It's an instance of someone needing to malign people in the Bible- all to claim they were all weak and venal- so that vpw could be said to fit in their company. ...
No, not at all my logic.
It is BECAUSE vpw already has produced a teaching that went around the world and still is, enlightening people to God's loving Word, that I then see him fitting in with the many oddball characters in the Bible who did big jobs for God.
Look at the context and how I was responding to So_Crates.
I was first aware of the great blessings that stream from PFAL, and then, years later I slowly learned that there were some complaints against him.
No, not at all my logic.
It is BECAUSE vpw already has produced a teaching that went around the world and still is, enlightening people to God's loving Word, that I then see him fitting in with the many oddball characters in the Bible who did big jobs for God.
Look at the context and how I was responding to So_Crates.
I was first aware of the great blessings that stream from PFAL, and then, years later I slowly learned that there were some complaints against him.
It is BECAUSE vpw already has produced a teaching that went around the world and still is, enlightening people to God's loving Word,
As did Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, and the Catholic church.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
that I then see him fitting in with the many oddball characters in the Bible who did big jobs for God.
Did God give Billy Graham a "big job" (Other than Word over the World? Did he get special revelation as to the nature of the bible a la PLAF?)? Oral Roberts? The Catholic church?
2 hours ago, Mike said:
Look at the context and how I was responding to So_Crates.
I'm looking at the context and all I see is someone trying to rationalize why a just God would do an unjust thing. (Was it just for God to allow all those women to be abused? Was it just for all those people to cash there own check because Saint Vic convinced them they were born of the wrong seed?)
2 hours ago, Mike said:
I was first aware of the great blessings that stream from PFAL, and then, years later I slowly learned that there were some complaints against him
Great blessings from PLAF? You mean like being able to say John the Baptist was a weirdo?
As did Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, and the Catholic church.
To your point: as did Thomas Merton. He was a misfit in his youth.
One need not live in the Iron Age of the Near East or be a character in the Bible to be a man of God doing "big jobs."
If only victor could have believed big enough to live long enough, he could have been taught so much. He might have had a shot at becoming the man he knew to be.
It could be that he preached deep, authentic, radical repentance and turning away from sin as a way to manifest the fruits of righteousness. I don’t know if he preached anything about BELEEEVING. Probably not. This would be weird and frightening for propagandists of a certain seed - propagandists like victor and Mike.
Remember, only the liar requires beleef for his lie to be effectual.
It could be that he preached deep, authentic, radical repentance and turning away from sin as a way to manifest the fruits of righteousness. I don’t know if he preached anything about BELEEEVING. Probably not. This would be weird and frightening for propagandists of a certain seed - propagandists like victor and Mike.
Remember, only the liar requires beleef for his lie to be effectual.
John the Baptist a weirdo. An odd thing to say about someone who Jesus Christ said was greater then him.
To paraphrase Saint Vic, if I were going to call John the Baptist a weirdo, I wouldn't do it unless I could show him how line by line and word by word.
Since Bruce Metzger is referenced in this this thread, it seems appropriate to post this video here. Recordings of his lectures are rare - I've only heard one other. I think many here will find this edifying and informative. Though Metzger is a serious scholar, it's clear from his voice that he's a devout believer, but he's not preaching - there are no histrionics. The lecture is from 1989. Fascinating.
Since Bruce Metzger is referenced in this this thread, it seems appropriate to post this video here. Recordings of his lectures are rare - I've only heard one other. I think many here will find this edifying and informative. Though Metzger is a serious scholar, it's clear from his voice that he's a devout believer, but he's not preaching - there are no histrionics. The lecture is from 1989. Fascinating.
Thanks for posting this, Nathan! I’m going to listen to the rest of it later today.
Also just wanted to mention I really appreciate you and FredGrant sharing stuff from Dr Michael Heiser on demons and exegetical fallacies. One of the many things I love about Grease Spot is the variety of sources and viewpoints that are brought to the table…I’m reading Heiser’s book on demons and I’m going to check out a few of his other books after that. I like his approach.
Also just wanted to mention I really appreciate you and FredGrant sharing stuff from Dr Michael Heiser on demons and exegetical fallacies. One of the many things I love about Grease Spot is the variety of sources and viewpoints that are brought to the table…I’m reading Heiser’s book on demons and I’m going to check out a few of his other books after that. I like his approach.
