Lessons from Blockbuster


(reliquum) #61

Unfortunately (or knot)
the inept (like me)
are not apt to be
as ept, for free
(as this giddy poster before me).

In other news, he forgot he once returned a DVD to Blockbuster un-rewound,
for which the cost was too high to bare.


#62

Now that is a post worth reading more than once!


(Tim Teichman) #63

Paul didn’t write Timothy. Someone else did, likely at the end of the first century or the first half of the second, and claimed to be Paul. So, by our standards, someone who’s a liar:

“[I] Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, To Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.” - 1 Timothy 1

Here’s a link to an entire series. Great stuff! Worth a listen if you would like to be informed:


#64

Tim,

There is no proof that what you said is true. This is still debated among scholars. So, it would be good to avoid presenting as a certitude what, in fact, is not. Because, in this case, who would be the liar? :smile:


(Steve Mga) #65

Tim–
Have heard that about Timothy but don’t know if it has been finalized.

Something else that has been discussed about BOTH letters is the
COMMENTS ABOUT WOMEN.
I have heard discussions that the “comments about women” started out as a
comment in the margin. After a number of copyings the COMMENTS on the
margin about women was INSERTED into the text.
And that the Comments About Women was NOT a Paul statement.


(George Tichy) #66

In the year 2018 it doesn’t matter who may have made negative comments about women. If it was Paul, too bad. Any detrimental comment is wrong.

Women have to be respected as any other human being. This is the litmus test. If women are mistreated, diminished, devalued, discriminated in any form - it’s always wrong. This is a matter of decency, not a spiritual issue.

Those who choose to be discriminators of women are making a bad, wrong, shameful choice!


(Steve Mga) #67

George –
One of the Difficulties one sees among the general population of SDA laity is this.
ANYTHING that seems IMPORTED from Sunday Keeping churches is viewed as
SUSPECT and something brought in from BABYLON.

  1. We see this in the acceptance of musical groups playing for church and S.S.
  2. We see this in the acceptance of the enjoyment of more modern type singing
    and songs that have a certain amount of repetition in them.
  3. The Acceptance of Women in Pastoral leadership is ALSO viewed as an IMPORT
    from Babylonian Sunday Keeping Denominations.

If anyone shouts FIRE! [shades of something from Babylon] a shiver of FEAR goes
through the entire church population. Have noticed this phenomenon since my
awareness developed at about 11 or 12.


(Tim Teichman) #68

Well there is no proof either way. There is evidence. I was relaying the consensus position, which we all commonly do. The majority of historians and scholars agree, which is all we really have. Their arguments are rather persuasive.

1 Timothy (both Timothy’s?) is rather concerned with church structure and similar topics. These are things that didn’t exist during Paul’s lifetime, when he was teaching that Jesus would return any day. He had little concern with church structure as there was no need. His churches were charismatic and unorganized. He wrote his letters and addressed them to the entire church - because there was no pastor/no one in charge.


(Tim Teichman) #69

This is one of the reasons why scholars think Paul didn’t write the Pastorals. Their treatment of women is much less progressive compared to the authentic works. When one takes the authentic works and compares them to the Pastorals there are differences in both lexicon, philosophy, and theology that are striking.

Many of Paul’s biggest critics in the modern church are responding to the teachings found only in the pastorals and other contested works.

Yes, I’ve heard this as well, but it can’t explain all of the differences, such as the lexicon used in these texts. Some of the words in the Pastorals are unique to them in the entire new testament, suggesting a unique and unknown author. It’s quite an unlikely thing when you remember that ancient Greek only had about 2000 written words to work with.

Yes, that is what historians and biblical scholars have surmised.

I really do recommend the series I linked to in my prior post. Its a very refreshing historical approach to how we got the scripture we have, and sadly how much has been lost.