nuanced - just enough to claim they're not the same.
At this time I'm quite the opposite. What I'd like to know is the "original" and how it differs from VPW. For instance, how B.G. Leonard differs from VPW. Because we know VPW got that "stuff" from B.G., but there are differences and I find them interesting.
That might be a good idea for a thread. We need people familiar with BGL’s stuff to show a comparison. That leaves me out but I would be interested I seeing what if anything was different
I'm surprised, that I still have to correct posters on my position.
I am not "a devotee of all things Wierwille."
I do dare to distance myself from, and even disagree with some of his words,
both spoken and written.
I am a devotee of his final written editions of the collaterals, and mag articles.
This seems like grandstanding , making a smoke screen or something tricky -like you want us the believe you’re an independent thinker and not blindly following wierwille.
This thread is about the NT canon and not about you…sooooooo
Why don’t YOU start a thread and talk about SPECIFIC doctrine/teachings of wierwille that YOU disagree with and why. There must be some things you can easily name without having to do years of prep to compile all your notes.
I don’t mean to be persnickety about this - but all too often you drag your feet when challenged to give a specific answer.
To be honest I have a hard time believing you made anything your own when you whine about how you’ll have to scour GSC for your old posts and thesis or there’s problems with lost files due to bandwidth issues.
Uh uh…not buying it ! If you really made something your own you should be able to whip out those salient points right off the top of your head.
I want some details on what, where and why YOU DARE to DISAGREE with wierwille…or is this just all talk? Just some more Mike baloney.
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
Mike
I'm surprised, that I still have to correct posters on my position.
I am not "a devotee of all things Wierwille."
I do dare to distance myself from, and even disagree with some of his words,
both spoken and written.
I am a devotee of his final written editions of the collaterals, and mag articles.
I adopted this position in 1998.
Before 1998 I experimented and tinkered with what I was a devotee of, and what I distanced myself from. I started out conflicted in the 1970s, sometimes distancing myself from items in VPW;s teaching, and sometimes accepting them whole heartedly. It went issue by issue in those days. Once I got the Trinity cleared up and finished, I was able to deal with more issues and faster. By around 1982 I was a big enough devotee of "most things Wierwille" to drop everything and go WoW. I was still 15 years away from totally accepting the collaterals in 1982. I went through a few discouraged years after the meltdown in 1986. It has been a roller coaster fride for this devotee of some things Wierwille.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Yes, I saw the posts, I even read the posts.
It seems to me, rather than getting to the point, you're taking us around the block to look at trees.
What did Saint Vic do in his class? He laid out his postulates, then he went about the process of proving them. What are you doing? Starting somewhere so far from the point it might as well be on another planet.
Every good writer themselves three questions:
1. What is my message?
2. Who is my audience?
3. Why should they care?
Why should we care about this yabba-dabba-do schtick when we don't see how it connect to the thread topic?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You have a good point. I am writing all this now as a beta class or book. It is all a shambles. If I had zero interruptions it could be a linear, well thought through presentation. But then it wouldnt be any fun. Plus, in this beta mode, I am discovering what communicates my ideas well and what does not.
I will try to answer as many questions as possible, and I thank you for reading my attempts.
Are you beginning to see the story that 2 Timothy alludes to? They were wrapping up Paul's whole ministry just before his execution so his writings would survive his death. That means 2 Timoth is a canon story, involving the inside players, at a VERY early date.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Did you read Bruce Metzger's entire article from which you quoted? You might find it edifying. He is very generous and reassuring to any Christian or Pauline apologist concerning the formation of the canon.
It's a short article. It's written in an easy, non-academic style. Any member of a church or a research ministry with a 7th grade education can understand it.
You also might find it comforting that he worked at the alma mater of your daddy in the word, T7TMOG. Bruce Metzger may be the most important scholar of textual criticism of the 20th century.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And I'm supposed to care about this why?
This is the problem when you don't provide context.
What are your postulates involving the subject of the thread?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I am reading it now, and liked seeing this:
"Presumably, as each Gospel was completed, it was approved (cf. John 21:24, “we know that his testimony is true”) and used for public reading, first in the place of its composition, then copied and circulated to other churches. The collecting of Paul’s letters must have begun early, in the apostle’s own lifetime. He himself prescribed (Col. 4:16) that two churches interchange two of his letters (making copies, naturally); from that it was the natural step to their collecting copies of his other letters as well."