Heiser is a trip! He dives deep, geeks out, and makes some very compelling arguments. Way more meat than the buckets of bull$dang coming out of victor’s AC and collaterals.
Reading widely, exposing oneself to a range of ideas, questioning everything, is how (H-O-W) to learn. Ultimately, we must make up our own minds. No one else can do it for us.
So has everyone had a chance to read my old paper on 2 Timothy and the canon from the 1970s, that I posted in 3 installments?
I should mention that Walter did NOT like how far I went with the speculations on the cloak. What Walter liked was the "ababababa" listing, which I presented to him much earlier in a 1972 letter.
Then a few years later, after hearing from him and Bernita about the Aramaic "bookhouse," I re-wrote the paper around 1976 to what I posted here in this thread. I slightly edited the posted version. Can't remember if I used Lamsa's name or not.
*/*/*/*/*
So who is interested in the rest of my 40+ year old paper folder, and the trove of verses I collected over a ten year period?
The verses are not as pointed to the canon of scripture, as much as they are scriptures that talk about scriptures. A common theme is the writers attitudes and activities. There are other patterns to them.
2 Timothy was the largest group of scriptures on the canon, but 2 Peter is a close second. I haven't gone into any detail on that epistle yet.
This Bottom-Up approach to the canon with the scriptures is rich with data. It's a big Bible, and this general topic of the writers, their attitudes, and their activities comes up often. It is not confined to the formation of the NT canon like 2 Timothy and 2 Peter are.
Quick reminder: I have mentioned that 2 Peter does one one cycle of the "aba" structure. while 2 Timothy has many cycles, like "ababababa." For 2 Peter the whole Chapter 1 is "a" and Chapter 2 is "b" and Chapter 3 is "a" again.
So has everyone had a chance to read my old paper on 2 Timothy and the canon from the 1970s, that I posted in 3 installments?
I should mention that Walter did NOT like how far I went with the speculations on the cloak. What Walter liked was the "ababababa" listing, which I presented to him much earlier in a 1972 letter.
Then a few years later, after hearing from him and Bernita about the Aramaic "bookhouse," I re-wrote the paper around 1976 to what I posted here in this thread. I slightly edited the posted version. Can't remember if I used Lamsa's name or not.
*/*/*/*/*
So who is interested in the rest of my 40+ year old paper folder, and the trove of verses I collected over a ten year period?
The verses are not as pointed to the canon of scripture, as much as they are scriptures that talk about scriptures. A common theme is the writers attitudes and activities. There are other patterns to them.
2 Timothy was the largest group of scriptures on the canon, but 2 Peter is a close second. I haven't gone into any detail on that epistle yet.
This Bottom-Up approach to the canon with the scriptures is rich with data. It's a big Bible, and this general topic of the writers, their attitudes, and their activities comes up often. It is not confined to the formation of the NT canon like 2 Timothy and 2 Peter are.
Quick reminder: I have mentioned that 2 Peter does one one cycle of the "aba" structure. while 2 Timothy has many cycles, like "ababababa." For 2 Peter the whole Chapter 1 is "a" and Chapter 2 is "b" and Chapter 3 is "a" again.
So has everyone had a chance to read my old paper on 2 Timothy and the canon from the 1970s, that I posted in 3 installments?
Do you really think any of us go and carry out the homework assignments you give? If you want me to read it then post it all at once or as an attachment so I can actually read it with continuity.
Could you just give me a brief summary? I'm awfully busy at the moment.
Sure.
The whole epistle has to do with things falling apart with the church and it's people and the ideas.
So, Paul tells Timothy the latest details of this drama, and prepares him for one last big meeting between him, Timothy, Mark, and Luke.
At that meeting they were going to do a lot of scripture work, so that it all could be passed on to future generations. That is how the whole epistle runs.
The whole epistle has to do with things falling apart with the church and it's people and the ideas.
So, Paul tells Timothy the latest details of this drama, and prepares him for one last big meeting between him, Timothy, Mark, and Luke.
At that meeting they were going to do a lot of scripture work, so that it all could be passed on to future generations. That is how the whole epistle runs.
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.
