To Saquist..

[Saquist]

But you are interpreting the bible, right ?
Looking for patterns is pointless unless you are going to conclude something about your obsevations, which is interpreting.

When the bible speaks of "interpreting" it means determining the meaning of God's prophecies. Assigning meaning to them before they're fulfillment. The Scriptures express that this is for God alone. It should be possible to understand the prophecies after it's fulfillment.

Concerning the topic of interpreting the meaning of the bible passages... It is not necessary. We follow the pattern set out afore time. As I said in a previous post interpreting the bible is not necessary. On almost every topic but prophecy the bible explains it's self fully.

Thus in this case we merely observer bible pattern. In this particular patern it would seem to be folly to asign a 24 hour period to a word that can have a metaphorical meanings to a longer length of time and also has an established precedent that one of those days was and is not 24 hours.

However this does not tell us how long the creative days were. It would be improper to assume that all the days were the same length once the subjective of term "day" has been brought into question. At this point we only know that one of those "days" was much much longer that 24 hours or even 1,000 years.

In this way we're acknowledging Bible prescedent, Linguistic flexibility, historicaly precedent aswell with out assigning an exact length of time...which would be interpreting. (the religious application)

 

[Saquist]

...you know Paul wrote that letter to Timothy, right? Not God. That makes your quote one man's opinion. Sorry to wreck your point.

Even so, interpreting and following any pattern in the Bible is still speculation. You yourself aren't avoiding it at all.

Not at all Fiael... Timothy himself recongnized the contribution of his letters in God's word.

2 Timothy 3: 16,17

All scripture is inspired of God for teaching and reproving, for setting things straight for disciplining in righteousness.

That makes all canon scripture the inspiration of God and not man establishing yet another prescendent from which to understand the totality of the scriptures impact on man.

 

[Saquist]

*************
M*W: "Patterns" simply mean "astrology." God was not the only one to "interpret patterns," that was for everyone to do who believed in "the Word" or the "Logos!" Those who chose not to "interpret" but leave it up to a metaphorical "god" will never know the truth in their own mind or out!

I really don't see how you can incorporate the connection with "the Lord Jesus" in this respect. If the guy didn't exist, how could there be any connection of proof? Believing in a fictitious Jesus results in a false positive. He didn't exist, and you believe a falsehood! That's really sad!

Sad...I think not. Just like the flood, the existance of Jesus christ is established in history. Like the flood the ancient people never challenged the existance of the man. History has placed the man in time....and once again science has seen fit to attempt disregard the word of history and witness with speculation.

But his is off topic.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Sad...I think not. Just like the flood, the existance of Jesus christ is established in history. Like the flood the ancient people never challenged the existance of the man. History has placed the man in time... and once again science has seen fit to attempt disregard the word of history and witness with speculation.

But his is off topic.

*************
M*W: History is also in the eye of the beholder. There are many mythstories that are erroneously believed to be historical. Once again, the victors wrote as to embellish their piddledy accomplishments. There were many illustriously written historical triumphs that were attributed to the many dying demigod saviors of the world, but none of them existed in reality. One should give myth the credit it deserves as a diversion from reality. Seem likes the human race has been looking for diversions since the beginning of time.

 

[Celpha Fiael]

Not at all Fiael... Timothy himself recongnized the contribution of his letters in God's word.

2 Timothy 3: 16,17

All scripture is inspired of God for teaching and reproving, for setting things straight for disciplining in righteousness.

That makes all canon scripture the inspiration of God and not man establishing yet another prescendent from which to understand the totality of the scriptures impact on man.

I think it's a reasonable conclusion to suppose that perhaps Paul didn't realize that these personal letters he was writing would later be added into the canon by a group of religious leaders, all human. Nowhere in that verse does it insinuate that he is referring to his own letter.

 

[Saquist]

*************
M*W: History is also in the eye of the beholder. There are many mythstories that are erroneously believed to be historical. Once again, the victors wrote as to embellish their piddledy accomplishments. There were many illustriously written historical triumphs that were attributed to the many dying demigod saviors of the world, but none of them existed in reality. One should give myth the credit it deserves as a diversion from reality. Seem likes the human race has been looking for diversions since the beginning of time.

That's very true...but the question is...If that is true then what can we trust. Is the statement on victory and eye of the beholder true arbitrarily in every case? Clearly not.

History does stand on a logical rationale in many cases. The question is do we have enough evidence to counter history...that is theaccumlated historical perspective?

From a judicial perspecitive would this not be circumstanial evidence?