It is this process that I am tracking from withing the scriptures. My 2Timothy paper from the 1970s is a highly detailed example of this.
I'll continue reading. I kinda like this article... so far. Usually things like this slowly plant seeds of doubt, and then hit the reader at the end with "...did God REALLY say...?" in one way or another, just like the adversary did with Eve.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike, let me stop you right there.
I think you still have wierwille’s faulty premise stuck in your head - intent on getting back to the original God-breathed word. Your top down/bottom up concept sounds like it’s based on that faulty premise.
I could be wrong but I feel you’re trying to lead me on into your argument that claims it’s available to do that!
You can stop the sales pitch.
The Bible is what it is. What’s ironic about wierwille’s stated goal of wanting to get back to the original God-breathed word is that he wasn’t a big fan of textual criticism and legitimate historical and Biblical Text research - when that is the goal of those disciplines.
It’s like “the law of believing “ that wierwille pushed. He had followers BELIEVING in something that doesn’t exist.
I asked you this ages ago on another thread or two - what major impact would your findings or wierwille’s findings have on Christianity? Seriously?!?!
Don’t give me the JCING reason. wierwille was not a deep thinking theologian and used that as a polarizing gimmick to distinguish himself from mainstream Christianity - and it fueled his wrath to bash Trinitarians….what I find hypocritical about it too is that I’ve met a lot more Trinitarians who exemplify the love and compassion of Jesus Christ than wierwille and his fan club who pronounce gloom and doom on Christians who think differently about God, Christ and the Holy Spirit than he did.
Complicated systematic theology aside - what basic tenets of Christianity do you anticipate your findings will challenge?
Did Jesus Christ stay dead in the tomb?
Are the two great commandments of love God and neighbor now null and void?
Do we toss NT docs and go back to ancient Hebrew religion of sacrifices and sin offerings?
Christianity is more than a book. More than having a great knowledge of the Bible. It’s about living the Christian lifestyle in the real world. I believe God is real and a whole lot bigger than what wierwille made Him out to be. God interacts with the world in so many ways. He’s done it before - that’s called history. Why would God frown upon historians and textual criticism? Does He have something to hide?
Development of the NT canon. Look into it.
Edited by T-BoneThe editor took the top down - made a toast and said “bottoms up”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Please note the distinction.
Mike does not claim to be "a devotee of all things wierwille."
Mike is, however, "all a devotee of things wierwille."
So, if it's in the pfal books as he sees them, he's a devotee. Otherwise, he picks and chooses, and if it's not vpw at all, he'll look it over but doesn't give it the same gravity as vpw, no matter the quality. (Bullinger is debatable, since that arguably is the same material when vpw ripped off Bullinger, thus endorsing Bullinger while ripping him off.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I am totally devoted to getting back to the original God-breathed word, and will not budge from that or any of the other great things VPW taught me.
It sounds like you still have a faulty understanding of my methods.
I have clear observations of your Top-Down historical artifacts approach, and I originally started my canon research that way. I abandoned it quickly, but still checked in periodically on it. Reading your links is an example of my latest checking in on that approach.
My approach, of working from the Bottom-Up seems to be far from your understanding or desires. I am looking within the Bible for clues. You are looking in archeology for clues. Both are incomplete. I think the internal Bible clues were entirely managed by God. The archeology clues are partially managed by the adversary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think God and VPW and a bunch of others worked out the PFAL writings, the collaterals. THAT part I accept totally. It is my BIG Postulate.
The other writings and tapes of VPW are very good in my eyes, for the most part, but I don't try to remember they may have some error, or be early stages in his learning and incomplete.
There are plenty of others outside this circle that I can get good data from. I rate all teachings by how well they conform to what I know from my collateral study.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks !!!! You just confirmed it! THAT is EXACTLY how I understand your methods!