Everything you say after this point is null and void. What the heck kind of paper on canonization of our bible books ignores reality? This is one of the BIGGEST problems with pflap and other wierwille works...you can't ignore history and secular sources. Granted, scripture can take precedence over historical writings and secular sources but thats more or less an exception to the rule and not the norm -- unless your a wierwille follower. It's called the Word of Life for a reason - history and seuclar sources are part of life...so why in the eff and eff would you ignore them? Heck - even the Bible has history and secular sources in it.
Perfect, circular, logical proof of 19 crucified denied thrice with snow and gloves side to side, not side down, even when inventing your own private definitions of canon: abababababa
Everything you say after this point is null and void. What the heck kind of paper on canonization of our bible books ignores reality?
You don't get it.
The Bottom-Up approach ignores the data available to the Top-Down approach.
The Top-Down approach ignores the data available to the Bottom-Up approach.
The Bottom-Up approach (mine) looks at very early First Century scriptural data, and extrapolates upward in time into the Second Century.
The Top-Down approach looks at the abundance of 4th and 5th Century data, and extrapolates downward in time into the Third and maybe as far as the late Second Century.
Get it now? The two approaches are different and use different data sets.
I started out this thread very negative towards the Top-Down approach from my 1972 research into the Top-Down approach. But T-Bone has linked me to some better resources than I had in the 1970s, and I have changed my position to accept and appreciate that perspective.
Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses.
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
OldSkool
Yeah, kinda sucks. Im trying to get him out that box and he wants me to take PFLAP....which, yeah,, will probably happen when it rains penguins.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, not at all my logic.
It is BECAUSE vpw already has produced a teaching that went around the world and still is, enlightening people to God's loving Word, that I then see him fitting in with the many oddball characters in the Bible who did big jobs for God.
Look at the context and how I was responding to So_Crates.
I was first aware of the great blessings that stream from PFAL, and then, years later I slowly learned that there were some complaints against him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Why do you say John the Baptizer was a weirdo?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Your premise is faulty.
As did Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, and the Catholic church.
Did God give Billy Graham a "big job" (Other than Word over the World? Did he get special revelation as to the nature of the bible a la PLAF?)? Oral Roberts? The Catholic church?
I'm looking at the context and all I see is someone trying to rationalize why a just God would do an unjust thing. (Was it just for God to allow all those women to be abused? Was it just for all those people to cash there own check because Saint Vic convinced them they were born of the wrong seed?)
Great blessings from PLAF? You mean like being able to say John the Baptist was a weirdo?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
To your point: as did Thomas Merton. He was a misfit in his youth.
One need not live in the Iron Age of the Near East or be a character in the Bible to be a man of God doing "big jobs."
If only victor could have believed big enough to live long enough, he could have been taught so much. He might have had a shot at becoming the man he knew to be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I do wanna know why John the Baptist is a wierdo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It could be that he preached deep, authentic, radical repentance and turning away from sin as a way to manifest the fruits of righteousness. I don’t know if he preached anything about BELEEEVING. Probably not. This would be weird and frightening for propagandists of a certain seed - propagandists like victor and Mike.
Remember, only the liar requires beleef for his lie to be effectual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
John the Baptist a weirdo. An odd thing to say about someone who Jesus Christ said was greater then him.
To paraphrase Saint Vic, if I were going to call John the Baptist a weirdo, I wouldn't do it unless I could show him how line by line and word by word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Since Bruce Metzger is referenced in this this thread, it seems appropriate to post this video here. Recordings of his lectures are rare - I've only heard one other. I think many here will find this edifying and informative. Though Metzger is a serious scholar, it's clear from his voice that he's a devout believer, but he's not preaching - there are no histrionics. The lecture is from 1989. Fascinating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks for posting this, Nathan! I’m going to listen to the rest of it later today.
I put his The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance Kindle version on my wishlist .
Also just wanted to mention I really appreciate you and FredGrant sharing stuff from Dr Michael Heiser on demons and exegetical fallacies. One of the many things I love about Grease Spot is the variety of sources and viewpoints that are brought to the table…I’m reading Heiser’s book on demons and I’m going to check out a few of his other books after that. I like his approach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Heiser is a trip! He dives deep, geeks out, and makes some very compelling arguments. Way more meat than the buckets of bull$dang coming out of victor’s AC and collaterals.