I think it's a reasonable conclusion to suppose that perhaps Paul didn't realize that these personal letters he was writing would later be added into the canon by a group of religious leaders, all human. Nowhere in that verse does it insinuate that he is referring to his own letter.

Perhaps...

But consider this. The Hebrews had a great deal of history behind the Christianity. In the past documents inspired by God's prophets have always been added to the library of the synagoge and look to what lengths the Hebrew and Greek scriptures were preserved to assure there existence to future generations. Perhpas it's not so reasonalbe to assume that that Paul didn't realize that these..."personal" letters would be added to canon.

 

[Celpha Fiael]

Perhaps...

But consider this. The Hebrews had a great deal of history behind the Christianity. In the past documents inspired by God's prophets have always been added to the library of the synagoge and look to what lengths the Hebrew and Greek scriptures were preserved to assure there existence to future generations. Perhpas it's not so reasonalbe to assume that that Paul didn't realize that these..."personal" letters would be added to canon.

I do consider it but find more problems with it than what we started with. Paul, while he believed he was a messenger of God sent on a mission, obviously did not count himself among the prophets of old. It seems to me that Paul suffered from a self-esteem problem; if you look at his letters in chronological order, you see his introductions of himself getting more and more harsh and self-demoralizing. Here is a sequence pulled from scriptures:

"I, Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father" (Galatians)-->"I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles" (2 Corinthians 11:5) -->"To me, who am less than the least of all saints" (Ephesians)-->Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus"" (Philippians)-->"Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus" (Philemon).

My opinion would be that Paul had a self-confidence problem that he never got over, but regardless of that, it is clear enough from this that he most likely would have reservations as to his letters becoming canonical, especially towards the end of his writing career. Your passage was from 2 Timothy, which was actually Paul's last letter, which puts it in the major thickness of the seething disgust through which Paul saw himself. (This is speaking nothing of his tangential rants on how unworthy he is because he once persecuted the church...seems like he never forgave himself for that one.) If you would like another passage pulled from scripture to give you a context of Paul's self-image while writing these latter letters, here is one from 1 Timothy, which self-evidently directly preceded 2 Timothy: "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." (1 Timothy 1:15 KJV)

There is another point to be made that suggests my earlier presumption (that Paul did not intend his letters to be canonical) is the case. Take a look at Philemon 3:12-13. It says this:

"As soon as I send Artemas or Tychicus to you, do your best to come to me at Nicopolis, because I have decided to winter there. Do everything you can to help Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their way and see that they have everything they need."

From that passage alone (and there are several like this, I picked this particular one because it happened to be on the page I glanced down at), does it seem like Paul was thinking that this personal letter would one day be included as part of the infallible, unmitigated, and eternal truth of God; one that applies across all subsequent generations? Today, are we to expect visits from Artemas and Tychicus, and then go to Nicopolis to meet Paul (because he would apparently still be there "wintering" if this is part of eternal God-truth). Are we to look for lawyer Zenas and Apollos so that we may do everything to help them have everything they need?

I hope you catch my flippant tone and recognize the absurdity of these questions. The answers are obviously "no". Those words weren't meant to exist for any other time but for then and there. They are certainly not what you would expect as eternal truth-words, but absolutely what you would expect if a man was writing a personal letter to his friends, with his personal opinions attached.

So even by your own source, the potentiality that Paul WAS expecting his words to be in the biblical canon is highly unlikely (unless we are to assume that Paul deliberately and manipulatively wrote passages like these to throw us off, simultaneously wanting this to be a subject of uncertainty and controversy, which would bring a whole new slew of questions to the table concerning whether or not a man who would wish this upon subsequent generations should be given the authority of Godword.)

In short, no, your hypothesis IS unreasonable.

 

[Saquist]

Sorry for the delay.

No, he did not count himself among the prophets of Old. None of the Apostle did. Jesus was the only prophet among them. But the question is did Paul or for that matter any of the apostle believe that their writing would be preserved for posterity?

No it's not an unreasonalbe assumption. Paul was not a replacement Apostle for Judas. He was the apostle to the nations. He had a specific role and played it wisely and well. Don't play down Paul's convictions be directing our attention to his points of weakness so as to describe them as rants of self deprication.

I can't boldly tell you that "he knew his personal letters would be add to the bible cannon." Because Paul may or maynot have been privy to the unfolding of future events by God. What I can tell you is that all the books of the bible have an uncanny connection with other books and that includes Pauls personal letters to Timothy. They all have some direction that joins them all together.

However, you say it's unreasonable, yet from what I can remember of the availablity of writing tools of Roman times and when the coping work began, during the latter end of the life of the last apostle (If memory servers) or Timothy then it is not a far stretch to from reasonable to possible.