You so funny Mike!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The mods just wanna keep things from getting $hitty around here.
next time put your money ($) where your Per$hookie-doo text is…
uh oh…I’ve just leaked classified information of bathroom humor at my house….sshhhh I think the Feds are listening
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I think certain words just get automatically censored by the program.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
This sentence is not only deliciously ironic, it's instructive.
What does it mean to investigate? Is seeking confirmation bias investigation?
When one knows how (H-O-W) to investigate, to research, one follows the evidence wherever it leads. One must be able to look with a mind free to look. The answer, the conclusion, the truth, is accepted, whatever it is.
What one WANTS the truth to be can only ever get in the way of finding the truth. One must be open to one's beliefs and assumptions (postulates) being wrong if one is to endeavor honest investigation, honest research, if one ever wants to find the truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I postulate, therefore I am.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
"Is seeking confirmation bias investigation?"
Yes, it is one legitimate form of investigation.
It can be overused, and that aint good.
It can be underused, and that aint good.
*/*/*/*/*
"When one knows how (H-O-W) to investigate, to research, one follows the evidence wherever it leads."
YES! ...and that includes internal Biblical evidence, which I am doing, and is being resisted.
There is a whole catalog of different kinds of evidence forms.
I looked at your format for investigation, intensely in 1972, and spotty since then
You should broaden your horizons and use other kinds of investigative methods. There is a whole catalog of them too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
When honestly investigating or honestly researching, confirmation bias in any amount is always bad. Any use of confirmation bias ain't good in an HONEST investigation.
You looked at my FORMAT? MY format? I haven't detailed or outlined a format. I merely offered a simple definition. What is my format?
My definition doesn't limit types of evidence. In fact, it demands that ALL types of evidence be considered. What could be broader in scope than what I offered it means to investigate, to research? I'm open to a better definition.
You are making assumptions again. You are starting with conclusions. The implication of your assumptions is a false accusation.
You are ignoring the internal evidence of my writing. Look at the internal evidence of my posts in this entire internet forum. I don't preclude or dismiss ANY kind of evidence. Rather, I have always encouraged a closer examination of ALL evidence, not just the evidence that fits a conclusion.
And I always begin with I don't know. I start with questions, not answers.
I'm going to caution you this one last time, Mike. The assumptions and accusations and unjustified, unprovoked attacks have only one source: The Accuser, The Adversary.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Edited by Nathan_JrI rest my case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
At this time I'm quite the opposite. What I'd like to know is the "original" and how it differs from VPW. For instance, how B.G. Leonard differs from VPW. Because we know VPW got that "stuff" from B.G., but there are differences and I find them interesting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Lots of info and videos of sermons on his site. For free! You can find him teaching virtually his entire class on YouTube, as well. For free!
The differences are more than I am willing to parse, but I'm sure a few spotters can provide some details. From what I remember, the differences are subtle and semantic and nuanced - just enough to claim they're not the same.
https://ctcoftexas.com/about/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That might be a good idea for a thread. We need people familiar with BGL’s stuff to show a comparison. That leaves me out but I would be interested I seeing what if anything was different
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
This seems like grandstanding , making a smoke screen or something tricky -like you want us the believe you’re an independent thinker and not blindly following wierwille.
This thread is about the NT canon and not about you…sooooooo
Why don’t YOU start a thread and talk about SPECIFIC doctrine/teachings of wierwille that YOU disagree with and why. There must be some things you can easily name without having to do years of prep to compile all your notes.
I don’t mean to be persnickety about this - but all too often you drag your feet when challenged to give a specific answer.
To be honest I have a hard time believing you made anything your own when you whine about how you’ll have to scour GSC for your old posts and thesis or there’s problems with lost files due to bandwidth issues.
Uh uh…not buying it ! If you really made something your own you should be able to whip out those salient points right off the top of your head.
I want some details on what, where and why YOU DARE to DISAGREE with wierwille…or is this just all talk? Just some more Mike baloney.
Mike start a thread
Mike start a thread
Mike start a thread
sew what
the sewer went out to sew a thread
a stitch in time manifests nine
Patches I’m depending on you son
Edited by T-BoneExcuse me while I whip this out
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Pure gold!!! Every second of this film is pure genius.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Be patient. He might be out feedin' the chickens or choppin' wood.
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.