Reading widely, exposing oneself to a range of ideas, questioning everything, is how (H-O-W) to learn. Ultimately, we must make up our own minds. No one else can do it for us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
So has everyone had a chance to read my old paper on 2 Timothy and the canon from the 1970s, that I posted in 3 installments?
I should mention that Walter did NOT like how far I went with the speculations on the cloak. What Walter liked was the "ababababa" listing, which I presented to him much earlier in a 1972 letter.
Then a few years later, after hearing from him and Bernita about the Aramaic "bookhouse," I re-wrote the paper around 1976 to what I posted here in this thread. I slightly edited the posted version. Can't remember if I used Lamsa's name or not.
*/*/*/*/*
So who is interested in the rest of my 40+ year old paper folder, and the trove of verses I collected over a ten year period?
The verses are not as pointed to the canon of scripture, as much as they are scriptures that talk about scriptures. A common theme is the writers attitudes and activities. There are other patterns to them.
2 Timothy was the largest group of scriptures on the canon, but 2 Peter is a close second. I haven't gone into any detail on that epistle yet.
This Bottom-Up approach to the canon with the scriptures is rich with data. It's a big Bible, and this general topic of the writers, their attitudes, and their activities comes up often. It is not confined to the formation of the NT canon like 2 Timothy and 2 Peter are.
Quick reminder: I have mentioned that 2 Peter does one one cycle of the "aba" structure. while 2 Timothy has many cycles, like "ababababa." For 2 Peter the whole Chapter 1 is "a" and Chapter 2 is "b" and Chapter 3 is "a" again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
How/why was John the Baptizer a weirdo?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Do you really think any of us go and carry out the homework assignments you give? If you want me to read it then post it all at once or as an attachment so I can actually read it with continuity.
How/why was john the Baptist a weirdo?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
“Kindly let me help you or you will drown,” said the monkey putting the fish safely up a tree.
“Boy, oh, boy,” said the monkey structuring his proof with cdcdcdcdc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Could you just give me a brief summary? I'm awfully busy at the moment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sure.
The whole epistle has to do with things falling apart with the church and it's people and the ideas.
So, Paul tells Timothy the latest details of this drama, and prepares him for one last big meeting between him, Timothy, Mark, and Luke.
At that meeting they were going to do a lot of scripture work, so that it all could be passed on to future generations. That is how the whole epistle runs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Why do you say John the Baptizer was a weirdo?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
If that brief summary above sounds interesting, here is where you can find the whole paper:
1st installment – page 8 @ 30% mark, Sat 10-15-22
https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25333-new-testament-canon/page/8/
2nd installment – page 8 @ 55% mark, Sat 10-15-22
https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25333-new-testament-canon/page/8/
3rd installment – page 17 @ 20% mark, Tues Oct 18 https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25333-new-testament-canon/page/17/#comment-619950
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Why do you call John the Baptizer a weirdo?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Everything you say after this point is null and void. What the heck kind of paper on canonization of our bible books ignores reality? This is one of the BIGGEST problems with pflap and other wierwille works...you can't ignore history and secular sources. Granted, scripture can take precedence over historical writings and secular sources but thats more or less an exception to the rule and not the norm -- unless your a wierwille follower. It's called the Word of Life for a reason - history and seuclar sources are part of life...so why in the eff and eff would you ignore them? Heck - even the Bible has history and secular sources in it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Perfect, circular, logical proof of 19 crucified denied thrice with snow and gloves side to side, not side down, even when inventing your own private definitions of canon: abababababa
BOOM!!! Isn't that wonderful!
Lo shonta..... mmmmmph
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You can't lie on the internet.
(I read that on the internet.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You don't get it.
The Bottom-Up approach ignores the data available to the Top-Down approach.
The Top-Down approach ignores the data available to the Bottom-Up approach.
The Bottom-Up approach (mine) looks at very early First Century scriptural data, and extrapolates upward in time into the Second Century.
The Top-Down approach looks at the abundance of 4th and 5th Century data, and extrapolates downward in time into the Third and maybe as far as the late Second Century.
Get it now? The two approaches are different and use different data sets.
I started out this thread very negative towards the Top-Down approach from my 1972 research into the Top-Down approach. But T-Bone has linked me to some better resources than I had in the 1970s, and I have changed my position to accept and appreciate that perspective.
Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses.
Edited by MikeLink 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.